No Control, Lack of a Plan, and Reactionary Decision Making: Amorim Sacked as Manchester United manager 

Following a week of mounting tension behind the scenes at Old Trafford, INEOS relieved Rúben Amorim of his duties as Manchester United manager on Monday morning, a decision that has come as a shock to many. 

Amorim was repeatedly backed by the United hierarchy during his 14 months in charge. As recently as October 2025, Sir Jim Ratcliffe claimed the Portuguese had “three years to prove himself as a great coach.” From the outside, that confidence appeared justified. After finishing 15^th last season, United currently sit sixth in the Premier League, just three points off the top four, and statistically there had been signs of gradual progress, particularly in attacking areas, where goals scored and expected goals (xG) had improved significantly compared to last season. 

Yet despite the league position, performances, particularly at Old Trafford, have not been positive as of late. United struggled to dominate games and pick up victories against the likes of Everton, West Ham, Bournemouth and Wolves at home, with flat displays becoming the norm rather than the exception. Meanwhile, comments from Amorim in recent press conferences regarding control and transfer activity hinted at a growing breakdown in his relationship with the board. While results kept United within touching distance of the Champions League places, the football itself raised uncomfortable questions about direction, identity, and long-term planning 

Sacking a manager is no longer a shock to Manchester United supporters. Amorim becomes the sixth permanent manager to be dismissed since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement at the end of the 2012/13 season, and the second shortest serving of that group. His departure reinforces a pattern that has come to define the post-Ferguson era: short-term thinking, eroded patience, and a constant resetting of direction before any long-term vision is allowed to take root.  

Football is a ruthless industry, and management is one of the few professions where dismissal is not an anomaly, but an accepted occupational hazard. Yet it is difficult to identify any semblance of a long-term plan from the United hierarchy, with this latest decision sending the supposed rebuild of an iconic football club back to square one. 

Following the dismissal of Erik ten Hag in October 2024, Amorim was appointed by the club’s new minority shareholders, INEOS, who assumed control of all sporting decisions. It should have come as no surprise to said board that Amorim would require time, financial backing, and institutional trust if he was to have any realistic chance of restoring Manchester United’s former stature. 

At Sporting CP, Amorim built both success and reputation through his signature 3-4-3 system — a highly structured approach dependent on specialist profiles in key positions. Implementing such a system at United was always going to require targeted recruitment and patience, neither of which had been afforded to any of the club’s past six permanent managers. Yet from the perspective of Manchester United supporters, there was hope that this time might be different. A new structural model at board level offered the promise of change, but Monday morning’s decision instead raises a familiar and uncomfortable question: what, if anything, was INEOS’ plan from the moment Amorim was hired? 

Arguably the defining quote of this entire saga came during Sunday’s press conference, following Manchester United’s 1–1 draw with Leeds at Elland Road. When asked whether he still felt the confidence of the board, Amorim pushed back, stating that he “came here to be the manager of Manchester United, not the coach.” A remark that felt aimed at the board and hinted at a mismatch in expectations, suggesting Amorim believed he would be granted broader control over the club’s footballing operations, rather than being confined solely to first team results on the pitch. It is a fair assumption that this press conference ultimately proved to be the final straw. 

The recent friction between Amorim and the board was nothing new. Cast your mind back to the summer transfer window, when Amorim was reportedly in favour of signing experienced, World Cup-winning goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez, only for the club to instead opt for the 23-year-old Belgian, Senne Lammens. Despite Lammens’ impressive start to Premier League life, the decision encapsulated the growing disconnect between the manager’s immediate requirements and the board’s long-term recruitment strategy. 

Recruitment has been a persistent source of frustration at Manchester United since Sir Alex Ferguson’s departure in 2013. However, with the club having implemented a more defined footballing structure and a clearer strategic framework over the past two years, it is something of a surprise to see just how ineffective United remain at recruiting the right players at the right time. This is not to suggest that the recent signings of Bryan Mbeumo and Matheus Cunha have not been positive so far, nor that the recruitment of younger players such as Benjamin Sesko, Senne Lammens, Leny Yoro, Ayden Heaven and Patrick Dorgu lack long-term promise. All possess high ceilings and could yet prove to be important figures in the club’s future.  

However, recruitment cannot solely be judged on the potential ability or quality in performances of individual players but must also be judged on how effectively the club’s recruitment strategy addresses the structural needs of the squad. United’s inability to reinforce in key areas, based on the manager’s needs remains glaring. Despite Amorim’s entire reputation being built on his success with a 3-4-3 formation, the club failed to sign any wingbacks or central midfielders in the summer window, resulting in players such as Amad Diallo and club captain, Bruno Fernandes, being played out of position, and an aging Casemiro being forced to play nearly every game. The lack of depth in essential areas not only limited Amorim’s tactical flexibility but actively undermined his ability to fully implement his preferred style of play. 

Ultimately, the dismissal of Rúben Amorim underscores a familiar pattern at Manchester United. For a club with immense resources and a passionate global fanbase, the cycle of limited patience, board interference, and a lack of coherent vision, whether long-term or short-term, has haunted more than a decade of what was once one of the most iconic football teams in the world. Where United go from here remains to be seen, but whoever takes on a role that has already tarnished the reputations of several managers will need to assert their authority clearly and focus on building trust and communication between themselves and the board.