Amorim's Critical Error? Taking On Wilcox and an Unassailable Leadership Class

Iturns out Ruben Amorim endured a loss to lower-league opposition. Survive an important European final versus a particularly poor Tottenham teams for many years. He could survive losing at home against domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, squandering some of the club’s most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, calling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. But there was a single opponent with whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to engage. You come at Jason Wilcox, you had better succeed.

And frankly, this whole painful saga appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been easy, based on his nine months in a similar role at Southampton, to regard Jason Wilcox as merely a drudge in the United exoskeleton: a man who owed his position largely to his close relationship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any verifiable talent. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted manager, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate a previous executive before him, he has demonstrated to be among the sport’s strategic masterminds: a strategic mind that the club's mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

A Strategic Clash Regarding Formation and Philosophy

To illustrate, it was Jason Wilcox , after having been part of the leadership that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach originally, played a key role in attempting to convince him to abandon his beloved formation. Unsurprisingly, these pleas were resisted. However, these judgements hold greater authority when issued by a man of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to outline his reasoning publicly. Maybe one day questions may arise why Amorim is walking away with a full payout, without any compensation reduction clause activated. The director speaks rarely in public, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals of this sport – men like him – function on a plane beyond our own mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, probably all we would hear is a series of high-frequency signals and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being prepared to comprehend it.

The Supreme Power In Command

Naturally, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we are obscuring the real power behind the modern United throne. The director is, in reality, merely executing the commands of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his preference for a back four. According to reports, the owner has also proposed playing Bryan Mbeumo in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for United to embrace data science and analytics. According to ESPN, during a leadership summit early in his investment, he declared that the team's approach of play “will be determined in this room”.

Ultimately, Sir Jim is a specialist in these intricate football matters, drawing from his previous experience in industry and yachting. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and it is known, the wealthy are the best of us: more insightful, sagacious, more tactically astute, fundamentally superior. Who else could one trust to manage a strategic plan of cost-cutting, the construction of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the acquisition of a new striker?

The Modern Soccer Hierarchy: Directors Over Coaches

This represents a shift we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels football. For decades, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, scouts – players themselves. Maybe previously possible for an up-and-coming, innovative manager with ideas and energy to join an organization and see their vision supported to fruition. But how many businesses have these guys set up? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Better by far to place genuine authority where it belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with impressive LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to determine the tactics in the boardroom and hire a coach who can tailor their offering accordingly. If managers were formerly chefs, they have become more akin to delivery personnel: not really creating the product, yet finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or leaks out of the box.

Nowadays, a coach's role has become not about defining the vision and more about selling it: the receptionist on the front desk, the visible figurehead for a club they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of literal children into the Champions League and secures two medium-sized trophies, and essentially gets sacked for talking. Wilfried Nancy sees his standing damaged while those individuals who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Modern Corporate Game: Responsibility Only for the Coaches

And possibly on some microcosmic level this represents neoliberalism at work: the rise of a gilded elite who are infallible, whose choices remain sacrosanct, whose errors can always be sacked away without justification. Hire the 3-4-3 coach only to fire him for using excessively 3-4-3. Hire the project manager and then discard him for requiring excessive time. And most importantly be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.