The Coach's Critical Error? Challenging The Executives and the Unassailable Executive Tier

Iturns out the manager could survive losing against lower-league opposition. He weathered an important continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home against domestic rivals, a lowly league position, the tactical inflexibility, squandering some of the club’s best academy products, the 32% win rate, calling his team the worst in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary with whom Ruben Amorim would not be allowed to tango. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

In truth, this entire bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, given his brief stint of experience with the Saints, to regard Jason Wilcox as little more than a drudge within the club's structure: a man whose appointment was due as much to his friendship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada rather than any demonstrable skill. How mistaken everyone was. In brilliantly outmanoeuvring United’s feted manager, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has proved himself as one of football's strategic masterminds: a strategic mind that United’s mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

A Tactical Conflict Regarding Formation & Philosophy

To illustrate, it was the director , after having been part of the leadership that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach originally, played a key role in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties were resisted. However, these judgements carry more weight when delivered from the mouth with the unimpeachable soccer background of Jason Wilcox, a veteran of three England caps and a contributor to a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time he may be persuaded to explain his reasoning publicly. Perhaps at some point questions may arise regarding why the coach is walking away with full compensation, without any penalty clause activated. The director speaks rarely publicly, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals of this sport – men like Jason Wilcox – function on a plane exceeding our prosaic understanding. If he ever did speak, probably we would perceive would be ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being prepared to receive.

The Ultimate Authority In Command

But of course, in training our focus on the sporting director we are obscuring the true genius behind the modern United throne. The director is, after all, merely executing the commands of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has made very clear his desire for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also proposed deploying the forward in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for the club to embrace analytics and analytics. Per reports, in an executive meeting soon after his investment, he announced that the team's approach to football “will be determined in this room”.

Ultimately, Ratcliffe is an expert in this technical football matters, leveraging his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and it is known, the rich are superior: 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 new stadium that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of Benjamin Sesko?

The New Football Order: Executives Over Coaches

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent in top-tier football. Historically, clubs foolishly entrusted big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, scouts – even footballers. Maybe previously possible for a young, visionary coach with ideas and energy to join a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. But how many businesses have such individuals set up? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Better by far to invest the real power where it belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with impressive professional resumes. Better by far to decide the tactics by the directors and hire someone who will adapt their methods accordingly. If coaches were formerly chefs, they have become more like delivery personnel: not responsible for the product, but still finally accountable if it arrives cold or leaks out to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly less about crafting the philosophy and more about marketing it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the public face for a club they can do little to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into Europe and secures domestic cups, and effectively is dismissed for speaking out. A manager at Celtic sees his reputation ruined whereas the people who hired him live to blunder indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Game: Responsibility Only for the Coaches

And perhaps in a small way this represents corporate governance at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who can never be wrong, whose choices remain sacrosanct, whose mistakes can invariably be resolved by sacking without justification. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach and then dismiss them for using too much that system. Hire the process guy and then bin him for taking excessive time. And most importantly be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for your new summer signings, for the reality that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.