🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear he could survive a loss to Grimsby. Survive an important continental showpiece versus one of the worst Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home against domestic rivals, a lowly league position, the tactical inflexibility, laying waste to some of the club’s most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, calling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed a single opponent against whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to engage. You come at the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Regrettably, similar to numerous Premiership right-back in Blackburn’s championship campaign, the coach took on the executive and seems to have missed. The most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a coach who frequently berated his squad for losing individual battles crumbling when confronted by the intense pressure and animal charisma of a England's top division's most feared sporting directors.

In truth, this whole painful saga appears to portray the director in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been tempting, based on his brief stint in a similar role at Southampton, to regard Jason Wilcox as merely a functionary within the club's structure: a man who owed his position largely to his friendship with ex-colleague a fellow executive as any verifiable talent. How wrong we all were. In brilliantly outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated manager, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has proved himself as one of football's strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that United’s mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

A Strategic Conflict Over System & Ideology

For example, this was the director , after being involved in the leadership that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach in the first place, played a key role in trying to persuade him to abandon his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. However, these judgements carry more weight when delivered from the mouth with the impeccable football pedigree he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a championship team decades past.

Maybe eventually he may be persuaded to outline his reasoning publicly. Maybe one day he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with full compensation, with no compensation reduction clause in place. 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 mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, probably we would perceive is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite equivalent to being ready to comprehend it.

An Ultimate Power Behind Command

But of course, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, in reality, merely executing the directives of his line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his desire for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also proposed deploying the forward in a wing-back role. The owner is eager for United to embrace analytics and analytics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting soon after his investment, he declared that United’s style to football “will be decided in this room”.

Ultimately, Ratcliffe is an expert in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his background in industry and sailing. Most importantly he is immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the rich are the best of us: more insightful, sagacious, more tactically astute, simply better. Who else would you trust to manage an enlightened programme of austerity, the construction of a modern arena that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

The Modern Soccer Hierarchy: Directors Over Managers

This represents a shift we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels of the game. For decades, teams mistakenly delegated major sporting choices to low-level employees like managers, scouts – even footballers. Perhaps it was once feasible for a young, visionary coach with ideas and drive to go into an organization and see their vision through to completion. Yet how many companies have such individuals established? What number of large-scale layoffs have they overseen? Better by far to place genuine authority where it belongs: the executive class, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with impressive LinkedIn profiles. It is wiser to determine the tactics by the directors and hire a coach who can tailor their methods to suit. If coaches were once chefs, they are now more like Deliveroo drivers: not really responsible for the food, but still finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or fails to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly less about defining the vision and more about selling it: the receptionist of the operation, the public face of an organisation they can do little to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of literal children into Europe and secures domestic cups, and effectively is dismissed for talking. A manager at Celtic finds his standing damaged whereas those individuals who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Coaches

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this represents neoliberalism at work: the rise of a privileged overclass who can never be wrong, whose decisions are always sacrosanct, whose errors can invariably be resolved by sacking without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach and then fire them for using excessively 3-4-3. Hire the process guy and later discard him for taking excessive time. And above all show gratitude; for your modest season ticket price rises, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – are in charge.