12th December 2025
December 12 – Manchester United’s net debt has passed the $1 billion mark for the first time, driven by summer borrowing for player recruitment, pushing the club’s overall debt to levels not seen since the Glazer family’s leveraged takeover in 2005.
In their first-quarter accounts published Thursday, United reported noncurrent borrowings of £481 million ($644m), part of the debt mountain built over two decades since the Glazers, owners of the NFL Tampa Bay Buccaneers, bought the previously debt-free club.
With an additional £105 million drawn from their revolving credit facility, total borrowings reached £268 million, taking net debt to £749 million ($1.002bn). The club has been servicing these obligations ever since, raising ongoing questions about the financial strain created by the Glazers’ dividend policies. Critics argue that annual payouts to the family limit the resources available for investment in players and infrastructure.
Earlier this year, the INEOS Group, led by Sir Jim Ratcliffe (pictured), became minority owners after acquiring a 27.7% stake for £1.3 billion. INEOS has since overseen a cost-cutting drive aimed at creating a more sustainable operation at Old Trafford, including a wide-scale redundancy program and a reduction in player wages. These measures helped lower employee benefit expenses by £6.6 million to £73.6 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2026, with £8.6 million of exceptional items linked to the restructuring.
Despite the absence of European football this season, Manchester United recorded a £13 million operating profit in the first three months, up from a £6.9 million loss in the same period last year. Total revenue dipped 2% to £140.3 million, reflecting the missing participation in European competition, while sponsorship income fell 9.3% to £47 million following the end of the training kit partnership with Tezos.
Chief executive Omar Berrada described the results as “robust” and pointed to a “sustainably lower cost base” and a streamlined organisation as evidence of the club’s financial transformation.
Still, the question remains: with the Glazer family continuing to receive significant annual dividends, is the club truly free to invest in growth, or is its bottom line being held back by the financial legacy of the 2005 takeover?
Contact the writer of this story at [moc.l1765511318labto1765511318ofdlr1765511318owedi1765511318sni@r1765511318etsbe1765511318w.kci1765511318n1765511318](javascript:;)