🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear the manager was able to withstand a loss to lower-league opposition. He weathered an important continental showpiece versus one of the worst Spurs sides in living memory. He withstood losing at home against domestic rivals, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, undermining some of the club’s best academy products, the 32% win rate, labeling his team the poorest in Manchester United history. But there was a single opponent with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to tango. If you challenge the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, similar to numerous Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' championship 1994-95 season, the coach took on Jason Wilcox and appears to have missed. The most casual observer will notice the irony here: a manager who often railed his squad for losing individual battles crumbling when confronted by the white heat and animal charisma of a the Premier League’s most intimidating football executives.

And frankly, this entire bruising episode appears to portray the director in a whole new light. It may have been easy, given his nine months in a similar role with the Saints, to view him as merely a functionary within the club's structure: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How wrong everyone was. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted manager, just as he bested the hapless Dan Ashworth earlier, he has proved himself as one of the sport’s true generals: a tactical intellect that the club's mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

The Tactical Conflict Regarding Formation and Ideology

For example, it was the director who being involved in the hierarchy that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist Amorim in the first place, played a key role in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas met a certain resistance. But perhaps these judgements hold greater authority when issued by a man of a man the impeccable soccer background he possesses, holder of international appearances and a role in a championship team from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time he might agree to outline his thought processes 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 compensation reduction clause activated. The director seldom speaks publicly, for excellent reasons. The real thinkers of this sport – individuals such as Jason Wilcox – function on a plane exceeding our prosaic understanding. If he ever did speak, probably all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not equivalent to being ready to receive.

An Supreme Authority Behind Command

Naturally, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the real power behind the modern United throne. The director is, in reality, simply carrying out the directives of his ultimate line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his preference for a four-man defense. According to reports, the owner has also proposed deploying the forward as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for United to embrace data science and metrics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting soon after his minority ownership, he announced that United’s style to football “will be determined by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is a specialist in these intricate football matters, leveraging his background in industry and sailing. Most importantly he remains immensely wealthy, and it is known, the wealthy are the best of us: more perceptive, sagacious, strategically brilliant, fundamentally better. Whom else could one trust to manage an enlightened programme of austerity, the building of a modern arena that looks a lot like an abstract design, the signing of Benjamin Sesko?

A New Football Order: Executives Over Coaches

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels football. For decades, teams mistakenly delegated big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, talent spotters – even footballers. Perhaps it was once possible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into an organization and implement their plan supported to fruition. But how many businesses have such individuals established? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Far preferable to invest the real power where it belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the guys with impressive professional resumes. Better by far to decide the strategy in the boardroom and hire a coach who will adapt their methods accordingly. If managers were once chefs, they are now more like delivery personnel: not really responsible for the product, but still finally accountable should it be delivered cold 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. Enzo Maresca leads a team of very young players into Europe and wins domestic cups, and essentially 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.

The Modern Corporate Football: Responsibility for the Few

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this represents neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who can never be wrong, whose decisions are always sacrosanct, whose errors can always be resolved by sacking without explanation. Hire the 3-4-3 coach and then dismiss them for playing excessively that system. Bring in the process guy and later bin them for requiring too long. And most importantly show gratitude; for the incremental increases in ticket costs, for your new summer signings, for the fact that the adults – regardless of their expertise – remain in control.