Manchester United are offering fans the opportunity to buy a tiny chunk of turf from the Old Trafford pitch for £125. For the first time in 14 years, United relaid the playing surface this summer and have decided to sell small clumps of the grass, cast in 7cm x 7cm acrylic cubes. The cubes are encased in a black box that also contains a picture of the stadium. What a great Christmas present for a fan!
United’s latest financial results, published on Wednesday, revealed they spent £63.5million on buying land for their new ground. The results also showed that United paid back £180million of a bank loan over the past six months as their chief executive, Omar Berrada, said the club would take a “disciplined approach” to their spending.
In a statement accompanying the accounts, Berrada said the club approached strengthening their men’s and women’s squads this summer “with financial sustainability in mind”. United spent about £150million on Carlos Baleba, Youri Tielemans and Andrey Santos while the back-up goalkeeper Karl Darlow arrived on a free transfer after his departure from Leeds United. No left back was signed.
Manchester City spent three times that figure, although they offset their expenditure with significant player sales — an area in which United under performed severely.
United’s co-chairman Monaco tax exile Sir Jim Ratcliffe has embarked on several cost-cutting measures since taking over, including dismissing more than 400 staff, and Wednesday’s fourth-quarter results demonstrate another attempt to cut costs. This is very much Ratclifffe’s modus operandi. He has just mothballed three of his chemical plants in Hull complaining about high gas prices. Instead of slagging off the Government, whose support may be needed in various ways for the new stadium, the charm merchant should try and bring some positivity back to what was once the Theatre of Dreams; but perhaps he is learning the hard way that football is a unique business.
_The revolving credit facility or overdaft_
Until the summer of 2029, United have access to a “revolving credit facility”, agreed with several banks, which has a maximum value of £350million. United had drawn down £290million of that on December 31, 2025, but paid back £27.5million by the end of March and another £152.5million by the end of June, leaving £110million left to pay.
One purpose of the revolving credit facility, seen by some as a type of overdraft, is to fund transfers, so it is telling that United chose to pay off the money owed, which carries a significant interest rate, rather than use the remaining funds to buy players.
United’s debts remain eye-watering, despite announcing record revenues for the year of £677.6million. In addition to a long-standing debt of £577.6million, United have liabilities of £473.9million (about £355.5million of which relates to transfer fees owed), and £110million outstanding on their overall debt facility, leaving the total money owed at £1.16billion.
Overall, United also recorded a loss of almost £43million for the year. United’s wage bill will also rise in the coming year because they are in the Champions League and most players’ contracts include a clause entitling them to a 25 per cent pay rise if they are in Europe’s top club competition. Last season, when United were not in Europe, their wage bill fell by £11.3million to £302million.
_Enduring interest payments_
A major contributing factor to United’s balance sheet going from positive to negative is the annual interest payment on the debt loaded onto the club by the Glazer family’s 2005 leveraged takeover. Net finance costs for the year were £69.6million, compared to net finance costs of £21.2m in 2024-25, primarily due currency fluctuations.
A specific sum for the debt should be revealed when the full Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing is released in the coming days, but last year’s figure was £37million, with a majority attributable to the long-term Glazer loans. It is due to rise by around £10m per year following the refinancing of one portion of long-term Glazer debt, with the rate increasing from 3.79 per cent, which was agreed with lenders 12 years ago, to 5.36 per cent. It was scheduled for repayment in 2027, so it had to be renegotiated.
The money draining out of United simply so the Glazers can own a majority stake in the club continues to shock and sadden, 21 years on.
Still, supporters will question whether some of the remaining money could have been used on signings — especially when United spent £63.5million to buy land near their Old Trafford ground with a view to developing the proposed new stadium. That cash came from the debt refinancing, with no impediment to its purpose.
But United chose to put it towards acquiring the 25-acre site so they could progress with Ratcliffe’s vision for a ‘Wembley of the North’ (copyright Port Vale). Quite how that estimated £2billion project will be financed has not been disclosed — and remains a point of fascination to many observers. Doubtless, prudence across all aspects of the club would help, which is why it feels as though player recruitment has been impacted.
A new stadium would, of course, increase the value of the club, in the event of a future sale. In February, a clause in the Glazers’ agreement with Ratcliffe kicks in, allowing them to sell up for less than his $33-per-share purchase price.
_Financial regulations_
Another consideration regarding why they did not spend more is the financial regulations they must adhere to, as set by the Premier League and UEFA, European football's governing body.
The 85 per cent squad cost ratio (essentially meaning the allowed portion spent on salaries and transfers set against football-related revenue), which launched for this season in the Premier League, appears well within United’s projections, given their £302million wage bill represents 44 per cent of revenue. United would have to go some on transfers to test the rules domestically.
The continent is different. For a start, the permissible ratio between revenue and football costs under UEFA rules drops to 70 per cent, and there is also a €60million (£52m, $68m) limit on losses over a three-year cycle. United’s overall losses for the past three years stand at £189m, albeit investment in infrastructure is excluded from the process, and they are committed to abiding by the regulations. The punishment for not doing so can be a ban from European competition.
Still, it sticks in the craw for supporters that United were outspent by Ipswich Town (£185m) and in the same ballpark as Hull City (£150m), two of this season's three promoted clubs, when renovation of coach Michael Carrick’s squad was required.
_Embattled manager over achieved_
The financial results show how Carrick overachieved to get United to a third-place finish last season. Their wage bill for 2025-26 is already lower than those posted by Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea in the year before. City’s wage bill for 2024-25 was £168million more than United’s was for the following campaign. Those clubs are also now either outstripping or competing with United for revenues — an unthinkable situation a decade ago. In 2025, City hit £694 million and Arsenal reached £691m.
Carrick guiding United to third — after the 15th-place finish under Ruben Amorim 12 months before — was the reason the club could report record profits overall, as broadcast income jumped £33.9million. United’s commercial and matchday revenues went down due to them being out of European football and not having a training-kit sponsor.