🔗 Share this article

Itranspired he endured a loss to lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive continental showpiece against a particularly poor Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood home defeats to domestic rivals, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, laying waste to the team's most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, labeling the squad the worst the club has ever seen. Yet, there existed one adversary with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to engage. If you challenge the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Regrettably, similar to numerous Premiership right-back in Blackburn’s title-winning 1994-95 season, Amorim came at Jason Wilcox and appears to have failed. The most casual observer will notice the paradoxical situation: a manager who frequently berated his squad for failing in individual battles succumbing in the face of the white heat and formidable presence of a England's top division's most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this whole bruising episode seems to paint the director in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been tempting, given his brief stint of experience at Southampton, to regard him as little more than a drudge in the United exoskeleton: a man whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with his former boss Omar Berrada rather than any verifiable talent. How mistaken we all were. In brilliantly outsmarting the club's celebrated head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate Dan Ashworth earlier, he has proved himself as one of football's strategic masterminds: a strategic mind that the club's mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

A Tactical Conflict Regarding System and Philosophy

For example, it was the director who being involved in the hierarchy that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim originally, was instrumental in trying to persuade Amorim to abandon his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. However, these judgements hold greater authority when issued from the mouth of a man the unimpeachable soccer background he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a contributor to a championship team from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time Jason Wilcox might agree to outline his reasoning to the rest of us. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with a full payout, with no penalty clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks publicly, and with very good reason. The real thinkers of this sport – men like him – function on a plane beyond our own prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, most likely we would perceive would be high-frequency signals and four-dimensional whirring. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being prepared to receive.

An Ultimate Authority Behind Command

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, after all, simply carrying out the commands of his ultimate superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has emphasized his preference for a four-man defense. According to reports, the owner has also proposed playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for the club to embrace data science and analytics. According to ESPN, during a leadership summit early in his minority ownership, he declared that the team's approach of play “shall be decided in this room”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his previous experience in industry and sailing. Above all he is immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the rich are superior: more perceptive, sagacious, strategically brilliant, fundamentally superior. Whom else could one trust to oversee an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the building of a modern arena that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

A New Football Order: Directors Above Managers

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels football. Historically, teams mistakenly delegated big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for a young, innovative manager with ideas and drive to join an organization and implement their plan through to completion. But how many companies have these guys set up? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Far preferable to place the real power where it belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the guys with the jaw-dropping professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the tactics in the boardroom and appoint a coach who will adapt their offering to suit. If managers were formerly chefs, they have become more like delivery personnel: not really creating the product, but still ultimately answerable should it be delivered cold or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, a coach's role has become not about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the visible figurehead of an organisation they can do little to change. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into the Champions League and wins domestic cups, and effectively gets sacked for speaking out. A manager at Celtic sees his standing damaged while the people who hired him continue to make errors another day.

A Modern Corporate Football: Responsibility for the Coaches

And possibly in a small way this represents neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a gilded elite who are infallible, whose decisions remain sacrosanct, whose mistakes can invariably be sacked away without justification. Appoint the system coach and then dismiss him for using excessively 3-4-3. Bring in the project manager and then bin them for taking too long. And most importantly be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.