(Football news) For a Manchester United fan growing up in the 90’s and experiencing the clubs unrivalled dominance for nearly two decades, the current state of affairs at Old Trafford would have been unimaginable under Sir Alex Ferguson’s reign. Even after the Glazer takeover, Manchester United remained competitive and were widely considered as one of the best teams in Europe, largely due to the brilliance of the man in-charge who managed to bring the trophies home despite less than impressive squads.
However, while nostalgia has its own high, the reality is that Manchester United are a shadow of the club they were a decade ago. Ferguson’s success looms large despite his retirement at the end of the 2012-2013 season and every manager that has joined since is unfairly compared to one of the greatest that has ever been. This sentiment has not just existed for the fans but also the board and it seems like the word ‘stability’ has been used more often than not to justify giving time to undeserving managers because Ferguson took four years to win a trophy at Manchester United.
Unfortunately, football has evolved from the 1980’s and while it is true that since Ferguson’s arrival in 1986, it took four years until the Scottish manager won the FA Cup in 1990, he also had a reputation and a credible CV that afforded him the time required at the job. In addition, Ferguson was not backed nearly as much as a certain Norwegian at the club right now, yet the two very different and incomparable circumstances are put side by side as a reasoning to why patience is required to see the “progress”. It’s important to note that no manager is entitled to time, it’s earned but as it seems at the moment, sentiment and nostalgia have taken precedence over an objective view of the club’s situation.
Manchester United also has an unfair reputation of being a club that believes in giving time to their managers. That couldn’t be further from the truth and those who claim so have short memories, not taking into account life before Ferguson’s tenure. SInce Matt Busby’s first stint at the club, the likes of Wilf McGuiness and Frank O'Farrell have only lasted a year. Tommy Docherty lasted for five years, Dave Sexton for four years and Ron Atkinson for five years, numbers that are no different from any “modern club” today. Yet, Ferguson’s legacy has been so impactful and seeped into the club’s DNA that hiring and firing of managers is considered a failure and against the ethos of the club.
In an era of results, romanticism and nostalgia only have a place when you are successful. It seems that a large chunk of supporters and board members have forgotten that and the very thing that made Manchester United a powerhouse has taken a backseat for social media engagement, app ratings and commercial deals. It’s never been clearer than it is today that the current management simply cannot compete against the likes of Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Thomas Tuchel, but with Solskjaer currently on a contract until 2024, a sacking would be expensive for the club, one that they have absolutely no appetite for.
The logical question would be why was he given a contract extension in the first place, considering that Solskjaer has nothing to show for it except words like “progress” and “process”. It comes down to the so-called legacy of showing faith in the manager, one that Manchester United must change if they hope to compete again.
Were it any other big club, Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester City or Arsenal that have spent close to £441m with nothing to show for it, the manager would be held accountable and sacked, irrespective of the club’s “DNA”. At Manchester United, there is no “accountability” anymore and fans must re-adjust their expectations that glory days won’t come as long as they keep comparing the state of affairs at Old Trafford to those under Ferguson’s reign.
