In a move that stunned very few, Manchester United have sacked Rúben Amorim just 14 months after hailing him as the visionary to restore Old Trafford’s glory.
Performances were uninspiring beyond brief flashes of promise and suggested he had been out of his depth for months. Results were consistently poor.
As a result, Amorim’s 31.9%% league win rate is the worst of any permanent Manchester United manager of the Premier League era, with a meagre 1.23 points per game; level with Alan Pardew, Chris Coleman and Bruno Lage.
Even without European distractions, United did not look fresh or well-prepared. Nor did Amorim appear to improve players in the way elite coaches like Emery, Glasner, Guardiola or Arteta do.
Let’s be clear: 15 wins in 47 league games is sackable at any club. But the final straw may not have been results alone.
Where the line was drawn
It wasn’t the Europa League final defeat to Spurs. Nor the shabby home record. Not even humiliating losses to sides like Grimsby Town.
Nor was it the falling out with certain players, or his stubborn adherence to unyielding methods.
It appears the line was crossed when Amorim publicly criticised the board.
Once again, United have come full circle since Sir Alex Ferguson left the helm. Fans deserve clarity and accountability. At the very least, figures like Wilcox or Omar Berrada owe supporters a public explanation, even if only to calm the situation. It’s about being United.
A flawed appointment, poorly backed
When you appoint a 39-year-old manager with a 71% win rate at Sporting over four years – someone untested in England – patience and commitment are non-negotiable. That means backing his vision and giving him players of his choosing.
That never happened.
This is also a manager who reportedly wanted to quit Sporting just weeks into his tenure when results turned against him. Volatile, yes – but that risk was known.
To Amorim’s credit, he attempted to trade short-term comfort for long-term order: suppressing player and agent power, offloading underperforming assets, and imposing structure. That is never easy. But ultimately, this is still a football club judged on results.
INEOS and a pattern of contradiction
INEOS have barely put a foot right since taking control.
Their first major decision concerned Erik ten Hag. Despite winning the FA Cup, he should have been dismissed after the 2023–24 season. Instead, they kept a manager they did not trust, canvassed Europe for replacements, triggered a one-year contract extension, handed him £200m, reshaped the backroom staff – and sacked him three months later anyway.
A year on, another £200m was spent, this time on “Premier League-proven” attackers to give Amorim an immediate boost. Six months later, he too is gone.
Forcing Amorim in mid-season, backing him with only Dorgu in January, then sacking him while ten players are injured and the team sits fifth is incoherence, not strategy.
A club that won’t commit
The hierarchy suffers from an inability to take responsibility or see a project through.
Axing a sporting director because his methods didn’t align with internal preferences was another misstep. Dan Ashworth explicitly warned about hiring a coach tied to a rigid system unsuited to the squad and the cost of building a 3-4-3. They ignored him.
INEOS claimed full belief in Amorim’s philosophy, then refused to back it properly and demanded tactical compromises – the very rigidity that attracted them in the first place.
In his final press conference, Amorim said his system required time and money. He got neither. Reports suggest he was instructed to adapt or face the sack, which may explain his comments about being hired as a “manager” rather than a coach.
History repeating itself
Both Amorim and Ten Hag warned United would need a different style from their previous clubs. Critics like Neville echoed that sentiment, until results dipped, when “rigidity” became arrogance.
Rangnick met boardroom hostility for calling for open-heart surgery. Ole was labelled tactically naive precisely because he was adaptable.
The club never seems to know what it wants, only what it dislikes after the fact.
So What now?
United remain on course for Europe but sit just four points above 14th. Players must shoulder responsibility, but the club cannot escape blame.
Who is realistically available and better? Limp to the summer and hope? Risk missing Europe entirely? What if no elite coach wants to inherit another half-built structure?
Logic suggests the next appointment will favour fast wingers; players sold last summer to back Amorim. His exit may also end Bruno’s deeper role, likely for the best.
Youth decisions, loanees, expiring contracts; all will be reset again. That requires resources, alignment, and above all, time.
same cycle, new scapegoat?
This is a mess from top to bottom.
Amorim’s form was sackable, but INEOS created the conditions for failure and will again shift blame, as they did with Ten Hag.
Darren Fletcher takes charge against Burnley, reportedly until season’s end.
So United now seek a manager with tactical rigidity that only works when it suits the “United DNA,” instant results, perfect transfers, boardroom harmony, and infinite patience – all inside a club addicted to chaos.
Whoever that is, I worry for the next manager.
