千變萬化的飛俠

2026年1月13日星期二

Though Amorim left, but his sideline meltdowns remain Manchester United’s invisible asset

Both Manchester United’s Amorim and Chelsea’s Maresca were swiftly dismissed. One of the reasons for Maresca’s departure was his desire for greater authority. Amorim, on the other hand, made it clear from the start that he came to United as a “manager” rather than just a “head coach.” In the end, both were quickly sacked.

Maresca did not demand severance compensation; he already had a new destination lined up after changing agents and maneuvering behind the scenes to leave voluntarily. His relationship with the club remained relatively good, though recent poor results were undeniable. Still, considering last year’s double trophy win, his record was not entirely disappointing.

Amorim’s downfall was more about personality and ability. In the less competitive Portuguese league he could dominate, but in England he was out of his depth. His results were disastrous, repeatedly breaking negative records. He was stubborn, unwilling to adjust formations, incapable of motivating players, and offered little in terms of tactical innovation or team-building. Without results to back him up, his position was untenable. Although United’s form had recently improved, beyond pressing the club for more support, Amorim showed little progress in constructing the squad. His mental breakdowns during matches left a damaging impression and tarnished United’s image.

The distinction between “manager” and “head coach” reflects a shift in leadership styles in the Premier League. Traditionally in England, the manager controlled everything—tactics, training, style, player recruitment, youth development, transfers. A head coach, by contrast, only leads the team on the pitch, while the club hierarchy controls all management responsibilities. Before foreign investment entered the league, the manager model dominated. But since Chelsea’s Russian ownership, the head coach model has become popular. With foreign capital now deeply entrenched, the traditional English style has faded. Coaches at United and Chelsea who ask for more power inevitably get sacked, because investors’ authority cannot be challenged.

No matter how capable a coach is or how good his results, once conflict with the club arises, dismissal is inevitable. Even with trophies, if club objectives aren’t met, the coach will be gone. In modern football, money is the decisive factor. Without financial backing, teams cannot function. Football is a human sport—without top players, tactics and talent mean little. The most important factor is the investors’ financial strength. Guardiola’s success at Manchester City would not exist without Middle Eastern backing and massive yearly spending. Money buys players, hires coaches, and provides time; success follows naturally.

If clubs operated entirely according to coaches’ wishes, the glory would belong to the coach, while the risk would fall on the investors. If results were poor despite meeting the coach’s demands, it would mean investment failure. With the Premier League tied to huge commercial interests—and even foreign investors using clubs for soft power—no coach can be given unlimited authority. The head coach’s role is limited to matches, sometimes not even deciding the lineup. Coaches are employees; investors are the true bosses. Coaches must obey.

The traditional English style of football management is long gone. In the past, it was about direct play, physicality, collisions, and sheer willpower. Coaches dominated matches, and victories relied on star players. Today, football emphasizes collective tactics, data-driven squad selection, and systemic play. Coaches’ personal charisma matters less. With financial backing, even ordinary coaches can succeed; without it, failure is certain. Football is now capital-driven.

Amorim insisted he came to United as a manager, expecting unlimited money, authority, time, and support. This was essentially a pretext for leaving—if sacked, he would receive compensation, and the pressure would be lifted. His failure at United does not harm his career; in fact, it raised his profile. His breakdowns, poor results, and criticism from fans, legends, and media ironically boosted his visibility. In today’s “attention economy,” visibility translates into value. Under his leadership, United nearly flirted with relegation. The club gave him considerable support, but without unlimited investment, success was impossible. United’s local investors simply lacked the resources to meet his demands.

Given his uncertain future, leaving early—taking inspiration from Maresca—may have been the best option. His earlier claim that he could resign without compensation now looks laughable. Such a coach’s downfall is not only about ability but also character. The real issue lies in United’s poor judgment in hiring managers over the years—not just inadequate, but outright blind.

曼聯投資人：阿摩連你只管賣慘，我來決定你何時走人

曼聯阿摩連和車路士馬列斯卡相繼被炒，馬列斯卡離職的原因之一是想獲得更大權力，阿莫林開宗明義他來曼聯是當經理而非主教練，最後兩人迅速被炒。馬列斯卡沒有要求離職賠償，他已有下家更換經紀人後，通過幕後操作主動求去。他與球會的關係尚可，帶隊最近成績欠佳也是事實，但怎麽説去年2冠已經交代得過去。

阿摩連完全是性格和能力問題，他在競爭不激烈的葡超還能呼風喚雨，但在英格蘭水土不服，帶隊成績慘不忍睹屢創敗績，而且固執己見連轉變陣容都做不到，更不會籠絡球員提升士氣，在戰術調整和球隊風格上也乏善足陳，關鍵沒有成績做保證。雖然，近期曼聯戰績有所回升，但除了向球會施壓需要更多支援外，並沒有看到他球隊建設上有何建樹。反而是臨場指揮時表現出來的精神崩潰狀態，令人印象深刻也有損曼聯的形象。

所謂經理和主教練的區別也是英超新舊時代球會領導風格的轉變，無論是戰術，技術，風格，球員，青訓，引援等，牽涉到球隊各方面發展，都由教練掌控的就是所謂經理，這是英格蘭傳統的球會運作模式。所謂主教練只負責帶隊比賽，球會管理方面的所有職責都由球會掌控。英超在沒有引入外資前是經理負責制，但自從車路士引入俄國資本後，主教練負責制開始流行，現在隨著外資的不斷深入，傳統的英格蘭管理風格已經轉變。教練包括曼聯和車路士提出希望擁有更大權力，最後的下場必然是立刻被炒，因爲球會投資人的權力不可挑戰。

教練個人能力再強成績再好，只要涉及與球會的衝突必然被炒，即便是有成績保障，但達不到球會目標也會走人。兩者之間其實並沒有矛盾，現代足球最重要的是金錢保障，沒有資金球隊無法運作，足球畢竟是人的運動，沒有優秀的球員一切無從談起，所以最重要的不是教練高明的戰術，球星的天才發揮，而是投資者的金錢能力和投資實力。曼城哥迪奧拉沒有中東財團的支持，每年的巨額投入下他的成功無從談起。有錢才能買好球員，請好教練，給予足夠時間，球隊出成績是自然的事情。

如果按照教練的意願操作球隊，成績是前臺教練的，壓力是幕後球會的，如此等於是投資人被控制，如果滿足教練需求後成績不佳等於投資失敗，況且現在英超還牽涉到背後龐大的商業利益，甚至外國財團背後還有大外宣的責任，因此不可能給給予教練無限權力。主教練的職責只負責球場和比賽，甚至對上場球員都未必有決定權。教練是打工的必須聽任擺佈，投資人是真正的老闆，想讓教練做什麽必須照做。

傳統英格蘭管理足球風格早就一去不復返了，當年高舉高打直衝直撞，拼體力，拼衝撞，拼意志的年代，打法單一戰術層面要求低，教練主導比賽，贏球靠球星發揮。現在足球風格趨向整體打法，戰術優先球員只是棋子，排兵佈陣和挑選球員靠大數據，教練的個人魅力作用下降。只要獲得球會資金支持不斷大力投入，普通教練也能取得成績，相反則必然失敗，現在足球是資本主導的時代。

阿莫林向球會提出自己是來當經理的，應該得到無限資金，權力，時間和支持，這是他主動求去下故意製造的藉口。如果球會炒人他可以獲得賠償金，而且壓力也就釋放了，況且他在曼聯的失敗不影響前途，反而大幅提高了知名度，他的精神崩潰形象，成績差劣下遭到來自球迷，名宿，媒體等各種謾駡，實際上反而提高了他的流量，現在是流量時代，有流量就能變現。曼聯在他帶領下曾經接近降班的邊緣，球會對他的支持也算十分到位，如果無限加大投入曼聯必有成績，但紅魔鬼所屬的本土財團資金有限，根本不可能給予阿摩連無限權力，並且在成績沒有保證的前提下。

對他在未來不可期的情況下，受到馬列斯卡啓發，早些離開可能對各方面都是最佳選擇！之前他所謂可以主動離職不要賠償，從現在看簡直就是個笑話，這種人品的教練不僅是能力的問題。最應該反省的是曼聯在挑選教練上的眼光，多年來不是欠佳，而是簡直瞎了眼！