🔗 Share this article

Itranspired the manager could survive a loss to Grimsby. Survive an important continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home to West Ham and Wolves, finishing 15th, his rigid approach, squandering the team's most promising academy products, the 32% win rate, labeling his team the poorest the club has ever seen. Yet, there existed a single opponent against whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to dance. If you challenge the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Regrettably, similar to numerous Premiership right-back in Blackburn’s championship 1994-95 season, Amorim came at the executive and appears to have failed. Even the most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a manager who frequently berated at his players for losing individual battles succumbing when confronted by the intense pressure and animal charisma of a England's top division's most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this whole painful saga appears to portray the director in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, based on his brief stint in a similar role at Southampton, to view him as little more than a drudge in the United exoskeleton: a man whose appointment was due as much to his friendship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted manager, just as he bested the unfortunate a previous executive before him, he has proved himself to be among the sport’s true generals: a strategic mind that the club's competitors will now be rightly wary.

The Strategic Clash Regarding System & Ideology

For example, it was the director who having been part of the hierarchy that appointed the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, was instrumental in trying to persuade him to ditch his beloved formation. Unsurprisingly, these pleas faced pushback. However, these judgements carry more weight when issued from the mouth of a man the impeccable football pedigree he possesses, holder of international appearances and a role in a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time he might agree to explain his thought processes publicly. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with a full payout, with no penalty clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks publicly, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals of this sport – individuals such as him – simply operate at a level beyond our own prosaic understanding. If he ever did speak, most likely all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being prepared to comprehend it.

An Supreme Power Behind the Throne

But of course, in training our focus on the sporting director we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. The director is, after all, merely executing the directives of his ultimate line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his desire for a back four. It is reported, Ratcliffe has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt data science and metrics. According to ESPN, during a leadership summit early in his investment, he declared that the team's approach of play “will be decided by this group”.

Ultimately, Ratcliffe is an expert in this technical football matters, drawing from his background in industry and yachting. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and it is known, the rich are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, fundamentally superior. Who else could one trust to oversee a strategic plan of cost-cutting, the building of a modern arena that looks a lot like an abstract design, the signing of a new striker?

The Modern Football Hierarchy: Executives Over Coaches

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent in top-tier football. Historically, clubs foolishly delegated big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, scouts – players themselves. Perhaps it was once feasible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into a club and implement their plan through to completion. Yet how many businesses have such individuals established? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Far preferable to invest the real power where it rightly belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the guys with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to decide the tactics by the directors and appoint a coach who will adapt their offering accordingly. If coaches were once chefs, they are now more like Deliveroo drivers: not responsible for the product, yet ultimately answerable if it arrives cold or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, their job has become less about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the receptionist of the operation, the public face of an organisation they have minimal power to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into Europe and wins two medium-sized trophies, and essentially gets sacked for talking. A manager at Celtic finds his standing damaged whereas those individuals who appointed him live to blunder another day.

The Neoliberal Football: Responsibility Only for the Few

And possibly on some microcosmic level this is simply corporate governance at work: the rise of a gilded elite who can never be wrong, whose decisions remain untouchable, whose mistakes can always be sacked away without explanation. Hire the system coach and then dismiss him for using too much that system. Bring in the process guy and later bin them for taking too long. And most importantly be grateful; for your modest season ticket price rises, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the adults – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.