Like every football club, Manchester United is essentially a legal fiction, an IP bundle wrapped in a club crest. But Old Trafford is a real, physical anchor in the club’s history. Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s promises of a 100,000-seater megadome therefore have left many bedrock fans conflicted.
When the stadium was last redeveloped in 2006, Old Trafford had not long since hosted the Champions League final, an honour UEFA bestows on only the best stadiums in Europe. At the time, Man United were still in their imperial phase, pulverising all challengers in the Premier League almost every season.
The astute among you might have noticed that things have since changed somewhat.
In 2006, the ink was still wet on the contract which saw Malcolm Glazer take full control of the club after buying the stake owned by John Magnier and J.P. McManus.
Photo by OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images
Photo by OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images
The Red Devils’ supremacy on the pitch continued until Sir Alex Ferguson’s farewell in 2013, though the cracks in the Glazers’ ownership model began to show far earlier.
The club was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2012, seemingly with no other purpose than to pay down some of the debt that the American owners had created in their leveraged buyout. In 2025, the club’s debt is now around the same level and, because of the NYSE’s expansive reporting requirements, United fans are now privy to every grisly detail of the club’s finances.
Yes, revenue is higher than nearly every club on the planet and, yes, the Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) position is better than once thought, though only because of a nuance of their corporate structure. However, revenue growth has slowed down as interest payments and running costs have ramped up.
Almost £548m of United’s debt is due for repayment in two years’ time, after which they will likely have to refinance at a significantly higher interest rate.
Chart showing Manchester United's gross debt position since the Glazer family's leveraged buyout
Manchester United gross debt 2024-25 Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
More United News
Sir Jim Ratcliffe meanwhile has felt compelled to drastically downsize the payroll, depriving hundreds of staff of their livelihoods in the process.
What’s more, the recently-released accounts for Q3 2025 show that, while United are on course for club-record revenue for 2024-25, there will be a significant gap between turnover and costs next season.
Something material has to change. Is a new 100,000-seater stadium Manchester United’s salvation?
Matchday income at the new stadium adjacent to Old Trafford, which was announced by Ineos in March, would surpass the £200m mark. That’s an extraordinary increase which would see United rival Real Madrid as the world’s biggest matchday income generators.
But on the flipside, the new stadium would likely cost £2-3bn at a time when debt is expensive, United are already facing increasing interest payments on their existing loans, and Ruben Amorim’s side are far from guaranteed lucrative European football each season.
Indeed, some within the Premier League doubt that the project will see the light of day at all.
Everton executive Colin Chong questions Manchester United’s Old Trafford 2.0 project
Stadium rebuilds are in vogue at present.
As well as United’s designs, Leeds United, Birmingham City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United, Chelsea and Arsenal are all either planning to either significantly increase capacity at their existing homes or build new stadiums altogether.
Infographic showing the matchday incomes and stadium capacities of English clubs compared to Manchester United
Matchday income & capacity Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
Tottenham too, of course, are enjoying huge stadium-related revenue after moving into their new home in 2019. Soon, Everton will be doing the same.
Their new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, known as the Hill Dickinson Stadium for sponsorship reasons, will open for the senior men’s team in August.
Seating 52,888, the waterfront arena is expected to significantly improve matchday income for the Toffees, as well as create new commercial opportunities. They recently refinanced several hundred million pounds of debt linked to the construction, which will allow them to fully capitalise on the ground in the coming years on a net financial basis.
Colin Chong, who was until recently Everton’s interim CEO, has played a key part in steering the project. Now, the construction industry specialist has stepped into a new role overseeing the stadium and the redevelopment of the surrounding area.
Everton are currently in talks to acquire Nelson Dock, the disused dock next door to the Hill Dickinson Stadium which already has planning permission for a mixed-use commercial-residential development.
Like United’s plan for Old Trafford 2.0, the ambition is for the Hill Dickinson Stadium to be a catalyst for urban regeneration, with shops, hotels and leisure spaces bringing in revenue all year round.
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
As such, Everton say they need at least one-third of the costs of the Nelson Dock expansion to come from the public purse. Again, there is a similarity with United here, who, although they are not receiving public money for the stadium itself, are lobbying for funds for the wider regeneration project.
Chong, however, is sceptical that United’s plan is as fully formed as Everton’s.
“[United] don’t own the land,” he said in a recent conversation with the Financial Times.
“They’ve not got a detailed stadium design, they haven’t got the funding [and] from what I can see there’s no strategic plan for how they are going to achieve that.”
So, just how likely really is it that United’s 100,000-seater stadium doesn’t get built at all?
“It still looks like a moonshot,” says University of Liverpool football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire, speaking exclusively to UIF about the money behind the project.
“We need to wait for things to crystalise. Influential people like Garry Neville and Andy Burnham in the city of Manchester are supporting it, of course, which could be significant.
“A cynic might say that this was a diversionary tactic from Sir Jim Ratcliffe away from job losses.
“I don’t think Ratcliffe was expecting this level of opposition. They have managed to drain the well of goodwill quite quickly. Some people would say that the stadium has been launched too quickly with the aim of trying to get people back onside.
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images
“When I have spoken to people involved in construction, they have said that 100,000 is too big because the costs would be prohibitive, especially if you want to have a significant hospitality and commercial element to the stadium. It shouldn’t necessarily be a case of simply cramming in 100,000 people. You want the hospitality boxes to be big, which complicates things.
“In terms of a 100,000-seater stadium, it won’t happen, I don’t think, though I think we may see further plans.
“Then again, at a time of revision of priorities in terms of central government spending due to the expected increase in the defence budget, it’s not going to be an easy sell to get central or local government funding for a vanity project of an offshore billionaire.”