🔗 Share this article

Transpired Ruben Amorim was able to withstand a loss to lower-league opposition. He weathered losing a crucial European final versus one of the worst Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood losing at home to domestic rivals, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, squandering the team's most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, calling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary against whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to dance. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership defender during Blackburn Rovers' championship campaign, the coach took on the executive and appears to have missed. The most distracted of readers can see the paradoxical situation: a coach who often railed at his players for losing individual battles succumbing when confronted by the white heat and formidable presence of a England's top division's most intimidating sporting directors.

In truth, this entire bruising episode seems to paint the director in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, based on his nine months in a similar role at Southampton, to view him as little more than a functionary in the United exoskeleton: an individual who owed his position largely to his close relationship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any verifiable talent. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate Dan Ashworth earlier, he has demonstrated as one of football's strategic masterminds: a strategic mind of which United’s competitors will now be rightly wary.

The Strategic Clash Over Formation & Philosophy

For example, it was Jason Wilcox who having been part of the hierarchy that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, played a key role in attempting to convince Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Unsurprisingly, these pleas met a certain resistance. However, such directives hold greater authority when issued by a man of a man the unimpeachable soccer background of Jason Wilcox, holder of three England caps and a role in a championship team from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time Jason Wilcox might agree to explain his reasoning publicly. Perhaps at some point he might be asked why Amorim is walking away with full compensation, without any penalty clause activated. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely publicly, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals in football – men like him – function at a level exceeding our mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, probably we would perceive is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite equivalent to being prepared to comprehend it.

An Ultimate Authority Behind Command

But of course, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we are obscuring the true genius behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, in reality, merely executing the directives of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his preference for a back four. According to reports, Ratcliffe has also suggested deploying the forward as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt data science and metrics. Per reports, in an executive meeting early in his investment, he declared that United’s style of play “will be determined in this room”.

After all, Ratcliffe is a specialist in these intricate football matters, leveraging his previous experience in industry and yachting. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and as we all know, the rich are superior: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, simply superior. Who else could one trust to oversee a strategic plan of austerity, the construction of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the signing of a new striker?

A New Soccer Hierarchy: Executives Above Coaches

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent in top-tier football. For decades, clubs foolishly entrusted major sporting choices to subordinate staff such as coaches, scouts – players themselves. Perhaps it was once possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into an organization and see their vision supported to fruition. But how many companies have such individuals established? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Far preferable to place the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the guys with impressive professional resumes. It is wiser to determine the strategy by the directors and hire a coach who can tailor their offering accordingly. If managers were once chefs, they are now more like delivery personnel: not responsible for the food, but still finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, their job is increasingly less about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the public face of an organisation they can do little to influence. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of very young players into the Champions League and secures two medium-sized trophies, and effectively is dismissed for talking. 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 is simply neoliberalism in action: the elevation of a privileged overclass who are infallible, whose choices are always untouchable, whose mistakes can always be resolved by sacking without explanation. Hire the 3-4-3 coach and then fire him for using too much that system. Bring in the process guy and then bin him for requiring too long. And above all be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest summer signings, for the reality that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.