🔗 Share this article

Iturns out the manager was able to withstand a loss to lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive continental showpiece against a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home against domestic rivals, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, squandering some of the club’s most promising academy products, the 32% win rate, calling the squad the worst the club has ever seen. But there was one adversary against whom the Portuguese coach was not permitted to dance. If you challenge Jason Wilcox, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning 1994-95 season, the coach took on the executive and seems to have missed. The most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a manager who frequently berated at his players for failing in one-on-one duels crumbling in the face of the intense pressure and formidable presence of one of England's top division's most feared sporting directors.

And frankly, this whole painful saga appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, given his brief stint of experience at Southampton, to regard him as merely a drudge within the club's structure: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive as any demonstrable skill. How wrong we all were. In brilliantly outsmarting the club's celebrated manager, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate a previous executive earlier, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated to be among the sport’s true generals: a strategic mind that United’s mid-table rivals will now be justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Conflict Regarding System & Ideology

For example, it was the director who being involved in the leadership that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim originally, was instrumental in attempting to convince him to abandon his favored 3-4-3. Unsurprisingly, these pleas faced pushback. But perhaps these judgements carry more weight when delivered by a man with the impeccable soccer background he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox might agree to explain his reasoning publicly. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is departing with full compensation, without any compensation reduction clause activated. The director speaks rarely publicly, and with very good reason. The real thinkers in football – individuals such as him – simply operate at a level beyond our own mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, probably all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not the same as being ready to comprehend it.

An Ultimate Power In Command

But of course, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we overlook the true genius behind the modern United throne. Jason Wilcox is, in reality, merely executing the directives of his line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has emphasized his desire for a four-man defense. According to reports, Ratcliffe has also proposed 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 soon after his minority ownership, he announced that the team's approach of play “will be decided by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical football matters, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and yachting. Most importantly he is immensely wealthy, and it is known, the wealthy are superior: more insightful, sagacious, strategically brilliant, fundamentally better. Whom else would you trust to manage an enlightened programme of austerity, the building of a new stadium that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of a new striker?

The New Football Hierarchy: Executives Above Coaches

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent in top-tier of the game. Historically, teams mistakenly delegated big footballing decisions to low-level employees such as coaches, scouts – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for a young, innovative manager with ideas and energy to join an organization and implement their plan through to completion. But how many companies have such individuals set up? How many mass redundancies have they managed? Better by far to invest genuine authority where it belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the guys with impressive professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the tactics in the boardroom and hire a coach who can tailor their offering to suit. If managers were formerly chefs, they are now more like Deliveroo drivers: not creating the food, but still finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or fails of the box.

Nowadays, a coach's role is increasingly less about defining the vision and more about selling it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the visible figurehead for a club they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into the Champions League and wins two medium-sized trophies, and effectively is dismissed for speaking out. Wilfried Nancy finds his reputation ruined while the people who appointed him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Game: Accountability for the Coaches

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance in action: the elevation of a privileged elite who can never be wrong, whose decisions are always sacrosanct, whose errors can always be sacked away without justification. Appoint the system coach and then fire him for playing too much that system. Bring in the process guy and later bin him for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for your new player acquisitions, for the fact that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – remain in control.