🔗 Share this article

Itranspired he was able to withstand losing against Grimsby. He weathered losing a crucial continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He withstood home defeats against domestic rivals, a lowly league position, the tactical inflexibility, undermining some of the club’s most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, labeling the squad the worst in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to tango. You come at the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Unfortunately, like many a Premiership defender in Blackburn’s title-winning campaign, 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 in the face of the intense pressure and animal charisma of a England's top division's most feared football executives.

In truth, this whole bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been tempting, based on his nine months of experience with the Saints, to regard Jason Wilcox as little more than a functionary within the club's structure: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada rather than any verifiable talent. How mistaken everyone was. By masterfully outsmarting the club's celebrated manager, just as he bested the hapless Dan Ashworth earlier, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated as one of football's strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect of which the club's mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

A Strategic Clash Regarding Formation & Ideology

To illustrate, it was the director , after having been part of the hierarchy that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach in the first place, was instrumental in trying to persuade Amorim to abandon his beloved formation. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. But perhaps such directives hold greater authority when issued from the mouth of a man the impeccable soccer background he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a title-winning side decades past.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to outline his thought processes to the rest of us. Maybe one day he might be asked regarding why the coach is departing with a full payout, without any compensation reduction clause in place. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely in public, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals of this sport – men like him – simply operate at a level beyond our own mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, probably all we would hear would be ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not equivalent to being ready to comprehend it.

The Supreme Authority Behind Command

But of course, in training our focus on the sporting director we overlook the true genius behind the modern United throne. Jason Wilcox is, in reality, simply carrying out the directives of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his preference for a four-man defense. According to reports, the owner has also suggested deploying the forward in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt analytics and analytics. Per reports, during a leadership summit early in his minority ownership, he declared that the team's approach of play “will be decided by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his background in industry and yachting. 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 similar to an abstract design, the signing of Benjamin Sesko?

A New Soccer Hierarchy: Executives Over Coaches

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels of the game. For decades, teams mistakenly entrusted major sporting choices to low-level employees like managers, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with ideas and drive to join an organization and implement their plan supported to fruition. But how many companies have such individuals set up? How many mass redundancies have they overseen? Far preferable to invest the real power where it belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with impressive professional resumes. Better by far to determine the strategy in the boardroom and appoint someone who will adapt their methods accordingly. If managers were once chefs, they are now more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not responsible for the food, but still finally accountable if it arrives poorly or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly less about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the receptionist of the operation, the visible figurehead of an organisation they have minimal power to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into Europe and secures two medium-sized trophies, and effectively gets sacked for talking. A manager at Celtic finds his standing damaged whereas those individuals who appointed him live to blunder indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Football: Accountability Only for the Coaches

And possibly in a small way this is simply corporate governance at work: the rise of a privileged elite who are infallible, whose choices are always untouchable, whose errors can invariably be resolved by sacking without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach only to dismiss him for playing excessively that system. Bring in the project manager and then bin them for taking too long. And most importantly be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for your new player acquisitions, for the fact that the adults – however well qualified – remain in control.