🔗 Share this article

Itranspired the manager was able to withstand defeat by lower-league opposition. He weathered losing a crucial European final against one of the worst Tottenham teams in living memory. He withstood losing at home against domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, laying waste to some of the club’s best academy products, a poor winning percentage, labeling the squad the poorest the club has ever seen. But there was one adversary against whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to dance. If you challenge the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership right-back in Blackburn’s championship 1994-95 season, the coach took on the executive and appears to have missed. Even the most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a coach who often railed at his players for losing one-on-one duels crumbling when confronted by the white heat and formidable presence of a the Premier League’s most intimidating sporting directors.

In truth, this whole bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. It may have been easy, based on his brief stint of experience with the Saints, to regard him as merely a functionary within the club's structure: a man who owed his position as much to his friendship with his former boss Omar Berrada rather than any demonstrable skill. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless a previous executive earlier, Jason Wilcox has proved himself as one of football's true generals: a tactical intellect that the club's mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

A Tactical Clash Over System & Ideology

For example, it was the director , after having been part of the hierarchy that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim originally, played a key role in attempting to convince Amorim to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Unsurprisingly, these pleas met a certain resistance. But perhaps these judgements carry more weight when delivered by a man with the impeccable soccer background he possesses, a veteran of international appearances and a role in a title-winning side decades past.

Perhaps in time Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to explain 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, without any penalty clause activated. The director speaks rarely in public, and with very good reason. The real thinkers in football – men like him – function on a plane exceeding our mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, probably all we would hear would be high-frequency signals and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not equivalent to being prepared to comprehend it.

The Supreme Authority In Command

Naturally, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the true genius behind the club's current leadership. The director is, after all, merely executing the directives of his ultimate line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his preference for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also suggested deploying the forward as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for United to adopt analytics and analytics. Per reports, during a leadership summit early in his minority ownership, he announced that United’s style of play “will be determined in this room”.

Ultimately, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical football matters, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Most importantly he is incredibly rich, and it is known, the wealthy are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, fundamentally better. Whom else could one trust to oversee a strategic plan of cost-cutting, the building of a modern arena that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

A New Soccer Order: Executives Over Managers

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels of the game. For decades, clubs foolishly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff like managers, scouts – even footballers. Perhaps it was once feasible for a young, innovative manager with a philosophy and energy to join a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. Yet how many companies have these guys established? What number of large-scale layoffs have they managed? Better by far to invest the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to decide the tactics by the directors and appoint someone who can tailor their offering to suit. If coaches were formerly chefs, they have become more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not creating the product, but still finally accountable if it arrives cold or fails to meet standards.

Nowadays, a coach's role is increasingly not about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the front-facing representative of the operation, the public face of an organisation they have minimal power to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into the Champions League and secures domestic cups, and essentially is dismissed for talking. Wilfried Nancy sees his standing damaged while those individuals who appointed him continue to make errors another day.

The Neoliberal Game: Responsibility Only for the Coaches

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this is simply neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who are infallible, whose decisions remain untouchable, whose errors can invariably be resolved by sacking without justification. Hire the 3-4-3 coach only to dismiss them for playing too much 3-4-3. Bring in the project manager and then bin them for taking excessive time. And above all be grateful; for your modest season ticket price rises, for the latest player acquisitions, for the fact that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.