🔗 Share this article

Itbecame clear he endured losing against lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive European final against one of the worst Spurs sides for many years. He could survive losing at home to West Ham and Wolves, finishing 15th, his rigid approach, undermining the team's most promising homegrown talent, the 32% win rate, calling the squad the worst the club has ever seen. Yet, there existed one adversary against whom the Portuguese coach was not permitted to engage. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' championship 1994-95 season, the coach came at the executive and appears to have missed. The most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a coach who frequently berated his squad for losing individual battles succumbing in the face of the intense pressure and animal charisma of one of the Premier League’s most feared football executives.

And frankly, this whole bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been easy, given his nine months of experience with the Saints, to view him as merely a drudge within the club's structure: an individual who owed his position largely to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How mistaken everyone was. By masterfully outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated manager, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth earlier, he has proved himself as one of football's strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that United’s mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

The Tactical Conflict Over Formation and Ideology

For example, it was Jason Wilcox , after having been part of the leadership that appointed the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, played a key role in attempting to convince him to ditch his favored formation. Naturally, these pleas faced pushback. But perhaps these judgements hold greater authority when delivered from the mouth with the unimpeachable football pedigree of Jason Wilcox, a veteran of international appearances and a role in a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually he might agree to explain his thought processes publicly. Maybe one day questions may arise why Amorim is departing with full compensation, with no penalty clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks in public, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals in football – men like him – simply operate at a level exceeding our mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, probably we would perceive would be ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being prepared to receive.

An Supreme Power Behind Command

Naturally, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we are obscuring the true genius behind the club's current leadership. The director is, in reality, merely executing the directives of his ultimate line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his desire for a four-man defense. According to reports, the owner has also proposed playing Bryan Mbeumo in a wing-back role. The owner is eager for the club to adopt data science and analytics. Per reports, during a leadership summit early in his investment, he announced that the team's approach of play “will be determined by this group”.

After all, Ratcliffe is an expert in this technical football matters, leveraging his previous experience in industry and sailing. Above all he is incredibly rich, and as we all know, the wealthy are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, fundamentally superior. Whom else could one trust to oversee an enlightened programme of austerity, the building of a new stadium that appears a lot like an abstract design, the acquisition of a new striker?

The New Soccer Order: Directors Over Managers

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent in top-tier of the game. For decades, clubs foolishly delegated big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into a club and see their vision through to completion. But how many businesses have these guys set up? What number of large-scale layoffs have they managed? Far preferable to invest the real power where it belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with impressive LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to determine the tactics in the boardroom and hire someone who can tailor their offering to suit. If managers were once chefs, they have become more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not creating the product, but still finally accountable if it arrives cold or fails to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly less about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative of the operation, the public face of an organisation they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into the Champions League and secures two medium-sized trophies, and effectively is dismissed for talking. Wilfried Nancy sees his reputation ruined whereas the people who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Coaches

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this is simply neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who are infallible, whose choices are always untouchable, whose errors can always be resolved by sacking without justification. Hire the system coach and then dismiss them for using excessively that system. Bring in the project manager and later discard them for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for your new player acquisitions, for the fact that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.