The Stunning Collapse of the Premier League’s Most Successful Club
Manchester United’s commercial empire turned the club into a winning machine. Now the club is losing money off the pitch and can hardly win a game on it.
3 min
There was a time in European soccer when Manchester United was known as one of the smartest spenders in the game.
The club’s massive commercial empire allowed it to pay sky-high salaries, outbid rivals for talent, and turn over its squad often enough and cleverly enough to build several different dynasties. The approach was costly, but the club left no doubt that it worked.
These days, United is learning the hard way that losing can be just as expensive.
The crisis at the club runs so deep that it’s taking emergency measures everywhere it can to cut costs, despite record investment. It was less than two years ago that British petrochemicals billionaire Jim Ratcliffe paid $1.3 billion for a 25% stake in United, which he has since increased to 29%, on top of a $300 million injection of cash.
Since then, results have only gone backwards. The club has continued a streak of losing money every year since 2019. The squad is so thin that a sudden rash of injuries has left it desperately short of senior players. And United currently languishes in 14th place in the English Premier League after a 1-1 draw against Arsenal.
A midseason coaching change cost United around $28 million to pull off, according to the club’s accounts. Some $13.5 million went to previous manager Erik ten Hag and his coaching staff in severance, while the cost of bringing in Ruben Amorim and his assistants from Sporting Lisbon hit $14.5 million.
And while money goes out for correcting course on the pitch, the club is trying to find ways to save cash away from it. Last month, United announced around 200 layoffs, beyond the 250 jobs it had already cut in 2024. The club also announced plans to close its staff cafeteria and ended its policy of serving free lunches to non-players at the practice facility.
“This cannot continue,” United CEO Omar Berrada said. “These hard choices are necessary to put the club back on a stable financial footing.”
The quickest way for a club of United’s standing to do that is to qualify for the richest annual event in club soccer, the Champions League. Simply showing up for the tournament this season was worth $20 million, with bonuses paid for each draw or victory. A trip to the quarterfinals adds another $25 million, while the team that wins the whole thing could rake in more than $80 million.
But United is nowhere near a Champions League qualifying berth for next season. Its only path back into the elite would be winning this season’s Europa League, which looks far-fetched—the club is currently tied in its round-of-16 matchup against Spain’s Real Sociedad.
“If you have a football team that is playing well and are winning games then, in a certain way, it’s easier for the fans and for everybody to feel those changes,” head coach Ruben Amorim said of the restructuring at United.
Things have devolved so far that one United supporters’ group is organizing a protest outside Old Trafford ahead of Sunday’s home game against Arsenal, because it believes the club is “slowly dying.”
“For everyone in our club, it is a tough moment,” Amorim said. “People have the right to protest.”
The last time United finished outside the top 10 in England’s top tier was the 1989-90 season. Back then the creaking club was also racked by injuries and lost more games than it won, but stood by its embattled manager while fans clamored for him to be fired. Only a narrow victory in the FA Cup kept him in place. If it’s any consolation to United supporters 35 years later, that manager’s name was Alex Ferguson. He went on to turn Manchester United into one of the most successful clubs of the modern era.
These days, however, the club seems farther away from a revival than ever. The club that prided itself on its relentless goal scoring under Ferguson has netted fewer goals than 14 other teams. It hasn’t won back-to-back games in the Premier League all season. And Amorim has openly questioned the effort of some of his players.
“You can’t be at 99% every day because then you lose games against the teams that are in the Premier League,” United defender Matthijs de Ligt said. “In a lot of games, we haven’t been good enough.”
What United doesn’t seem to know is how to fix it. Amorim has defended the team’s style of play and reshuffled his squad in the hopes that there is enough cash on hand to bring in reinforcements this summer.
“But sometimes it’s a lack of results and you have to win games,” Amorim said. “I know the consequences when you don’t win.”
Write to Joshua Robinson at Joshua.Robinson@wsj.com
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
3 min
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.
The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
A luxury lifestyle might cost more than it used to, but how does it compare with cities around the world?
MAISON de SABRÉ’s new Spring Harvest Collection turns everyday produce into collectible leather charms and introduces fresh silhouettes in its cult Bucket bag family.
