Manchester United’s ongoing challenges often spark intense debate among fans and analysts alike. At the heart of the club’s persistent struggles lies a fundamental issue: a lack of clear, consistent management strategy and a unified club identity. This strategic vacuum, highlighted by recent events surrounding coaching appointments like Ruben Amorim, suggests that while individual decisions may be scrutinized, the deeper problem stems from an absence of a foundational ideology to guide the club’s direction.
The recent scrutiny over Ruben Amorim’s potential appointment and subsequent departure from discussions serves as a critical illustration of this underlying chaos. While initial reports focused on a clash of personalities or tactical disagreements, the broader context reveals a club grappling with how major decisions are made. The idea that a coach might be dismissed for tactical preferences, such as a back three, points to a deeper disconnect within the football structure, rather than just a simple disagreement.
What is the fundamental problem with Manchester United’s management? The core issue at Manchester United is a profound lack of a consistent club identity or overarching footballing ideology. Despite significant investment and structural changes under Sir Jim Ratcliffe, decisions often appear reactive and influenced by multiple, sometimes conflicting, voices rather than a unified, long-term vision for the team’s style of play and recruitment.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s involvement in Manchester United was initially met with optimism, yet the article suggests his leadership may be exacerbating existing problems. Instead of establishing a clear footballing ideology from scratch in his first summer of 2024, the club appears to have continued with a disjointed approach. This includes initially persevering with Erik ten Hag before shifting focus to a coach like Amorim, known for a fixed tactical approach, without the necessary infrastructure to support it.
This situation begs the question of how key decisions are truly made at Old Trafford. A club that frequently emphasizes its unique “identity” seems to lack a tangible one in the modern football landscape. This isn’t just about superficial elements like wingers or fast play; it’s about a clear, defined vision for the team’s style, recruitment philosophy, and overall direction. Best practices in football for over a decade have advocated for establishing such an ideology, whether it’s Pep Guardiola’s positional game or German high-pressing, to provide crucial clarity.
The structure under Ratcliffe, while appearing modern with empowered figures like director of recruitment Christoph Vivell and director of football Jason Wilcox, is reportedly undermined by Ratcliffe’s own extensive involvement. Sources describe a process where his say extends beyond final decisions, leading to multiple stages and numerous “decision makers.” This micromanagement style, where a billionaire successful in one field assumes expertise in all, creates confusion and delays, as illustrated by a coaching candidate’s interview experience in 2024, which was described as formulaic and overly bureaucratic.
The implications of this approach are significant for Manchester United’s transfer strategy and talent identification. Insiders suggest the club is often focused on imitating successful elements from other teams, like Brighton or Brentford’s analytics, rather than innovating or developing its own unique approach. This plays catch-up instead of setting trends, overlooking that clubs like Manchester City’s success often stems from unique financial backing, not just copied models. United, needing to buy to win, requires a more bespoke and proactive strategy.
Furthermore, the article highlights the perceived inexperience among new appointments like Wilcox and chief executive Omar Berrada, a point of bewilderment for rivals. This compounds the lack of a clear identity, making Vivell’s credentials from Red Bull increasingly influential. While Julian Nagelsmann is seen as a summer candidate, even top-tier coaching talent will struggle without a cohesive plan.
Ultimately, until Sir Jim Ratcliffe truly commits to defining and implementing a singular, overarching football identity, Manchester United is likely to remain mired in confusion and inconsistency. The club risks continuously making reactive decisions, second-guessing leadership, and failing to build a sustainable path to success. A clear vision, rather than a collection of individual opinions, is essential to address why Manchester United struggles with management and to move forward effectively.
