This week, Manchester United confirmed that they would pay for their new stadium via private finance. That doesn’t exactly narrow it down, however. Nor does it tell us anything we didn’t already know.
Essentially, “financed privately”, which is how a spokesperson described United’s funding plan at their latest Fan Forum, could encompass money from any non-government source.
Yes, Manchester United are working closely with local government through the newly established Old Trafford Regeneration Mayoral Development Corporation. But as United in Focus has regularly reported, any money provided by the authorities was always going to be earmarked for surrounding infrastructure, not the dizzyingly ambitious 100,000-seater stadium itself.
The private financing plan will certainly mean that United – who already owe over £1bn to lenders and in transfer instalments – will take on more debt, but variables in terms of the type and structure of that debt will affect the club for decades to come.
United now plan for the new stadium to be ready for 2035 – What do you think about this?
Getty Images
Financially, it will be easily the most transformative event since the Glazers’ leveraged buyout in 2005 and arguably the most seismic in the history of a club approaching its 150th birthday.
So, how specifically do Sir Jim Ratcliffe and stadium development CEO Collette Roche plan to pay for this £2bn mega structure with a sweeping canopy, three skyscraper-style towers and accompanying residential-commercial complex?
United in Focus spoke to University of Liverpool football finance lecturer and Price of Football author Kieran Maguire for his view.
More United News
1. United could use bonds and repay stadium investors with a fixed financial return over time
Both Arsenal and Tottenham used private placement bonds as part of mixed finance packages to pay for their new stadiums, with investors essentially giving the club a chunk of the capital in exchange for a fixed-rate repayment with interest over a set period.
In Spurs’ case, for example, bondholders are being repaid over 15-30 years at an average interest rate of 2.33 per cent.
“United could issue a bond,” says Maguire, “but the downside is that the market would probably demand quite a high return on that.”
Spurs went to the market at a time when interest rates were historically low. United don’t have that luxury, and investors would demand at least double – and probably significantly more – than the 2.33 per cent interest that Tottenham were able to promise bondholders.
2. US banks a likely funding source for Old Trafford 2.0
It is inevitable that United will borrow from commercial banks to help fund their new stadium.
Everton refinanced their stadium debt via a syndicate loan organised by J.P Morgan Chase last year, while Barcelona’s revamped Nou Camp was paid for by Goldman Sachs among other lenders and investors.
United are already heavily indebted to US banks, with the bulk of their existing debt owed to the Bank of America.
An aerial view of Old Trafford during the Premier League match between Manchester United and Aston Villa in Manchester, United Kingdom, on March 15, 2026.
Photo by Mark Cosgrove/News Images/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Maguire tells United in Focus meanwhile that while Ineos and Ratcliffe will look at US banks as funding sources, high interest rates and an upcoming repayment juncture will affect how expensive that debt ends up – and, by extension, how profitable the stadium itself is when it is up and running.
“There is a further issue in that they have a large amount of debt that matures in 2027,” he said.
“That will be rolled over, but at a time of global economic uncertainty, will the US lenders be willing to offer favourable rates? Probably not.
“You can capitalise the interest costs on the loan for accounting purpose. Then if it’s being used for investment in infrastructure, it doesn’t impact the bottom line, but it’s a cash cost all the same. They’re likely to look at this route, though. I think we can say that with confidence.
“I don’t think UK banks will lend to them because the reputational risk is too great, so it will have to be the global market. Remember, United are listed in New York and registered in the Cayman Islands, so they’re used to operating on a global scale.”
3. Could Sir Jim Ratcliffe go to private credit markets? Maybe…
Another option is the private credit market, which has boomed in recent years as private equity firms look for a place to put their mountains of cash to work.
These types of lenders will often provide capital for riskier business projects than commercial or institutional banks in exchange for a higher interest rate.
“United could go to the private credit market,” says Maguire, “but that industry is looking very delicate.”
“It will be a number of years before the stadium is actually built and we may well see it scaled back. So we’ll wait and see whether that sector stabilises, but it could be an option.
This is what Man United earn in real terms
Apart from the new stadium, what else should Ineos do to STOP this slide?
Talking Points creative showing Manchester United's revenue adjusted for inflation
4. United could mirror Barcelona model with private seat licenses
This one seems like a banker.
Nearly every new stadium project in sport and entertainment makes use of personal seat licenses or debentures, as they are sometimes known.
Under this model, wealthy fans, businesses and corporate clients pay a one-time upfront cost to secure the right to buy a ticket in a certain seat or hospitality box for a set period, often 10-plus years.
“I also predict a significant use of private seat licenses,” says Maguire.
“Barcelona have used that method for the Nou Camp and raised big money. Manchester United will do the same.”
United in Focus understands that, at one stage, as much as 40 per cent of the stadium could have been given over to hospitality and premium seating, though that ratio has been scaled back considerably.
5. Direct investment from Ineos?
Ineos are in a precarious business position at the moment, with levels of debt that would make even the brokers behind the Glazers’ leveraged buyout blush.
Unlike the leveraged buyout, Ineos’ debt is a bet on the future success of the company, however. If they can survive the intense headwinds in the chemicals industry at present, Ratcliffe and his peers in the boardroom could come out of the other side better off. But it’s a high-tariff play.
So, do they really have free capital to allocate for what many commentators see as Ratcliffe’s legacy project at Old Trafford?
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, owner of Ineos, co-owner of Manchester United and Jason Wilcox, Director of Football of Manchester United during the Premier League match between Newcastle United and Manchester United at St James' Park on March 4, 2026 in Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt – AMA/Getty Images
Maguire said: “Are Ineos willing and able to provide funding? We don’t know, but I expect that it will be explored.
“The Glazers won’t, unless they perform the biggest 180 of all time.”
6. Part-takeover of Man United
Previously, Maguire has told United in Focus that Ratcliffe and the Glazers could sell a stake in United in order to help pay for the stadium and spread the risk of the project among a deeper pool of investors.
That would be a nuclear option, however.
United already have a very complex capital structure, split between Ratcliffe, the six Glazer siblings and thousands of institutional and retail investors via the New York Stock Exchange.
Politically, onboarding a new part-owner would be difficult.
7. The stadium company option
An alternative to a part-takeover of the club is to instead spin out the stadium as a separate business and invite investors to buy into it.
This is somewhat similar to a bond-type investment in that investors would provide money upfront and be paid a cut of the profits made by the stadium, though not by the wider club. However, unlike the bond option, they would own an equity stake and be paid in perpetuity, not over a fixed period.
Again, this one might be difficult politically, though there would be no shortage of investors looking to put money into United’s near-guaranteed sell-out crowds, as well as the options for hundreds of non-football events, concerts and conferences at the stadium annually.
Should Manchester United sell the naming rights to their new stadium?
Manchester United could earn as much as £17.5m per year if they sell the naming rights of their 100,000-seater stadium…
Eric Cantona comments on Manchester United renaming their new stadium.
Credit: Getty Images.
8. Naming rights with Snapdragon or another big-money partner
Commercially, the new stadium will open doors.
And while annual matchday income is likely to be around £250m as a baseline for United when playing in front of 100,000 fans, partnerships, advertising and supplier deals could be almost as lucrative.
United’s stadium naming rights would attract a world-record fee. Snapdragon have previously signalled their interest, and there would be umpteen blue-chip bidders who would want to be associated with the Red Devils’ brand and what is likely to be one of the world’s most impressive buildings.
If, say, a multinational tech company wanted the naming rights, United could negotiate a chunk of the money upfront to help pay for construction and other costs.
That would be the cream of the commercial deals that a new stadium would provide, but the opportunities would go much deeper than naming rights in isolation.
Join Our Newsletter
Receive a digest of our best United content each week direct to your mailbox