Jose Mourinho has failed to improve United after the misery of David Moyes and Louis van Gaal

Another week, another special dose of whataboutery. Manchester United’s trip to the seaside on Sunday has hardly soothed Jose Mourinhos’s senses amid a wretched and inexplicable 3-2 defeat in Brighton.

After a pre-season that saw him question Paul Pogba’s focus after he led France to the World Cup, bemoan the lack of new faces brought to the club and generally sound as glum as Salford in the rain, the Special One has aired his thoughts on the happenings at bitter foes Liverpool and Manchester City.

Liverpool’s investment already piqued Mourinho’s interest as he tried and failed to land a central defender during the transfer window last month, but he has elaborated on his earlier comments by claiming they are trying to buy the Premier League title.

This is hardly the book of revelations. "Amazing investment" is the starting point for any success in football these days. Leicester’s run to the Premier League title in 2016 was a moment in time that is as likely to be repeated as Big Ron in the commentary box.

Klopp has changed his stance in his world view of football, a point Mourinho has seized upon, but deflection tactics only work if you can justify your own existence.

Mourinhos’s comments are a bit rich, so to speak, coming from a figure who has stockpiled trophies across the globe funded by millions, starting at Chelsea in the noughties when Roman Abramovich funded his whims beyond anything English football had witnessed before. It landed him jobs at Internazionale, Real Madrid and again at Chelsea where he was further encouraged to buy before he tried.

The landscape is different a decade on. There is no club in the Premier League struggling for finance. Not even Leicester, who can laugh United in the face when they are offered £60m for Harry Maguire, a hardy and dedicated defender whose absurd value sums up the farce football has become. City, funded by their Abu Dhabi billions and fuelled by petrodollars, are the exception to the rule, but at least their splurge has brought satisfaction.

To fail to spend adequately is a form of self-harming in such a ruthless outpost. Coming after the run to the Champions League final, Liverpool’s investment is of no surprise. Nor should it particularly perturb a Manchester United manager who has threw £382.5m at fresh faces since picking up the cudgel two years ago with £80m coming back in sales.

Jurgen Klopp has spent £411.55m, but has taken in £289.65m for a net spend of £121.9m.

If Mourinho’s comments about Liverpool are meant as a sly criticism of his board, they are as difficult to buy as a new centre-half. The argument does not really add up when you consider Mourinho’s messy pursuit of happiness. United's chief executive Ed Woodward has hardly denied Mourinho resource.

United unearthed £70.9m this summer - £53m on Fred, £19m on Diogo Dalot and £1.5m on Lee Grant - and recouped £19.3m for a net spend of £51.6m.

Liverpool's largesse reached to £167.9m for Naby Keita, Xherdan Shaqiri, Fabinho and goalkeeper Alisson for £67m with a net spend of £155.4m after receiving £12.5m.

With his nemesis Pep Guardiola's commitment to flair and finesse an ongoing obvious fly in the ointment, Mourinho has also accused Manchester City of lacking class for producing a fly-on-the movie in which they mention United.

“You killed them (United) while playing football and even in the bad moments you were there, guys," said Guardiola on the documentary after they won at Old Trafford last year

Mourinho had this to say in response.

It was not overly clever by City, but neither is it a shock: there is no class in football. With "honourable exceptions" as one fan candidly pointed out on BBC: "the game is run by spivs, chancers and gangsters, it's played by morons and it's watched by cretins".

At Madrid, Mourinho once prodded Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola’s assistant Tito Vilanova in the eye during an El Clasico match and refused to regret it.

He is a figure whose conduct forced Chelsea to apologise to the club’s former doctor Eva Caneiro and settle out of court after a sad and sorry dismissal case days before he took on the United job.

He once accused the Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger of being a specialist in failure. The list goes on and on.

Mourinho taking the moral high ground on class is about as believable as Jordan joining the House of Windsor.

One suspects what is really eating Mourinho is a different type of class, namely the style and attitude you bring to football in the name of entertainment. Despite the big promises, the Theatre of Dreams is largely the Theatre of Drudge. He has not changed United's style for the better.

Would you rather watch United or City? Or would you rather watch Liverpool? They are easy choices for the neutral.

There are key issues for Mourinho, but none of them involve City or Liverpool. He should get his own house in order rather than making himself the story which traditionally tends to occur in the death throes of his tenures. A brand of football that celebrates the heritage of United’s past under Sir Alex Ferguson would buy him time if not players.

"It is a giant club. It must be for the best managers," he said two years ago.

"I prefer to forget the past three years and focus on the giant club I have in my hands" as he reflected on the efforts of David Moyes and Louis van Gaal in the job.

Moyes was perhaps unfairly sacked before the end of his first season. Van Gaal finished fourth and fifth in the Premier League and won the FA Cup. Mourinho has finished sixth, second and lifted the League Cup and Europa League. The returns have not matched the investment.

If Moyes and Louis van Gaal were declared failures, Mourinho has not been markedly better. Certainly the style has betrayed United's traditions. Width, flair, pace and a refusal to buckle in the face of adversity went out the door when Fergie retired five years ago.

Unless there is a change in his own outlook, Mourinho will be recalled as the latest coach who spent his time at Old Trafford offering gourmet delights, but delivering thin gruel.