Manchester United’s results since the start of 2024-25 have put decisions above the dugout in the spotlight. They’ve collected fewer Premier League points than Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford, while Newcastle also sit ahead of them over the same period. A points table can’t explain every weakness in a club’s performance, but it does show the gap between United and teams that have made more convincing progress.
That record has intensified scrutiny of Jason Wilcox, who joined United as technical director in April 2024 and became director of football the following summer. The table can’t assign responsibility for results to one executive, especially across seasons shaped by different managers and squads. It does, though, offer a blunt measure of how far United have fallen behind clubs praised for their approaches.
Here’s the thing: the figures matter because they make a broad complaint tangible. Fans can argue about tactics, recruitment or ownership, but points accumulated over a sustained run of league matches give those arguments a common reference point. They don’t tell the whole story. They do make it harder to dismiss the sense that United’s problems reach beyond a bad afternoon or one manager’s decisions.
Leadership decisions under scrutiny
Michael Carrick appeared at risk after United’s 3-0 defeat to Bournemouth, yet supporters chanted his name after the match. That response suggested many fans weren’t treating the head coach as the sole author of the team’s problems. They see him as a symptom of deeper issues and want the club’s senior leadership to explain its direction, particularly after a period of repeated change.
Lisandro Martinez added to that pressure after the Champions League defeat to Atletico Madrid earlier this month. “I expect more from our technical director,” the defender said of Wilcox. It was a pointed public comment from a player, and it brought the executive role into the discussion in unusually direct terms. The remark doesn’t establish who’s responsible for the team’s results, but it shows that frustration has reached beyond the stands.
Wilcox had only been in post for a few months when the 2024-25 campaign began, limiting how much influence he could have had on results immediately. But the summer decisions still formed part of the club’s broader strategy. That included keeping Erik ten Hag after the FA Cup win rather than appointing a new manager, a choice that placed continuity ahead of a reset at the start of the campaign.
United have since moved on from Ten Hag, appointed and dismissed Ruben Amorim, and turned to Carrick, first as caretaker and then as head coach. Each change brings a new voice and a new set of expectations; it can also make it harder to judge whether the club is following a consistent plan. The churn has left United facing a more fundamental question: have successive choices addressed the underlying problems, or have they mainly changed who’s expected to solve them?
Recruitment adds to the concern
United’s transfer work has also drawn criticism. Manuel Ugarte and Joshua Zirkzee have struggled to make the desired impact since arriving in 2024, adding to doubts about whether recruitment has matched the team’s needs. A signing can take time to settle, and a player’s performance is shaped by more than the decision to bring him in. Even so, when arrivals don’t quickly strengthen the side, scrutiny naturally shifts to the process behind them.
In the two summer windows that followed, the club appeared to concentrate its attention on one position at a time, leaving other needs unresolved. That kind of prioritisation can make sense when resources and squad places are limited, but it raises questions if weaknesses elsewhere remain visible. The issue is less about whether every position can be addressed at once than whether the club can explain how its choices fit together.
That context makes the points comparison harder to dismiss. Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford have all outperformed United across the period, while Newcastle’s higher tally spans two markedly different seasons. The figures don’t explain every cause, and points alone can’t show how recruitment, coaching or squad depth contributed. They do underline how consistently United have lagged behind clubs with clearer recent progress. This is more significant than it looks: the comparison challenges the idea that United’s status or resources automatically translate into better results.
What the table can—and can’t—tell us
The table below covers Premier League matches from the start of the first full season after Wilcox arrived at Old Trafford. That starting point gives readers a defined period for comparing the clubs, but it shouldn’t be treated as proof that one executive caused the results within it. United changed managers during the stretch, and each club’s points total reflects a mix of decisions and performances that a single table can’t separate.
If you’re working in this space, the useful question isn’t simply who finished above whom. It’s whether a club’s leadership can connect its appointments, transfers and expectations into a plan that holds up over time. United’s comparison with Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and Newcastle puts that question in focus. And this is the part most people overlook: a table can identify a performance gap, but the people running a club still have to explain how they intend to close it.
The table uses the Premier League Tables resource from Football365, which allows users to build custom comparisons.
READ MORE: How Ferguson saved himself from the brink of the sack at Man Utd
TRY A QUIZ: Can you name every player Michael Carrick has used as Man Utd manager?
The post The shocking Premier League table since Jason Wilcox got to work at Man Utd appeared first on Planet Football.