🔗 Share this article

Itbecame clear he could survive defeat by Grimsby. Survive losing a crucial continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Spurs sides for many years. He withstood losing at home against domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, laying waste to the team's best homegrown talent, the 32% win rate, calling the squad the poorest the club has ever seen. But there was a single opponent with whom Ruben Amorim would not be allowed to engage. You come at Jason Wilcox, you had better succeed.

Regrettably, similar to numerous top-flight defender in Blackburn’s title-winning campaign, Amorim came at the executive and seems to have failed. Even the most casual observer can see the irony here: a manager who often railed at his players for losing individual battles crumbling when confronted by the intense pressure and formidable presence of a England's top division's most feared sporting directors.

And frankly, this whole bruising episode seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, based on his nine months of experience at Southampton, to regard him as merely a functionary in the United exoskeleton: an individual who owed his position largely to his close relationship with his former boss a fellow executive as any verifiable talent. How mistaken we all were. In brilliantly outsmarting the club's celebrated head coach, just as he bested the unfortunate Dan Ashworth earlier, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated as one of the sport’s strategic masterminds: a strategic mind of which the club's competitors are now rightly wary.

A Strategic Clash Over Formation & Ideology

To illustrate, it was the director who having been part of the hierarchy that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim in the first place, was instrumental in attempting to convince Amorim to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties were resisted. But perhaps these judgements carry more weight when delivered from the mouth of a man the impeccable football pedigree he possesses, a veteran of international appearances and a contributor to a championship team decades past.

Perhaps in time he may be persuaded to explain his thought processes publicly. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with full compensation, with no penalty clause activated. The director speaks rarely in public, for excellent reasons. The real thinkers of this sport – men like him – function on a plane exceeding our mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, most likely we would perceive would be ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Wanting is not quite the same as being prepared to comprehend it.

The Ultimate Power In the Throne

But of course, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the real power behind the club's current leadership. The director is, in reality, simply carrying out the directives of his ultimate line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his desire for a back four. It is reported, the owner has also proposed playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for the club to adopt data science and analytics. Per reports, during a leadership summit soon after his investment, he announced that United’s style of play “shall be decided by this group”.

After all, Ratcliffe is a specialist in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and as we all know, the wealthy are the best of us: more perceptive, sagacious, strategically brilliant, simply better. Who else would you trust to manage an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the construction of a modern arena that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of a new striker?

The Modern Football Hierarchy: Directors Above Coaches

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels football. For decades, teams mistakenly delegated big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, scouts – players themselves. Perhaps it was once possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with ideas and energy to go into an organization and see their vision through to completion. Yet how many companies have these guys set up? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Better by far to place the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to decide the strategy in the boardroom and hire someone who will adapt their methods accordingly. If managers were formerly chefs, they have become more akin to delivery personnel: not creating the product, yet finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or fails of the box.

Nowadays, a coach's role has become less about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the visible figurehead of an organisation they have minimal power to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into the Champions League and wins two medium-sized trophies, and essentially is dismissed for talking. Wilfried Nancy sees his standing damaged while the people who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Game: Accountability Only for the Coaches

And possibly on some microcosmic level this is simply corporate governance at work: the rise of a privileged overclass who are infallible, whose choices are always untouchable, whose mistakes can always be resolved by sacking without justification. Hire the 3-4-3 coach and then fire him for using excessively 3-4-3. Bring in the process guy and later discard them for requiring excessive time. And above all be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for your new summer signings, for the fact that the grownups – however well qualified – are in charge.