Photo by Simon Stacpoole/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
Photo by Simon Stacpoole/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
Manchester United’s latest financial accounts revealed the wage bill has once again dropped at Old Trafford.
The 2025/26 accounts released by Manchester United showed record revenue of £677m for the financial year.
After seeing those findings, Kieran Maguire predicted United’s revenue will boom in 2026/27 now that the Red Devils are back in the Champions League.
Maguire also predicted the wage bill will increase due to the 25% pay rise clauses for qualifying for the Champions League. When United were out of Europe, Ineos managed to drastically limit the wage bill.
Man United’s wage bill compared to big six rivals
As well as record revenue, United revealed that the club’s wage bill has dropped down to £302 million from £313m in 2023/24.
For context, United’s wage bill was as high as £384m before the Ineos takeover in the 2021/22 financial accounts.
Here is how United’s wage bill compares to their biggest rivals in the Premier League:
Manchester United’s wage bill: £302m
Manchester City: £408m
Liverpool: £428m
Arsenal: £347m
Tottenham: £256m
Chelsea: £359m
It must be noted that all of the figures for the rivals have been taken from their 2024/25 accounts, supplied by ValuBall.
The likes of Tottenham and Chelsea in particular have handed out huge contracts in the past year, including the £250,000 per week paid to Mateus Fernandes.
United’s wage bill: Lack of ambition or smart spending?
Since the Ineos takeover, there has been a clear intent to manage the wage bill and implement a new pay structure at Old Trafford.
No longer are new signings rewarded huge contracts without first proving they can cut it at Old Trafford.
Several top earners, including Paul Pogba, David de Gea and Cristiano Ronaldo have all left the club in the last five years too.
READ MORE: Kieran Maguire tips Man United to overtake Man City in £340m off-pitch battle
But it sparks an interesting debate: Are Ineos, who are now infamous for their cost-cutting, showing a lack of ambition by not paying big wages?
Or is it instead a sign of smarter, shrewd spending to avoid a repeat of the mistakes made under Glazer ownership?