Ruben Amorim was doomed to fail inside Manchester United’s broken machine

As almost everyone in football gleefully shares gossip about Manchester United, there is one detail that is provoking more intrigue. Many are asking whether Ruben Amorim was ultimately sacked over how he spoke to director of football Jason Wilcox in that now notorious Friday meeting. If so, it would seem a little over-sensitive for elite-end football.

It should be acknowledged there were sound football reasons for sacking Amorim. The football was often unwatchable and many results were unjustifiable, but league position shows this wasn’t irredeemable. And while the 1-1 against Wolves caused a shift that sparked serious discussion among the hierarchy on New Year’s Day, Friday appears to have brought the moment when an undesirable situation became “unsustainable”.

The feeling was only deepened after Amorim’s press conference at Leeds United, where some have since taken greater note of the specific managers the Portuguese referenced. “I know my name isn’t [Thomas] Tuchel, [Antonio] Conte or [Jose] Mourinho, but I’m the manager.”

Various sources now say these were the names that had been put to Amorim as an argument as to why he didn’t necessarily have the pedigree to speak in the way he was speaking.

One of the main triggers was nevertheless that discussion over tactics, and specifically the use of a back three. While this has primarily been put in the context of Amorim “blowing up”, the detail indicates more existential issues about the club.

It has since been reported that Wilcox is known to favour the 4-3-3 that is central at Manchester City, even if he had previously not put it to Amorim.

Such a sentiment sums up the disconnect. As director of football, in any well-run club, it would specifically be Wilcox’s job to decide on team ideology.

At Manchester United? Well, who knows? There’s a strong argument that this is why Amorim was always destined to fail.

What the club really should have done in Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s first summer of 2024 was start from scratch and decide on an ideology, ensuring that dictated every single future decision – specifically recruitment in players and coaches.

They instead clumsily persevered with Erik ten Hag and then belatedly threw everything on a young coach who probably has the most fixed tactical approach in the modern game, but without the football infrastructure to support that.

It’s all the worse since Ratcliffe had actually told executives they would be taking this more holistic approach – that they would decide on style of play – before that, in February 2024. The minority owner instead immersed himself in the Amorim appointment, conducting a long one-on-one where he was said to be struck by the young coach’s personality.

It does beg the more pressing question of how major decisions at Old Trafford are made and why. Put bluntly, a club more obsessed with “identity” than any other doesn’t actually have one, at least not in the way that matters in the modern game.

That doesn’t just mean superficialities like “wingers” and “fast play”. It is about the clarity of what you want a team to look like.

For over a decade, obvious best practice has been to decide on an ideology – be that Pep Guardiola’s positional game, German high-energy high-pressing or any similarly defined model – and take everything from that.

It brings a crucial clarity.

These very words were actually said on these pages about United back in 2019.

Far from taking what are actually “best in class” decisions to improve on the Glazers, though, Ratcliffe’s leadership seems to be making all of this worse.

Even the prospective return of Ole Gunnar Solskjaer as interim emphasises it. They’re back to “DNA”, or “vibes”, in lieu of an actual idea.

That’s also why the debate over whether United can play three at the back has always been misplaced, and almost represents magical thinking. It’s not that they’re institutionally resistant. It’s that there’s insufficient clarity under the team.

And there is now an argument that, until Ratcliffe realises this, United are constantly going to be beset by confusion.

There are too many voices, when everyone knows the only voice that matters is the one that knows the least about football.

This can be sensed in the football structure, where there’s almost a contradiction. Ratcliffe has “empowered” what looks a modern setup, from director of recruitment Christoph Vivell and Wilcox through chief executive Omar Berrada, but then his own say goes well beyond just making the final decision.

There are multiple illustrations of how counterproductively this works. One coach interviewed in 2024 got frustrated as he found there were four different stages of the process, each involving more officials, all being cast as “decision makers”. The candidate had never experienced anything like it. The interview questions were meanwhile described as “formulaic”.

When it came to meeting the actual decision-maker in Ratcliffe – and when it looked like an offer might come – it is claimed that was delayed for three days because the billionaire was “off cycling”. Some of this might have been exaggerated for comic effect, but the point stands.

The situation is also reflective of a bigger problem in modern football, which is the co-opting of the people’s game by a billionaire class.

Many major clubs are experiencing similar, from Chelsea to Tottenham Hotspur.

And, from speaking to multiple people who have worked with Ratcliffe, a few descriptions chime.

“Meddles with everything.”

“A nightmare to work with.”

“That specific billionaire arrogance where they think being successful in one field means they’re experts on everything else.”

“It’s micromanagement. These types can never relinquish control.”

Stories already abound about Ratcliffe imparting opinions on everything from running technique to recovery.

By the same token, sources involved in the 2022 takeover of Chelsea were baffled at the manner Ratcliffe came in late on. Although it had been presumed he would then just outbid everyone, the Ineos billionaire only offered to match the Clearlake bid without outlining actual plans. The feeling from those present was that he believed he’d “successfully run Ineos so this would be easy”.

And while Dan Ashworth has obviously been reappraised this week for his caution against the Amorim appointment, that is not seen by sources as the main reason he left. It is said Ashworth made his feelings clear on Ratcliffe constantly getting involved in football.

Such an account obviously has implications for the profile of United’s current leadership. How open is Ratcliffe to alternative opinion? Would he make the same cost-cutting decisions now given anyone could have told him that erodes club culture for negligible financial gain?

Insiders meanwhile maintain Ratcliffe has repeatedly been frustrated with decision-making, to the point there have been so many changes in leadership. Remember Dave Brailsford?

Again, some of this would be easily solved by deciding on an actual football identity that provides guardrails for all decisions.

Instead, it’s Ratcliffe’s personality that sounds like the only guardrail. Is this really conducive to anyone making assured decisions on their own terms? Everyone always has to second-guess their boss.

It has also been noted that many of the appointments, from Wilcox to Berrada, are new to these roles. Figures at United’s rivals have been baffled by this, simply due to the amount of inexperience at a major club.

This is partly why Vivell is viewed as increasingly influential, due to his credentials in recruitment from Red Bull. Julian Nagelsmann is consequently seen as a summer candidate, too.

The lack of a deeper identity, however, even shapes that football essential of talent ID. Insiders talk of how Ratciffe’s United seem obsessed with surveying who does things well and just trying to import that – even if they are elements that are now standard in football – when they should instead be looking to what’s next and trying to get ahead of the curve rather than playing catch-up. The latter was Ferran Soriano’s dictum at City, often using the analogy of boat races.

Instead, Ratcliffe saw that City were successful and made appointments from there, apparently overlooking how the key reason for City’s success was limitless money from Abu Dhabi ownership.

There is now said to be an overt focus on the analytics revolution at Brighton and Brentford.

That’s fine, but, again, it’s been done for years and United don’t have access to the unique data of either owner. More pressingly, United aren’t buying players to sell them on. They’re buying to win.

For United’s part, it is encouraging that they resisted some of Amorim’s transfer demands to instead buy players better suited to multiple approaches, even if it typically went against the Portuguese’s perception of his discussions with Ratcliffe.

The feelings of one candidate for the job ring out. When he previously spoke to United, the club were talking about building the best training ground in the world.

The coach found himself thinking “this is the wrong way around”. They were going for an interior decorator when they first needed to gut the house.

They needed to decide what they actually want it to look like.