For nearly two decades, the Glazer family’s ownership of Manchester United has been defined by a single, unforgivable figure: over £1 billion in debt, saddled on the club through a leveraged buyout in 2005. It’s a financial weight that continues to spark protests, banners, and boiling frustration among supporters. But here’s the hard truth that many don’t want to admit — the debt, while morally indefensible, is not what’s held Manchester United back on the pitch.
In the post-Ferguson era alone, United have spent a staggering £1.6 billion on player transfers. That’s not the profile of a club hamstrung by austerity. It’s not the behaviour of an organisation gasping under financial pressure. The money has been there, and it’s been used — badly.
So let’s indulge the hypothetical: if the £1 billion in debt had never existed and the Glazers had allowed that sum to be poured into the transfer market, would anything have been different? On current evidence, no. The £1.6 billion already spent has brought no Premier League titles, no sustained Champions League campaigns, and no return to the elite level United once occupied. There’s no logic to suggest another £1 billion — spent in the same directionless manner — would have yielded better results.
Because this has never just been about how much is spent. It’s about how it’s spent, and under the Glazers, that process has been chaotic at best. Managers have come and gone, each given large war chests but little support. Recruitment has been driven more by marketing departments than scouting networks. United have broken transfer records for players they didn’t need, signed superstars on eyewatering wages who barely fit a tactical plan, and repeatedly failed to build a coherent squad.
The obsession with debt distracts from a more damning indictment: Manchester United have had the resources to compete and simply haven’t. Ownership has allowed funds to be misallocated, often spectacularly. The likes of Di María, Pogba, Lukaku, Sánchez, Maguire — all expensive arrivals, none of whom became the cornerstone of a title-winning side.
And so, even if the debt were erased and every penny redirected toward transfers, there’s little reason to believe the club would suddenly be transformed. The structures remain weak. The football leadership has long been underqualified. The disconnect between commercial ambition and footballing logic persists.
That’s not to say the debt isn’t a problem — it is. It’s emblematic of owners who view Manchester United as a business, not a football club. But on the pitch, where trophies are won and legacies are made, the money has been spent. The failure lies not in a lack of investment, but in a decade of footballing mismanagement that no amount of cash has been able to fix.
Until that changes, Manchester United’s problems won’t be solved by wiping away debt — they’ll only be solved by rebuilding the club’s identity, structure, and ambition from the ground up.
READ MORE MANCHESTER UNITED NEWS: