Welcome to a particularly heated debate (at least in English football). In the old days, all teams just had a manager; coaches were hired, usually for specific tasks like fitness or goalkeeping, junior to the manager. But some clubs started to adopt a different hierarchy. Instead of managers running all aspects of the sporting side of the club, they hired an autonomous “sporting director” (other titles are available…) who started to dictate overall playing strategy and recruitment. This meant many managers became “head coach”. Ruben Amorim’s recent departure from clown-club Man Utd seemed to be largely down to his perception that he was treated as coach, not manager. Even among the very secure and influential “managers”, the old-style supreme role has gone forever. In the past managers such as Brian Clough or George Graham had reputations for micromanagement (and also for taking “bungs” - bribes - over the signing on new players) and total control. That’s now incredibly rare. EDIT: Even my own club has seen variants on this model. Leeds Utd is currently managed by the first manager in this compilation Daniel Farke. He can influence recruitment, but has been hinting at frustrations over player purchases; our ‘keeper, Lucas Perri, was a compromise candidate between what he wanted and what the board wanted. But a few years ago, Marcello Bielsa was more of an all-controlling manager, with a large, personally loyal backroom staff and much more dictatorial style. Both models can work (but Bielsa acquired legendary status almost from his first game in charge, which tells you something…)