🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear the manager endured defeat by lower-league opposition. Survive losing a crucial continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood home defeats to West Ham and Wolves, finishing 15th, his rigid approach, laying waste to some of the club’s best homegrown talent, a poor winning percentage, calling his team the worst in Manchester United history. But there was one adversary with whom the Portuguese coach was not permitted to dance. If you challenge the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Unfortunately, like many a top-flight defender in Blackburn’s championship 1994-95 season, the coach took on Jason Wilcox and seems to have missed. The most casual observer can see the irony here: a coach who frequently berated at his players for failing in individual battles crumbling in the face of the white heat and formidable presence of one of England's top division's most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this whole painful saga seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. It may have been tempting, based on his nine months in a similar role with the Saints, to regard him as merely a drudge within the club's structure: a man who owed his position as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada as any demonstrable skill. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted head coach, just as he bested the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has demonstrated to be among the sport’s true generals: a strategic mind of which the club's mid-table rivals are now justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Regarding Formation & Ideology

To illustrate, this was the director , after having been part of the hierarchy that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach originally, was instrumental in attempting to convince him to abandon his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. But perhaps such directives carry more weight when delivered from the mouth of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree of Jason Wilcox, holder of three England caps and a contributor to a championship team decades past.

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. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely in public, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals of this sport – men like him – simply operate at a level beyond our own prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, most likely all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Wanting is not equivalent to being prepared to comprehend it.

The Ultimate Authority In Command

But of course, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we are obscuring the true genius behind the club's current leadership. The director is, after all, simply carrying out the directives of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his desire for a four-man defense. According to reports, Ratcliffe has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for the club to adopt data science and analytics. According to ESPN, during a leadership summit early in his minority ownership, he announced that United’s style to football “will be decided in this room”.

After all, Ratcliffe is an expert in these intricate football matters, leveraging his background in petrochemicals and yachting. Above all he is immensely wealthy, and it is known, the rich are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, simply superior. Whom else could one trust to manage an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the building of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the acquisition of Benjamin Sesko?

A Modern Football Hierarchy: Executives Above Managers

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels of the game. Historically, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, scouts – even footballers. Perhaps it was once feasible for a young, visionary coach with ideas and energy to join a club and see their vision supported to fruition. But how many companies have these guys set up? How many large-scale layoffs have they overseen? Far preferable to invest genuine authority where it belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. It is wiser to determine the tactics by the directors and appoint someone who can tailor their methods accordingly. If coaches were once chefs, they are now more like Deliveroo drivers: not creating the product, yet finally accountable if it arrives poorly or fails of the box.

Nowadays, 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 change. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into Europe and secures two medium-sized trophies, and essentially gets sacked for talking. Wilfried Nancy finds his reputation ruined whereas the people who appointed him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Few

And perhaps in a small way this is simply neoliberalism in action: the elevation of a gilded overclass who are infallible, whose choices are always untouchable, whose errors can always be resolved by sacking without justification. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach and then dismiss them for playing excessively that system. Hire the project manager and then discard them for requiring too long. And above all show gratitude; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.