Forwards functioning in struggling teams tend to move to bigger clubs, and struggling attackers in big teams tend to be moved on. Do you think any big club would have stayed with Rashford underperforming for this long?
The fact that we massively overpay players is not an excuse to justify Rashford. Antony and Mount being a complete waste of wages doesn't make Rashford's wages any better. That's why we have one of the biggest wage bills in Europe and still have an average squad at best.
Many have claimed that Rashford should be sold then instead of given a new contract. I won't pretend to be one of those, but time has proven them right. The thing is, players earning world-class wages are expected to produce world-class performances. If Rashford was on a 50k-a-week contract, nobody would care, but he's our highest earner, and he's been poor for over 18-20 months now. The standards are set. Imagine what must be going through Amad's mind, knowing he's the best attacker in the club. According to reports, he's on a 30k-a-week contract, compared to Rashford's 300-350k a week. How much do you think Amad is going to ask for?
It's different when you see Haaland, KDB, Rodri, Salah, Saka, etc., on those wages—they've earned them. But having players like Rashford earning that much only hurts us, not only because he doesn't perform but because he lowers the bar for the whole squad. Amorim is trying to raise that bar; Rashford must either improve to justify his place or should be sold.