Manchester United’s lavish spending this summer was hardly befitting of a team that finished 15th last season. So in the unforgiving age of PSR, have Ineos gambled on a revival on the pitch in 2025-26?
Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) were the defining feature of the transfer window, which reached its crescendo at 7.00pm on Monday with almost £3.5bn spent by Premier League clubs.
£215.2m of that outlay belonged to Manchester United, whose late flurry of sales saw them end the window with a net spend of £125.4m, beaten only by Arsenal and Liverpool.
Just a few months ago, United fans were stricken with anxieties about PSR. The club has lost almost £350m since it last turned a financial profit. So, how did we get here?
Chart depicting Manchester United's profit and loss figures over the years, with United in Focus logo
Manchester United profit and loss figures Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
A pitiful season in the league and failure to reach the Champions League via the Europa League wormhole had some supporters fearing that – despite revenues that are the envy of almost any club in Europe – United were destined for the same fate as Nottingham Forest and Everton, who to date are the only clubs to have been penalised for breaching domestic PSR. Leicester City, incidentally, may be next.
The feeling of unease wasn’t helped by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, whose doomsday rhetoric in a whirlwind of interviews in March hardly gave the impression that a blockbuster summer was in the post.
But the revelation that United’s PSR position is in fact assessed based on the finances of a different company in their corporate structure – Red Football Limited – than was initially presumed has been a game-changer, effectively giving United over £100m in extra headroom up until the end of 2024-25.
However, 2025-26 is a new season and a new PSR assessment window…
A closeup shot of the Manchester United badge on the club's home shirt
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
More United News
So United in Focus has spoken exclusively to Jamie Bajwa, former equity research analyst for Goldman Sachs and chief financial officer at Velocity Black, for a PSR temperature check.
In this piece, UIF explains the basics of PSR before Bajwa breaks down the following for us:
United’s ‘Project 90’
Player trading’s importance for PSR and day-to-day business
The club’s cash reserves and credit facilities
United’s readiness to comply with UEFA rules
Ineos’ philosophy when it comes to PSR
PSR, UEFA’s rules and what might come next
Under Premier League PSR, clubs are allowed to lose up to £105m over a rolling three-year period, as long as at least £90m is secured either through owner funding or another appropriate source.
There are various add-backs which improve a club’s PSR position. Any money United spend on infrastructure in the construction phase, for example, is deducted from their final calculation. Investment in the women’s team, community and charity initiatives, and academy expenditure are exempt too.
United’s PSR position is a little easier to intuit than most of their rivals’ because, unlike the Premier League’s other 19 teams, they file quarterly financial results by dint of being a publicly listed company.
Manchester United Executives Ring Opening Bell At New York Stock Exchange
Photo Ben Hider/Getty Images via NYSE Euronext
That said, their PSR calculation is not broken down granularly in the financial statements and will not be assessed by the Premier League itself until December this year, so any analysis leans on deduction.
The Premier League trialled two new financial rules on a non-binding basis last season and will continue to do so throughout 2025-26: a squad cost ratio and top-to-bottom anchoring.
Under the anchoring system, which would operate within PSR, the proposal is for clubs’ spending to be tied to a multiple of what the Premier League’s bottom-placed club earns in TV revenue.
In 2024-25, Southampton are projected to have earned about £110m, so a 5x multiple would allow clubs to spend a maximum of £550m on player and manager wages, transfer fee amortisation and agents’ fees. The PFA, however, is reportedly readying its lawyers to block this proposal, which they argue would act as a de-facto salary cap.
The squad cost ratio meanwhile is loosely based on a similar system that UEFA has been phasing in for several years. Because United are not in Europe this season, UEFA’s rules aren’t an immediate concern, but the club will nonetheless be tracking their spending with the hope of getting back into continental competition from 2026-27.
Now in full force, the Squad Cost Ratio rule limits clubs’ spending on player and manager wages, transfer fee amortisation and agents’ fees to 70 per cent of revenue plus a three-year average of profit on player sales.
Chart showing Manchester United's squad cost vs revenue for United in Focus
Manchester United squad cost vs revenue Credit: Adam Williams/United In Focus/GRV Media
What’s more, this is a calendar-year test, which means United will need to demonstrate compliance for 2025, despite their absence from Europe this season.
The Premier League are considering imposing a cap of around 85 per cent on United and their peers.
Alongside that, United will be expected to comply with UEFA’s Football Earnings test if they get back into Europe, which is a similar system to Premier League PSR but with a three-year loss limit of around £75m, as opposed to £105m.
How ‘Project 90’ could fortify Manchester United’s finances
The Athletic’s Laurie Whitwell this week reported that senior officials have set out a plan to enhance United’s balance sheet by £90m annually through player trading, cost optimisation and more lucrative commercial deals.
“That will leave them in a much stronger position financially,” says Bajwa, who also goes by the alias Sub-Prime Goals on X and Substack, speaking about the plan United have dubbed ‘Project 90’.
Inside Manchester United’s transfer window:
🔺 Debate over No 6 v No 9
🔺 £80m income towards “Project 90”
🔺 Internal talks on Welbeck offer
🔺 Hojlund’s heartbreak
🔺 Different styles Ratcliffe/Glazers
🔺 Onana injury shaped GK pursuit
More ⬇️ #MUFChttps://t.co/uiHnbinvRH
— Laurie Whitwell (@lauriewhitwell) September 2, 2025
View Tweet
“One way to think about this in financial terms is a ‘current ratio’, which measures how easily the club can cover near-term liabilities with assets that are readily convertible to cash.
“At the moment, their current ratio is at a multi-decade low. Over the last couple of seasons, I have consistently highlighted United’s low cash reserves and how a ‘silver bullet’ in player sales could accelerate a return to financial health.
“Having a financial target like Project 90 is absolutely a priority when you think of United as a business. Assuming their transfer strategy and on-pitch performance work, a £90m-a-year improvement in the balance sheet doesn’t seem particularly challenging in my view.”
United are on a long-term journey with player trading model
This summer was always going to be as much about exits as it was shiny new signings.
Alejandro Garnacho – a ‘pure profit’ sale in terms of PSR – joined Antony in leaving the club late in the window, with those sales generating around £59m in total.
Rasmus Hojlund meanwhile signed for Napoli on loan, following fellow big earners Marcus Rashford and Jadon Sancho‘s similar moves to Barcelona and Aston Villa respectively earlier in the window.
“A more consistent player trading emphasis will definitely help,” Bajwa tells UIF.
“At the moment, they are averaging about £30-35m annually in player trading profits.”
Player trading profits are calculated based on a player’s sale price minus their remaining amortised book value, not the headline figures we see in the press.
Chart showing Manchester United's player sale profits over the years, with United in Focus logo
Manchester United player sale profits chart Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
“You have to be pragmatic,” Bajwa continues. “Will United be able to match Chelsea in terms of selling players for huge sums in the near term?
“Probably not, because they currently have an underperforming squad whose asset values are declining rather than appreciating.
“Until they fully clear the decks in this regard, it’s likely to be a multi-year journey to reach an improved player trading position. I think it could remain an element of the overall financial plan.
“Of course, if their league position improves materially and they are consistently in European competitions, that could provide an additional £30-40m from prize money alone.”
Revenue, UEFA’s Squad Cost rules, and Premier League PSR
So where exactly do United stand with Premier League PSR?
While Europe looks like an ambitious target this season, how well-equipped is the club to comply with UEFA’s rules if they do make it into the Champions League, Europa League, or Europa Conference League next season?
“The club’s guidance for revenue is £665m, and they generate roughly £30-35m annually in player sale profits,” Bajwa explains, zeroing in on UEFA’s Squad Cost rules as his starting point.
“To comply with UEFA’s Squad Cost rules, squad costs – including player and head coach wages – must be no more than 70 per cent of football income, defined as revenue plus the three-year average player trading profit.
“Using this, United’s football earnings are just under £700m.
“We know direct from Ratcliffe earlier this year that the first-team wage bill is around £250m per year, and amortisation costs are about £200m, giving a squad cost of £450m.
“Seventy percent of their football earnings would allow for £485m, giving them some headroom.
“Summer activity has probably at worst kept squad wages flat if not slightly reduced, although amortisation may have ticked up.
“Of course, with no European fixtures this season they don’t need to worry about Squad Cost rules this year but they do need to keep an eye on it going forward, so I don’t expect them to be reckless in the market.
“The Football Earnings rule should be easier for them to pass, which by extension means Premier League PSR – with its more lenient three-year allowable loss limit – should be relatively straightforward too.”
Cash flow, credit facilities and Omar Berrada’s financial masterplan
A club can have all the PSR headroom in the world, but without the cold, hard cash to back it up, it’s useless.
“United currently have a total facility of £300m across several revolving credit lines,” says Bajwa, articulating how the club has been able to pull several financial levers to fund their activity this summer.
A revolving credit facility functions like an overdraft or a credit card. This source of funding is used near-universally by clubs to make up the shortfall in periods when cash flow is tight.
“In the last set of financial results,” he continues, “United made a small repayment on these facilities in April 2025, leaving £160m drawn and £140m available. Based on Companies House filings, it seems likely they increased capacity on the overall £300m this summer, which probably facilitated an earlier move for Benjamin Sesko, i.e., before player sales occurred.
🚨 He's here! 🚨
Benjamin Sesko is officially a Manchester United player! 🙌
— Manchester United (@ManUtd) August 9, 2025
View Tweet
“I think they have likely covered any additional drawdowns and the expansion of the facility to fund Sesko with the player sales completed late in the window.
“Omar Berrada has spoken about United wanting to be self-sufficient and live within their means. Without a silver bullet, it will probably take several years to achieve that.
“But their bottom line is improving, and naturally, so is their PSR position. In the near term, the facility will probably act as the working capital buffer to facilitate transfer market spending.
“For United, there are three different facilities. Typically, a facility is available for a specific period, and interest is incurred on drawdowns as used. United are using these like an overdraft or credit card to fund transfer spend while cash reserves are depleted.”
An extinction level event threatens Planet PSR.
There is a schism between clubs, fans and just about every other stakeholder in the game when it comes to what football’s financial ecosystem should look like.
How to weight sustainability against competitive balance, the role of private equity and sovereign wealth funds, and the intricacies of the pyramid’s financial distribution system – these are the frontlines of a football culture war which Man United are traversing.
Like their peers, United will act in self-interest. But what will Ratcliffe and the Glazers’ philosophy be in Premier League shareholder meetings, European Club Association summits and talks with UEFA?
Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Omar Berrada attend the launch of Manchester United's New Build at Carrington
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
“Rules like the Squad Cost measure naturally benefit clubs with a larger revenue base,” Bajwa suggests.
“A bigger revenue base provides more funds to spend on the first-team squad. In theory, this rules should make clubs more self-sufficient, but it also creates a ‘race for revenue’ to increase spending capacity.
“This explains why bigger clubs generally favour such rules, while challengers – like Aston Villa or Nottingham Forest – may feel somewhat constrained.
“Where one stands in that debate depends on their definition of financial sustainability in football. But it undoubtedly favours bigger teams. That doesn’t mean they are immune to mistakes; poor transfer decisions can still hurt them, though the margin for error is larger.”