Manchester United remain one of the world’s most valuable and resilient football brands but many of the things that made them great – a relentless football-first culture, towering personalities at front and back of house, and an austere aura that cowered opponents – have faded.
The 2025-26 season, which begins against Arsenal on Sunday, will be Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s second full campaign as co-owner. The 18 months the petrochemicals-billionaire-turned-sports-speculator has been at Old Trafford have been a psychodrama, one which has exposed a number of ugly truths about the club.
Though he owns just a quarter of the club, the Ineos CEO has become Man United’s all-seeing eye and is hell-bent on rebuilding it from the ground up.
So far, that has meant wholesale changes to personnel across the business and sporting department, an uber-ambitious plan to build Europe’s biggest stadium, and an aggressive approach to recruitment.
Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United FC, looks on
Photo by Nicolò Campo/LightRocket via Getty Images
Though his £1.25bn deal to invest in United almost certainly included a non-disparagement clause, Ratcliffe hasn’t exactly been diplomatic in his assessment of the mess the Glazers have left for him to clean up.
Talk of United going “bust by Christmas” without external investment from the 72-year-old has been roundly dismissed by football finance experts, but it was emblematic of the malaise that had set in at M16.
Man United aren’t a revenue superpower without European football
United’s profligate spending in the post-Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill era has been one of the causes of the demise which hit a nadir last season, when Ruben Amorim’s side finished 17th in the Premier League and, thanks to defeat in the Europa League final, failed to deliver European football for only the second time in 35 years.
But the fact that United have had that much cash to burn in the first place is thanks to their brand, which until recently delivered outsized commercial income each and every season.
Chart depicting Manchester United's commercial revenue vs the Big Six for United in Focus
Man United commercial income vs Big Six graph Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
More United News
In the 20 years of the Deloitte Football Money League, which has ranked European clubs by annual revenue since 1997, United claimed top spot 10 times and fell out of the top three on just two occasions.
They have been between 4th and 5th since 2020 and, when the 2024-25 list is released, could fall as low as 10th, surpassed by Liverpool, Arsenal, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich. With no European revenue whatsoever in 2025-26, they will drop out of the top 10 altogether.
1996–97 – 1st 2006–07 – 2nd 2016–17 – 1st
1997–98 – 1st 2007–08 – 2nd 2017–18 – 3rd
1998–99 – 1st 2008–09 – 3rd 2018–19 – 3rd
1999–00 – 1st 2009–10 – 3rd 2019–20 – 4th
2000–01 – 1st 2010–11 – 3rd 2020–21 – 5th
2001–02 – 1st 2011–12 – 3rd 2021–22 – 4th
2002–03 – 1st 2012–13 – 4th 2022–23 – 5th
2003–04 – 1st 2013–14 – 2nd 2023–24 – 4th
2004–05 – 2nd 2014–15 – 3rd
2005–06 – 4th 2015–16 – 1st
Manchester United position in Deloitte Football Money League over the years
Historically, the United brand would have insulated them against peaks and troughs in performances on the pitch from season to season. But, as football finance academic Kieran Maguire tells UIF: “They can’t rely on the brand forever.
“It’s a competitive market and if their growth is modest. Real Madrid and Liverpool’s is far faster. Without an upturn on the pitch, that gap will grow at an unmanageable rate.
“Ultimately, brands want to be associated with success, and that success is seen at the elite level – the big trophies, the Premier League and the Champions League. The Carabao Cup or Europa League don’t wash as far as the premium brands and the global partners are concerned.
“The stickiness of the brand – i.e., how loyal fans are – is greater than any other industry. Think about in other industries. Blackberry were going to take over the world, then the iPhone destroyed them. That can’t happen to Manchester United because, as a legacy fan, you sign a lifelong contract. That said, some of the new generation of fans are more transient.”
Exclusive: Manchester United valued at £3.2bn in new analysis as brand value falls £172m
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s deal to buy into Man United valued the club at around £4bn, significantly lower than the £6bn the Glazers reportedly wanted for a full sale.
Now, however, new analysis from the leading brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance suggests United’s enterprise value is actually closer to €3.7bn (£3.2bn).
Meanwhile, the club’s brand value – which Brand Finance defines as the price a club is likely to receive if they licensed their brand on the open market – has fallen by approximately £172m to around £1.2bn from last year.
“Sporting performance definitely has an effect,” says Hugo Hensley, Brand Finance’s Head of Sports Services, said in exclusive conversation with UIF.
Graphic from Brand finance showing Manchester United's place among the world's strongest brands
Manchester United brand value Credit: Brand Finance
“They’re not Real Madrid. They used to challenge right at the top of our ranking for that top spot, and they were unequivocally the global club brand. That’s not the case anymore, but our research still shows them incredibly strong – the strongest brand in the UK.”
While the overall value of the club’s brand fell, their ‘brand strength’ – i.e., their resilience – received a score of 93.2 and an AAA+ rating. Only Barcelona and Real Madrid could boast higher scores.
“They perform very well when benchmarked against competition, both domestically and internationally,” explains Hensley.
“We collect data about thousands of clubs and look at how they’re perceived and followed. Manchester United seems to prevail no matter what.
Graphic showing the value of Manchester United's brand and strength over tie from Brand Finance
Manchester United brand strength Credit: Brand Finance
“By their standards of coming first or second every season, their recent record on the pitch has damaged them. But they’re still an amazing commercial machine, one of the first properly sophisticated organised football brands.
“They’ve still got a blue-chip technology front-of-shirt partner. That reflects that they’re actually still a very strong brand. They can continue to ride on that heritage. Whereas it’s not as forgiving the other way. You can get to a Champions League final like, say, Spurs have, but it doesn’t cement in the same way.”
New stadium can ‘build a moat’ around Manchester United’s brand
Among a dizzying array of metrics, Brand Finance’s research looks at physical infrastructure – the stadium, the training ground etc – as part of its appraisal of a club’s brand value.
With Manchester United having announced plans for a 100,000-seater stadium to replace Old Trafford, how might that affect the club’s commercial pulling power?
“It insulates and builds a moat for the club,” says Hensley.
“It shows they’re still progressing, still ambitious, still have that desire to always be at the top. It also secures revenue streams and maintains Manchester as a destination sporting location. It continues to bring revenue and excitement, new fans, old fans back to the city to drive strong positive engagement.
“You’ve seen how an amazing flagship stadium like the Allianz in Munich gets attention just because it’s flashy and different. That’s what they’ve said they have to go for to remain at that very top part.
Chart showing Manchester United's matchday income and planned stadium capacity at Old Trafford next to rivals
Man United stadium capacity and matchday income Credit: Adam Williams/United in Focus/GRV Media
“But in terms of maintaining the idea of a great brand, Manchester United still scores top 10 out of 10 for a club that has a great stadium in our research.”
The value of United’s stadium naming rights
Naming rights deals – like those in place at Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium or Arsenal’s agreement with Etihad – are a growing revenue stream for commercially-minded clubs.
The idea of naming rights for Old Trafford has been mooted on several occasions, while a branding agreement for ‘New Trafford’ could be extraordinarily lucrative, according to Hensley.
“Their benchmarks for stadium naming rights look more like NFL or NBA naming rights where the big ticket is the stadium, as opposed to front-of-shirt. I’d expect if they’re setting a number, it’ll look like that £40-50m, potentially more.”
“There are two ways clubs have approached it. The Everton approach: get a name on there that won’t upset fans and bring a negative tinge to an exciting new stadium. Then, show a financial return, amazing exposure, positive activation with the partner and bring in more money or a larger partner next time. In this example, the first deal becomes an investment in showing off what the stadium naming asset can do.
The other option is Spurs, who said ‘we’re going to hold out for a really top partner.’ I expect United will take the latter approach, but I expect they’ll find it easier to get that partner.
The equation relies on what you think it’s worth when that bigger partner comes in. Do you wait three years and miss out on £20m-a-season because you want £50m? The showing-off approach – getting proof points, exposure, activations would be more powerful.
In 2017, United’s commercial revenue stood at £276m. In the last full published financial year, it was £303m. A huge number in isolation but one represents barely two per cent growth year-on-year, which has been far outstripped by United’s peer group.
One of the historic narratives around United’s supposed commercial inertia was that they have placed too great an emphasis on the number of deals they strike, as opposed to quality, long-term deals.
“If you’re a commercial director, you’re being pulled in different directions,” when asked whether United are now approaching their sponsorship portfolio differently, having struck a 10-year extension with Adidas in 2023 and committed themselves to front-of-shirt partner Snapdragon until 2028-29.
Manchester United Snapdragon sponsorship on shirt sleeve of an anonymous player
Photo by Daniel Chesterton/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
“You need revenue now, get the best deal. But brand teams say it should align. Clubs like Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal are in a luxury position with very strong brands and huge exposure.
In short-term partnerships, it’s more of an exposure play – media value equivalency and advertising value of reaching eyeballs. In longer-term sponsorship, you see attributes really start to be imparted. Is this brand ambitious? Innovative? Global? Community engaged?
That’s what a top club with a very strong brand can impart to a partner with a longer-term partnership versus exposure-focused sponsorship.”
Training kit and Carrington sponsorship
United have two notable vacancies in the sponsorship stable at present: training kit and training ground naming rights. Previously, United were partnered with Tezos in a £20m-a-year deal, while Carrington – which has newly reopened following a £50m refurb – has gone unbranded since Aon’s deal ended in 2020.
“The training kit sponsor is now a second-tier partnership for many clubs,” says Hensley.
“It’s got huge exposure, but it’s very personal – you get behind the scenes, watch the team hang out in the facility, pitch-side interviews. That complex engagement comes from feeling close to personalities.”
This week, reports have suggested that United CEO Omar Berrada recently told staff that the club had secured £70m worth of sponsorship deals in the last few months.
Technology and new revenue opportunities for Man United
In conversations about the next big revenue panacea for clubs like United, the subject of technology is invariably raised by industry experts.
Some evangelise about immersive or share reality platforms that could bring United close to its sprawling global audience, while others suggest that a direct-to-consumer streaming service – sometimes hypothetically referred to as ‘Premflix’ – could be the breakthrough that allows clubs to finally ensure that income outstrips costs from season to season.
“It’s maintaining engagement is the key thing and being able to sell that engagement to sponsors,” Hensley tells UIF.
“These new technologies and experiences get people in and keep them in. Something spectacular that makes someone go: ‘I’m a Man United fan now, and I’m going to seek them out.’
“We’ve seen gimmicky things fall by the wayside. The closer engagement is winning out – things like 3D, virtual reality won’t go to the masses.
“The closer engagement is behind-the-scenes footage from training grounds, ref cam, handheld cameras running onto the pitch for goal celebrations. It’s a very low barrier to engage as a fan, but makes you feel like you know the personalities more.”
A revolutionary media model?
One of the driving forces behind the European Super League and Project Big Picture plots, both of which were co-authored by the Glazers, was a move towards a direct-to-consumer model.
What might the advantages be to United of this model? Hensley says: “The differences will come where direct-to-consumer means more targeted advertising.”
“It will be, not the top-tier partner, but those further down can do more targeted work based on knowing exactly who’s watching, who subscribed, who’s engaging through different channels.
Joel and Avram Glazers, co-owners of Manchester United, converse at Old Trafford
Photo by Michael Regan/Getty Images
“Perhaps United can then sell into different markets more easily if it’s just over the Internet. You might see more deals from African brands who can partner at a lower level but reach the audiences they want.
“It’s about the ability to deal with complexity directly. Instead of a brand getting exposure in the Middle East and Africa where they don’t operate, they can target more effectively and efficiently. That brings almost a partner for every opportunity.”