Why Sack Amorim and Spare Wilcox and Berrada?
Rรบben Amorim did not appoint himself.
He was selected, negotiated, and sold to the Manchester United fanbase by a sporting leadership team led by Jason Wilcox and Omar Berrada. His hiring was presented as part of a โnew eraโ; a carefully structured football project built on data, identity, and long-term planning.
Yet the moment results wobble, Amorim becomes the convenient scapegoat.
Wilcox and Berrada remain.
This is not accountability. It is protection of power.
If Amorim has failed, then the failure is structural, not individual. The squad profile, recruitment logic, transition planning, and performance benchmarks were all defined by the same executives who now get to quietly distance themselves from the outcome. You can't claim strategic genius when appointing a manager, then claim helplessness when that manager struggles inside the very structure you designed.
Sacking Amorim without reviewing Wilcox and Berrada sends one message: the manager carries risk, the executives carry immunity.
And that is the real problem.
Manchester Unitedโs issues have never been purely technical. They are systemic; poor squad construction, constant philosophical resets, short-term fixes masquerading as long-term plans, and executive survival politics disguised as โclub vision.โ
Changing the face on the touchline while keeping the same decision-makers in charge is not reform. It is recycling failure.
If United truly wants to break the cycle, it must start asking harder questions:
* Who defined the project?
* Who approved the squad fit?
* Who set the expectations?
* And who is accountable when the project underperforms?
Until Wilcox and Berrada are subject to the same scrutiny as Amorim, United will remain trapped in the same loop. Firing managers while preserving the machinery that keeps producing them.
Higie
Club statement: Ruben Amorim.