
Originally Posted by
rhapsomatrics
An apostrophe has two major functions each of which has its own peculiarity. When a pronoun takes an apostrophe, it betokens [S]abbreviation[/S] a contraction, but when a noun takes it, possession is depicted...eg..the book is Mike's/My father's etc(possession)... He's home([S]abbreviation[/S] contraction--He is...)
"Americas" is a noun,a proper one for that matter,therefore it can take an apostrophe to show ownership. However, there is a little problem here which has to do with whether the Americas can be said to own the manager.
I would have wanted to say "American manager" but for the fact that a non-American can become the Manager [S]in[/S]of the Americas [S]and even of America[/S].
To this end, if I may suggest, I think [S]it'll[/S]it'd be safer to say something like this: "the Manager of The Americas", because he uses his managerial expertise to the advantage of the Americas. Therefore, as a matter of peroration, I wish to conclude that since [S]a[/S] nations cannot be said to own or possess [S]her[/S]their inhabitants, it may be loose(?) to have expressions like "America's manager"
From my own personal experience, may I suggest the above changes?
************************************************** ******
WELCOME Tracy! 
Personally, if I had seen the title "The Americas Manager" (without the apostrophe) it wouldn't have bothered me at all. However, "The America's Manager" implies only one of the American continents
(so this one is not an option). America is singular, Americas is the plural form. To use an apostrophe to show possession for the plural form that ends in "s" you merely put it after the final "s". The point of possession is sticky here, but when I look at "The Americas' Manager" I think of "The Manager of The Americas" (so this one works). "The Manager of The Americas" sounds the best, even though it is longer, and it evokes less confusion, in my opinion. 
Let's wait to see what the other grammarians say. . .
Smiles!
SMS
Bookmarks