Michael Carrick appears set to pay the price for Manchester United’s disastrous start to the season, with his dismissal expected this week. Yet removing the manager will do little to address the club’s far deeper problems.
Carrick collected more points than any other Premier League manager between taking over from Ruben Amorim on an interim basis in January and the end of last season.
That form earned him the permanent job, but his reign has unravelled rapidly. United entered the November international break 18th in the Premier League, had been eliminated from the Carabao Cup at the first hurdle and were, at best, underwhelming in the Champions League.
Carrick’s likely sacking represents the latest humiliating episode for Ineos, which assumed control of Manchester United’s football operations in February 2024 after Sir Jim Ratcliffe became a minority owner.
Daily Mail Sport understands that chief executive Omar Berrada and director of football Jason Wilcox still have Ratcliffe’s support, despite fans recently chanting for both men to leave during matches.
Berrada and Wilcox have repeatedly escaped accountability despite a series of failures. Here are nine Ineos mistakes that have dragged Manchester United into an unlikely relegation fight — and cast doubt on whether the club’s hierarchy can be trusted to make the right choice in its next managerial appointment.
Michael Carrick’s expected dismissal is the latest humiliating episode for Ineos, which took control of Manchester United’s football operations in February 2024 after Sir Jim Ratcliffe became a minority owner
Carrick appears set to lose his job over Manchester United’s miserable start to the season, but his removal will not solve the club’s deep-rooted problems
1. The Ten Hag debacle
Erik ten Hag appeared to be on borrowed time from the moment Ineos arrived at Carrington.
In one of his earliest discussions with the new leadership, the Dutchman offered to help devise a plan to overhaul United’s struggling data department. His proposal was rejected.
‘I offered my knowledge and abilities to Ineos to help them to construct, but they were of the opinion that they already knew everything,’ Ten Hag told The Athletic recently. ‘They were convinced of, say, the philosophy, the strategy, the work methods. But they came from petrochemicals, from Formula 1, from cycling. Top football demands something totally different.’
That summer, Ineos were caught off guard by the public support for Ten Hag after United defeated rivals Manchester City in the FA Cup final. Every indication suggested they had been prepared to sack him, leaving the ownership group in an awkward position. Even so, they continued to court alternative managers just days after the Wembley triumph.
Thomas Tuchel, now England’s future manager, met Ratcliffe in Monaco before withdrawing from the process. Gareth Southgate, Mauricio Pochettino, Thomas Frank and Roberto De Zerbi were also considered while Ten Hag remained in limbo, with United attempting to manage the situation without either a sporting director or a chief executive.
Eventually, an Ineos delegation flew to Ibiza and interrupted Ten Hag’s holiday. They agreed to extend his contract by a year, alter his coaching staff and make a series of commitments regarding the summer transfer window.
Ineos were caught off guard by the support for Erik ten Hag, right, after United defeated Manchester City in the FA Cup final, despite apparently preparing to dismiss him
‘They promised me loyalty, they promised me backing, they promised communication, that we get aligned,’ Ten Hag said. ‘We spoke about the issues. But the promises, they didn’t keep.’
Ten Hag claimed Ineos later broke its word by selling Scott McTominay, despite assurances that the midfielder would stay. McTominay joined Napoli for £27.5million that summer, while Ten Hag was sacked just 116 days after his contract extension, following a further £200m spending spree.
By the time United finally dismissed Ten Hag — paying £10.4m in compensation to him and his coaching staff — Ineos had burned through close to a quarter of a billion pounds amid its indecision.
2. The Ashworth embarrassment
Ratcliffe pursued Dan Ashworth relentlessly as he searched for an elite sporting director to lead United’s new football structure. He described the Englishman as ‘clearly one of the top sporting directors in the world’ and ‘a very capable person’.
Ashworth spent five months on gardening leave before United agreed a compensation package worth almost £3m with Newcastle United. Yet he lasted only five months in the North West.
Ratcliffe later blamed Ashworth for the decision to retain Ten Hag, while there was also a belief that Ashworth had not supported the move to appoint Ruben Amorim. His brief United career ended after a shock 3-2 home defeat by Nottingham Forest, when he was escorted through the Old Trafford press room, head bowed, on his way to the meeting where he was dismissed.
Ashworth’s appointment was presented as evidence that Ineos could deliver on its ‘best in class’ promise. His abrupt departure made that claim look deeply hollow.
Dan Ashworth, second right, was portrayed as proof that Ineos could deliver on its ‘best in class’ promise, only to be discarded less than six months later
3. Brailsford’s ‘marginal gains’
Sir Dave Brailsford, one of Ratcliffe’s closest lieutenants, also became a major disappointment. Initially a powerful presence behind the scenes, he placed his ‘marginal gains’ philosophy at the heart of United’s operations while overseeing the redevelopment of the Carrington training ground.
Brailsford pushed for the appointments of Omar Berrada and Dan Ashworth. He was also central to ‘Mission 21’, United’s attempt to win a 21st Premier League title, and ‘Mission 1’, the ambition to secure a first Women’s Super League championship. Both projects formed part of the ‘Project 150’ plan to win titles during the club’s 150th anniversary in 2028.
Sixteen months after joining, Brailsford was removed from day-to-day football operations. Earlier this year, he stepped away from the club entirely by leaving its board.
During his time overseeing football matters, United endured mass redundancies, growing fan hostility towards the ownership, a team that recorded its worst Premier League finish in 15th place and millions spent on players whose market values quickly declined.
4. Ruthless redundancies
The sweeping job cuts that senior Ineos figures repeatedly described as necessary for the club’s financial health devastated morale. Some remaining staff believe they have fundamentally changed Manchester United for the worse.
In July 2024, employees were told that 250 jobs had to be eliminated. Company credit cards were cancelled and staff were asked to contribute to expenses. In February 2025, Ineos announced that another 150 to 200 positions would have to go, while austerity measures — including the removal of free lunches — intensified.
All of this happened while senior executives continued to receive substantial salaries despite what critics regard as gross under-performance.
5. Promoting Wilcox
Jason Wilcox arrived as a technical director working under Ashworth. Before long, he had been elevated to one of the biggest executive roles in the Premier League as Manchester United’s director of football.
Omar Berrada, right, is a close ally and supporter of Jason Wilcox, left, and trusts him implicitly. Ratcliffe also believes Wilcox has the ‘best eyes’ at the club
He joined United after spending almost nine months in the same position at Championship club Southampton. Before that, his experience had largely been built in youth development at Manchester City.
Berrada is a close friend and strong supporter of Wilcox, while Ratcliffe also trusts him and believes he has the ‘best eyes’ at the club. Wilcox was instrumental in appointing Amorim and later clashed with the Portuguese coach, contributing to his eventual dismissal.
A hands-on executive, Wilcox is regularly seen around training sessions and has travelled with the team on numerous occasions.
‘When I listen to Jason speak, I get what he’s saying,’ Ratcliffe told The Times in March 2025. ‘He’s a warm character, he’s got a sense of humour, he knows what he’s talking about.’
Wilcox has been accused of interfering excessively without establishing the playing model Ineos promised to introduce, regardless of who occupied the manager’s office. Lisandro Martinez criticised him in a post-match interview this season, yet Wilcox has remained largely out of sight while the players and Carrick have faced questions over United’s failings.
With a recruitment record that has been inconsistent and United preparing to search for a third permanent manager in less than 12 months, Wilcox has made little discernible positive impact on the first team since replacing Ashworth.
6. The Amorim affair
Still smarting from their mishandling of the Ten Hag situation, Berrada and Wilcox pressed Ruben Amorim to leave Sporting Lisbon in mid-season — a move he had not wanted to make — and bring his philosophy to Old Trafford.
United’s decision-makers were warned that Amorim’s 3-4-2-1 system would take considerable time to impose on a squad accustomed to 4-2-3-1. They ignored those concerns and paid £11m to bring Amorim and his staff to Manchester.
United chiefs were warned that Ruben Amorim’s 3-4-2-1 system would take time to establish, but they still paid £11m to bring him and his staff to Old Trafford
United spent a further £250m on the squad the following summer, but Amorim’s reputation suffered another blow after a League Cup upset at Grimsby Town
Hiring Amorim was not, in itself, a mistake. He was a talented young manager with a clear footballing philosophy — something Ineos has failed to demonstrate during its two-and-a-half years in charge. However, he had previously been overlooked by West Ham and Liverpool.
One well-placed source told Daily Mail Sport that Liverpool had compiled a dossier outlining why Amorim might struggle at Anfield, largely because of the number of players required to make his system work.
Amorim was ‘rewarded’ with only two January 2025 signings: Patrick Dorgu and Ayden Heaven. The following summer brought a clash over recruitment priorities. Senne Lammens arrived despite Amorim wanting an experienced goalkeeper to replace the struggling Andre Onana.
Amorim led United to their lowest Premier League finish and lost the Europa League final in Bilbao to Ange Postecoglou’s Tottenham Hotspur. Although a further £250m was invested in the squad and the attack was rebuilt, his position deteriorated again after Grimsby Town pulled off a League Cup shock.
Relations between Amorim and Wilcox deteriorated sharply. The pair clashed in a meeting before the trip to Leeds United, which became Amorim’s final game. He launched an angry tirade suggesting that Wilcox, director of recruitment Christopher Vivell and others were overstepping their authority and needed to allow him to be the club’s ‘manager’.
After coming under pressure to change his formation and style of play, Amorim was sacked the morning after the draw at Leeds.
7. Fitness failures
Instead of creating a clear plan to realise Amorim’s vision, Ineos sought an unconventional solution by bringing in Harry Marra, a respected track-and-field coach, as a consultant.
Marra was asked to assess players’ running mechanics, acceleration and deceleration. Mason Mount was among those identified, with Marra attempting to alter the 36-cap England midfielder’s running gait.
Ratcliffe gave staff in the Carrington medical department advice on stretching techniques he had learned while running the London Marathon
Add to that the episode in which Ratcliffe offered Carrington’s physiotherapy staff advice on stretching techniques learned while running the London Marathon, and it created the impression of an ownership that did not understand the difference between elite football and track, field or cycling.
United’s performances only deteriorated further.
8. Prioritising a new stadium over a new left-back
Speaking to reporters in Dublin this summer, shortly after receiving the United job on a permanent basis, Carrick used the word ‘push’ almost a dozen times when discussing the club’s remaining transfer work.
Once again, however, Ineos decided it knew best. It stuck to a plan of addressing one area of the squad each summer: the attack in 2025, midfield in 2026 and the defence the following year.
That meant United knowingly gambled on Luke Shaw completing another season without serious injury while making no defensive additions. It did not take long for that decision to backfire.
Instead, the club spent £60m on land as it pressed ahead with plans for a lavish new 100,000-seat ‘Wembley of the North’ stadium — a project many supporters doubt will ever be completed.
Rather than reinforce United’s defence, club chiefs spent £60m on a strip of land to advance plans for a 100,000-seat ‘Wembley of the North’
Carrick’s treatment throughout the saga has been cruel and highlights why managers may think twice before accepting a job under Ineos
9. Hanging Carrick out to dry
An emergency meeting after last month’s 3-0 defeat by Bournemouth appeared certain to end Carrick’s tenure. Instead, Berrada, Wilcox, Ratcliffe and the Glazer family stunned the football world by taking no action. Carrick was left to carry on without any meaningful public backing.
A defeat at Chelsea was followed by frantic comebacks from 2-0 down against Roma and Aston Villa. Then, on Monday, it emerged that Berrada and Wilcox had recommended to the board that Carrick be dismissed. Yet no immediate decision was made, and Carrick spent seven hours at Carrington on Tuesday conducting training and watching an Under-17 match.
We are told once again that Carrick’s future will finally be decided at a meeting in Monaco on Wednesday. Until he learns that he has officially been sacked, however, he must continue as normal.
The manner in which Carrick has been treated throughout this saga has been cruel. It also explains why managers should — and likely will — think carefully before accepting a position under Ineos.