🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear the manager could survive defeat by Grimsby. Survive a decisive European final versus a particularly poor Spurs sides for many years. He withstood home defeats to West Ham and Wolves, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, squandering the team's best homegrown talent, a poor winning percentage, labeling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed a single opponent with whom Ruben Amorim would not be allowed to dance. If you challenge Jason Wilcox, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, similar to numerous Premiership defender during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning 1994-95 season, Amorim came at the executive and seems to have failed. The most casual observer will notice the paradoxical situation: a coach who frequently berated at his players for losing one-on-one duels crumbling when confronted by the intense pressure and formidable presence of one of the Premier League’s most intimidating football executives.

And frankly, this whole bruising episode seems to paint the director in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, based on his brief stint of experience at Southampton, to regard him as little more than a functionary in the United exoskeleton: a man whose appointment was due largely to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive rather than any verifiable talent. How mistaken everyone was. By masterfully outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated manager, just as he bested the unfortunate a previous executive earlier, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated to be among football's strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect of which United’s mid-table rivals will now be justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Regarding System and Ideology

For example, it was Jason Wilcox who being involved in the leadership that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim originally, was instrumental in attempting to convince Amorim to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties were resisted. However, such directives hold greater authority when delivered by a man of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree of Jason Wilcox, a veteran of international appearances and a role in a championship team from 31 years ago.

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 a full payout, with no compensation reduction clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks publicly, for excellent reasons. The real thinkers of this sport – men like him – function on a plane beyond our own mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, probably all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being prepared to comprehend it.

An Supreme Power Behind Command

Naturally, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the real power behind the modern United throne. The director is, in reality, merely executing the commands of his superior the billionaire owner, who in private has made very clear his preference for a four-man defense. It is reported, Ratcliffe has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for the club to adopt analytics and metrics. Per reports, during a leadership summit soon after his investment, he announced that United’s style of play “shall be decided by this group”.

Ultimately, Sir Jim is an expert in these intricate footballing stuff, leveraging his previous experience in industry and yachting. Above all he is immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the wealthy are superior: more perceptive, more wise, more tactically astute, simply superior. Whom else would you trust to oversee an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the building of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the acquisition of Benjamin Sesko?

A Modern Soccer Hierarchy: Directors Above Managers

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing in top-tier of the game. For decades, clubs foolishly entrusted major sporting choices to low-level employees like managers, scouts – players themselves. Perhaps it was once possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. Yet how many businesses have such individuals set up? How many mass redundancies have they overseen? Better by far to invest genuine authority where it belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the guys with the jaw-dropping professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the strategy in the boardroom and hire a coach who will adapt their offering to suit. If managers were once chefs, they have become more akin to delivery personnel: not really responsible for the product, but still finally accountable should it be delivered cold or leaks out to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly not 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 takes a squad of literal children into Europe and wins two medium-sized trophies, and effectively gets sacked for talking. Wilfried Nancy finds his standing damaged whereas those individuals who appointed him live to blunder another day.

A Neoliberal Game: Accountability for the Coaches

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance at work: the elevation of a gilded elite who are infallible, whose choices are always sacrosanct, whose mistakes can always be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the system coach only to fire them for playing too much 3-4-3. Hire the project manager and later discard them for requiring excessive time. And above all be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for the latest player acquisitions, for the fact that the adults – however well qualified – remain in control.