Manchester United could offer Julian Nagelsmann one of football’s biggest jobs, but former Bayern Munich chief executive Oliver Kahn sees a serious career risk in the move. His warning comes as Michael Carrick faces mounting pressure and the club weighs potential successors. The vacancy, if it opens, would bring more than a change on the touchline: it would test whether United can give a new coach the authority and stability the job demands.
Carrick’s position is under pressure
United’s poor start to the season, described as its worst in 40 years, has sharpened scrutiny of Carrick. A 4-1 defeat to Como added to the strain, though the 45-year-old is still expected to lead the team against Bournemouth on Sunday. The club is reluctant to make a third coaching change in three seasons, but the match looks pivotal. That reluctance is understandable: frequent changes can leave players and staff adjusting to shifting priorities, while keeping a coach under pressure risks prolonging a period of poor results. Either way, the next decision will carry a cost.
Questions have also surfaced inside the club. Lisandro Martinez criticised the hierarchy last week, and captain Bruno Fernandes publicly challenged Carrick’s tactical judgment after the Como loss. The dressing room has been described as “out of control.” Carrick said on Friday: “We have kind of lost our way, but I am convinced we'll get it back.” His admission acknowledges the scale of the problem, but it doesn’t answer the harder question: can he restore confidence quickly enough to persuade players and decision-makers that the current course can work?
A public challenge from a captain matters because it makes a private disagreement harder to contain. It doesn’t, by itself, establish that the squad has turned against its coach. But when criticism of the hierarchy and doubts about tactics arrive together, the club faces a broader test of trust. A win against Bournemouth might ease the immediate pressure; it wouldn’t settle whether the team’s problems are rooted in coaching, structure, or both.
Nagelsmann has other options—and conditions
Eddie Howe is viewed as a leading candidate to replace Carrick, though reports say he may need considerable persuasion to return to management so soon after leaving Newcastle. Nagelsmann is another prominent name, and a possible return to RB Leipzig could appeal to him: he is reported to regret leaving after two years for Bayern and to feel he has unfinished business in Saxony. Those alternatives matter. United’s size could attract a coach, but it doesn’t mean the club can assume its preferred candidate will accept the job.
The Premier League also interests Nagelsmann, and United’s stature could make the vacancy hard to dismiss. But reports say he would want clarity about the club’s leadership structure. He previously turned down Chelsea and Tottenham over concerns about their hierarchies, and it remains unclear whether United’s current setup would satisfy him. That condition goes to the heart of the role. A coach can be held responsible for results while having limited say over recruitment or long-term planning; if responsibilities are unclear, disagreements can become part of the job rather than an exception.
For Nagelsmann, the appeal may be the chance to work in the Premier League at one of its most prominent clubs. The risk is that the scale of the opportunity could obscure the practical question of how much control comes with it. If you're working in this space, that distinction is familiar: a prestigious appointment can still leave a coach exposed when expectations exceed the authority or time available to meet them.
Director Jason Wilcox is reportedly more supportive of Howe. Christopher Vivell, United’s recruitment chief and a former Red Bull executive, is a strong Nagelsmann advocate and previously helped drive Chelsea’s pursuit of the German coach. That split suggests any appointment would involve questions about who would shape the club’s football decisions. The disagreement may also signal a wider challenge: a new manager needs more than support on appointment day. The people responsible for recruitment and the people responsible for the team’s results need a shared account of what the club is trying to build.
Kahn urges caution
Sky Germany reporter Florian Plettenberg said Thursday that Nagelsmann could find United difficult to turn down because he “would have nothing to lose” and “things can only get better” for the struggling club. Kahn, who helped bring Nagelsmann to Bayern, sees the calculation differently. The “nothing to lose” argument treats United’s poor form as a kind of safety net. It may instead raise the stakes: a coach would inherit a club under intense scrutiny, with expectations shaped by its history and current difficulties.
“From his point of view, it's not an easy situation. He isn't someone with a great deal of experience, particularly when it comes to foreign teams,” Kahn said. He pointed to United’s lack of managerial continuity and said Nagelsmann should consider whether this is the right next step. Moving to a new league adds another adjustment, and a coach’s past success at one club can’t guarantee that the same methods will work in a different environment.
“Or do I immediately associate it with an enormous risk like Manchester United, where essentially every manager in recent years has failed sooner or later? You should look very carefully at where you're going.”
Kahn’s warning is blunt, but it isn’t simply an argument against taking a demanding job. It’s a reminder that the conditions around a coach can shape how much of their ability a club gets to see. This is more significant than it looks: if United wants a leading coach to change its fortunes, it must also make the role workable. A famous name alone won’t resolve questions about authority, recruitment, or continuity.
Kahn believes Nagelsmann’s strengths are clearest at clubs where he can build and develop a team, as he did at Hoffenheim and Leipzig. His spells with Bayern and Germany brought setbacks, though there is now broad acceptance in Munich that Bayern sacked him prematurely in 2023. Those experiences give Kahn’s assessment some context, but they don’t dictate what Nagelsmann should do next. A coach’s record is shaped by the circumstances of each job, and the same move can look like a fresh start to one person and an avoidable gamble to another.
“Bayern Munich and the national team were already big blows for him,” Kahn said. “You have to think carefully: Where do my strengths lie? Which club can I really help?” He added that only Nagelsmann can decide whether United is the right place to apply those strengths. The choice may turn less on the club’s profile than on whether its structure gives him room to do the work he believes he does best. A decision made on reputation alone could miss that point. The structure behind the appointment.
What the decision could signal
United’s choice of manager would also tell staff and players how the club intends to make football decisions. If the people backing a candidate can’t agree on the coach’s role, that uncertainty could follow the appointment into everyday work. The details of any arrangement aren’t established here, but the reported difference between Wilcox and Vivell makes the question difficult to ignore.
That said, Carrick’s immediate position and Nagelsmann’s longer-term fit are separate questions. The pressure around the Bournemouth match may force a short-term decision, while evaluating a successor requires a clearer view of what the club expects that person to change. A rushed appointment could produce a new face without resolving the conditions that have made the job unstable.
For Nagelsmann, United offers scale and a Premier League opportunity, alongside the risks Kahn describes. For United, the test is whether it can offer a coherent role to a coach it wants to attract. The club’s next move will be judged by results, of course. But the terms of the job may help determine whether those results can last.