Manchester United’s latest managerial upheaval has once again brought the club’s deeper structural problems into sharp focus, with increasing voices insisting that any incoming head coach must be handed real authority if the club is serious about landing an elite figure.
In the aftermath of Ruben Amorim’s abrupt dismissal earlier this week, the conversation has shifted beyond potential replacements to a more fundamental question: how much control will the next manager actually have at Old Trafford?
Amorim’s departure followed a chaotic spell that reached its breaking point after a heated post-match press conference in the wake of a 1–1 draw against Leeds United. His remarks laid bare internal friction, particularly involving technical director Jason Wilcox, and ultimately convinced United’s decision-makers that the situation had become untenable.
With Amorim now gone, the club is moving quickly to appoint an interim coach who can stabilise the team until the end of the season, before turning their attention to a permanent appointment in the summer. Names such as Oliver Glasner and Thomas Tuchel have already been mentioned as possible long-term options, yet doubts persist over whether United’s recent instability makes the role attractive to top-tier managers.
That dilemma was dissected on The Rest Is Football podcast, where Gary Lineker raised the issue with Micah Richards. Richards maintained that Manchester United still possess enough stature to lure high-profile coaches, but only if certain conditions are met. Chief among them, he argued, is granting the manager genuine control over football matters.
According to Richards, elite coaches want clarity on whether they are being appointed as leaders with real influence or simply as touchline figures expected to follow directives from above. He stressed that authority over transfers, freedom in tactical decisions, and minimal interference from executives are all crucial factors when top managers weigh up a job offer.
However, Richards also acknowledged the potential pitfalls of giving a manager unchecked power. Allowing one coach to overhaul the squad can create problems if they are later replaced by someone with a different philosophy, leaving the club burdened with mismatched players, bloated wages, and assets that are difficult to move on. This, he suggested, is why many modern clubs rely on sporting directors and executive oversight in recruitment.
The solution, in his view, lies in cooperation rather than confrontation between the manager and the club’s hierarchy. Alan Shearer supported that perspective, pointing to Arsenal, Manchester City and Aston Villa as examples of well-structured clubs where the head coach plays a key role in shaping the squad and the club’s long-term direction. He argued that the success of figures such as Pep Guardiola, Mikel Arteta and Unai Emery is closely tied to the influence they hold over recruitment and planning.
Before any long-term decision is made, United must first settle on a caretaker manager. Discussions have already taken place with former boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and his ex-assistant Michael Carrick, both viewed as familiar and relatively safe choices to guide the team through the remainder of the season.
Lineker, though, raised concerns about some recent strategic calls made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the club’s leadership, warning that prolonged uncertainty could put off certain managerial candidates. As United face yet another pivotal moment, the message from pundits is unmistakable: progress will depend not just on who is appointed, but on whether the club is prepared to trust and empower them.
