Manchester United's Inconsistent Management Hinders Strategic Progress

The Double Pivot: Soccer analysis, analytics, and commentary · January 06, 2026 · Listen to Original Episode →

Original Title:

TL;DR

Manchester United's management structure, characterized by competitive internal decision-making and shifting favored personnel, leads to repeated managerial instability and hinders predictable strategic progress.
The club's recent personnel decisions, including shipping off players and committing to specific tactical formations for a manager, were made to cater to Ruben Amorim, only to be reversed after his dismissal.
Manchester United's organizational floundering suggests they are not identifying or developing good coaches, but rather finding individuals with past success and failing to adapt them to the club's context.
The decision to sack Amorim during a critical competitive race, after committing to his specific tactical style and roster construction, magnifies the negative impact of managerial change.
The club's approach to managerial hires, focusing on "cool next good young managers," represents a costly pattern of spending on unproven or ill-fitting ideas rather than sustainable organizational development.
Manchester United's current talent window is shorter than perceived, heavily reliant on aging stars and specific player performances, necessitating strategic midfield investment to avoid future decline.
The club's managerial turnover indicates a failure to learn from past mistakes, such as extending Erik ten Hag's contract, resulting in repeated financial waste and inopportune timing of dismissals.

Deep Dive

Manchester United's decision to sack manager Ruben Amorim, following a pattern seen with Enzo Maresca at Chelsea, highlights a critical organizational failing: a persistent inability to align managerial power with club hierarchy, leading to significant financial waste and strategic missteps. This pattern suggests a deeper systemic issue within Manchester United's management structure, where decisions are driven by internal competition and shifting favor rather than consistent, modern business practices, ultimately hindering the team's potential and wasting valuable talent windows.

The core of Manchester United's problem lies in their reactive and internally competitive approach to management, a stark contrast to more structured organizations. Unlike Chelsea, which maintained clear boundaries with Maresca, Manchester United actively catered to Amorim's demands for a year, adapting personnel decisions and tactical frameworks like a commitment to his preferred back-three system. This investment in Amorim's vision was then abruptly abandoned when the club, particularly Sir Jim Ratcliffe's faction, perceived a threat to their authority, specifically when Amorim's demands began to extend beyond player-on-field performance to potentially challenging Ratcliffe himself. This cycle of appeasement followed by dismissal, exemplified by the costly extensions and sackings of previous managers like Erik ten Hag, demonstrates a pattern of "torch[ing] money" rather than implementing efficient, modern management. The club’s structure, characterized by competing internal voices and Ratcliffe’s preference for a competitive decision-making environment, means that favored personnel and their associated strategies can shift rapidly, as seen with Jason Wilcox’s apparent clash with Amorim. This instability prevents the development of a coherent long-term strategy, leading to repeated mistakes.

Furthermore, the decision to sack Amorim mid-season, while the team was performing reasonably well and within its talent ceiling, magnifies the negative impact. The team’s recent success was built on a specific tactical framework, notably the back-three system that facilitated an attacking style and maximized the impact of key players like Bruno Fernandes. Removing this structure during a crucial competitive race creates significant instability and diminishes the team's immediate prospects. This is compounded by the short-term nature of the current talent window, heavily reliant on aging stars and a few young key players. The club's failure to proactively identify and address these strategic inflexibilities, choosing instead to react to managerial power plays, has created a situation where valuable time and resources are squandered, making it difficult to predict future success and potentially leading to further managerial turnover.

The continued reliance on this flawed decision-making process suggests that Manchester United is unlikely to improve its organizational effectiveness. The club's pattern of hiring managers who have had past success in different environments, only to see their effectiveness diminish at Old Trafford, indicates a failure to correctly identify talent suitable for their specific context. The current team, while capable of competing for Champions League places, is at the edge of its potential, and further instability risks squandering this window. The club’s approach, which appears to prioritize finding the "cool next good young manager" at significant expense, rather than a stable, long-term strategic vision, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of modern football management, leaving the future of the club uncertain.

Action Items

Audit management structure: Identify 3-5 decision-making bottlenecks and propose process improvements to prevent repeated managerial dismissals.
Create manager evaluation framework: Define 5 criteria for assessing managerial fit beyond immediate results, focusing on long-term organizational alignment.
Analyze player development pathways: Track 3-5 young defenders' progress in a back-three system to assess its efficacy for talent cultivation.
Measure roster flexibility: Calculate the impact of tactical rigidity (back-three vs. back-four) on player acquisition options for 3-5 key positions.
Draft contingency plan: Outline 3-5 alternative tactical approaches and player profiles for potential mid-season managerial changes.

Key Quotes

"I noticed you received selective information about everything I came here to be the manager of Manchester United not to be coach of Manchester United that is clear I know my name is not Tuchel it's not Conte it's not Mourinho but I'm the manager of Manchester United it's going to be like this for 18 months or when the board decide to change that was my point I want to finish with that I'm not going to quit I will do my job until another guy is coming here to replace me and shortly after that another guy came here to replace me"

This quote demonstrates Ruben Amorim's assertive stance on his managerial role, emphasizing his desire to be the "manager" rather than just a "coach." Michael Caley highlights that this public declaration was a key part of Amorim's power play, indicating his unwillingness to compromise on his authority within the club.

"Reason number one is that it happens a week less than a week after Maresca is out and for sort of fundamentally the same reasons they they are expressed a little bit differently but they are fundamentally the person on the sideline wants more power and the club opts not to give it to them and really the person on the sideline is the one bringing the situation to a head for Maresca it was more contractual for Amorim it seems to have been more about transfer power but in both cases they are both more or less making some degree of power play within the club's hierarchy and organization all of which is pretty well reported out and in both cases the club was like nah"

Michael Caley points out the parallel between the departures of Maresca and Amorim, identifying a common theme of managers seeking more power and clubs refusing to cede it. Caley explains that while the specific issues differed--contractual for Maresca and transfer power for Amorim--the underlying dynamic of a power struggle with the club's hierarchy led to both situations.

"Manchester United on the other hand have spent a year doing making personnel decisions to cater to Amorim they like you know i was gonna drop a curse but i'll try to be relatively g rated here they shipped off Rashford and Garnacho because Amorim didn't like them they made personnel decisions committed to Amorim's back three which Amorim claims to be super committed to they did all the things that you don't want to do to give a manager power and then belatedly were like wait you jerk you want all this power and we don't want to give it to you after having done all of these things and then fired him"

Michael Caley contrasts Manchester United's approach with Chelsea's, explaining that United made significant personnel and tactical decisions to accommodate Amorim over the past year. Caley argues that the club invested heavily in catering to Amorim's preferences, such as committing to his preferred back-three system and reportedly removing players he disliked, only to then resist granting him the ultimate power he sought.

"I don't want to say that Chelsea are like a model of managerial structure and corporate efficiency but they have an owner and they have two sporting directors and they have a couple of other people who are like in the upper decision making hierarchy of the club but are under the sporting director but whereas at United one thing we've talked about here on this podcast a number of times is how it appears that the way Jim Ratcliffe likes to work is to have a bunch of people in a room who like kind of compete and he gets to pick and choose among them that he his version of active ownership is highly competitive"

Michael Caley suggests that while Chelsea may not be a perfect model, their structure includes a clearer hierarchy with an owner, sporting directors, and other decision-makers. Caley contrasts this with Manchester United's apparent structure under Jim Ratcliffe, which seems to involve a competitive environment where individuals vie for influence, leading to a less predictable decision-making process.

"So like there's nothing here that suggests that Manchester United are getting smarter right in fact it suggests that they're just continuing to make the same mistake over and over and over and over again I would also point out it's not like the guys that Manchester United keep bringing in to run the club go on to have success after leaving Manchester United it's not Manchester United's flailing on an organizational level are hindering otherwise good coaches it's a lot more that Manchester United's floundering on an organizational level means that they're not really finding guys who are good coaches necessarily or that they are finding guys who have had past success and not correctly identifying that taking them out of the situation in which they enjoyed that success is going to lessen their effectiveness"

Michael Caley expresses skepticism about Manchester United's organizational learning, stating that their actions suggest a pattern of repeating mistakes. Caley argues that the club's organizational struggles not only hinder their ability to find good coaches but also lead them to misjudge the effectiveness of coaches when removed from their previous successful environments.

"The thing that like sort of sticks in my craw on all of the reporting on this and I want to be clear sometimes reporting especially when it gets into debates about football styles and tactics can be a really big game of telephone people can have much more interesting ideas than what get reported as their ideas in the newspapers football is complicated it's very easy to have a complaint that has some real texture to it get boiled down to where we're sick of the 3 4 3 but that's what it's gotten boiled down to"

Michael Caley voices frustration with how football reporting can oversimplify complex tactical issues, likening it to a "game of telephone." Caley explains that nuanced complaints about tactics, such as dissatisfaction with a specific formation like the 3-4-3, can be reduced to superficial soundbites in the media, losing their original depth and meaning.

Resources

External Resources

Articles & Papers

"Amorin? Amorout!" (The Double Pivot) - Discussed as the context for the sacking of Erik ten Hag and the managerial situation at Manchester United.

People

Erik ten Hag - Mentioned as the manager of Manchester United who was sacked.
Enzo Maresca - Mentioned as a manager recently sacked by Chelsea, drawing parallels to Erik ten Hag's situation.
Thomas Tuchel - Mentioned in Erik ten Hag's quotes as a manager with a different title.
Antonio Conte - Mentioned in Erik ten Hag's quotes as a manager with a different title.
Jose Mourinho - Mentioned in Erik ten Hag's quotes as a manager with a different title.
Mike Goodman - Co-host of The Double Pivot podcast.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe - Mentioned as the owner of Manchester United and involved in managerial decisions.
Ashworth - Mentioned as someone who was brought in and then removed from a role at Manchester United.
Omar Berrada - Mentioned as a business manager at Manchester United involved in football decisions.
Jason Wilcox - Mentioned as the Director of Football at Manchester United who clashed with Erik ten Hag.
Christopher Vivell - Mentioned as a consultant at Manchester United.
Ole Gunnar Solskjær - Mentioned as a former manager of Manchester United.
Ralf Rangnick - Mentioned as a former manager and/or director of football at Manchester United.
Louis van Gaal - Mentioned as a former manager of Manchester United and the Netherlands.
Darren Fletcher - Mentioned as the interim manager at Manchester United.
Ben Walsh - Mentioned as someone who discussed INEOS and cycling on a previous podcast.
Mauricio Pochettino - Mentioned as a potential candidate for the next permanent manager of Manchester United.
Ruben Amorim - Mentioned as a manager who was expensive but seen as a good young manager.
Oliver Glasner - Mentioned as a manager that Manchester United is reportedly high on, particularly Jason Wilcox.
Jeremy Dogo - Mentioned as a player who might be a tweener if moving away from a back five.

Organizations & Institutions

Manchester United - The primary subject of discussion regarding managerial changes and club operations.
Chelsea - Mentioned in relation to the sacking of Enzo Maresca and as a comparison for managerial structure.
Leeds - Mentioned as the opponent in the match prior to Erik ten Hag's quotes.
INEOS - Mentioned in relation to Sir Jim Ratcliffe's ownership and business practices.

Podcasts & Audio

The Double Pivot - The podcast where the discussion is taking place.
The World's Most Agreeable Soccer Analytics Podcast - A descriptor for The Double Pivot podcast.

Other Resources

P-values - Mentioned as a topic discussed in the podcast channel's Discord.
Back three - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
Back four - A tactical formation discussed as a potential alternative for Manchester United.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to Erik ten Hag's management.
3-4-3 shape - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
5-3-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-2-1 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-4-3 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
3-5-2 - A tactical formation discussed in relation to the relationships between players.
**5-3-2