I think we have a serious problem with the amount of “old transfers” we still have to pay.
Here is a simplified look at our incoming transfers over the last five years:
2021/22 → Sancho, Varane, Ronaldo:
€142m ≈ €29m/year over 5 years, with the payments ending around 2026/27.
2022/23 → Antony, Casemiro, Lisandro, Malacia:
€242m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2027/28.
2023/24 → Højlund, Mount, Onana:
€212m ≈ €42m/year, with payments ending around 2028/29.
2024/25 → Yoro, Ugarte, De Ligt, Zirkzee, Dorgu, Mazraoui:
€246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2029/30.
2025/26 → Sesko, Mbeumo, Cunha, Lammens:
€246m ≈ €49m/year, with payments ending around 2030/31.
Obviously, this is a simplified calculation — actual payment schedules are not necessarily spread evenly over five years. But it gives an idea of the problem.
If we use this simplified model, in
2026/27 we would still have roughly
€217m of transfer instalments to pay from deals made over the previous five years.
And this is where things become problematic. Over those five seasons, we qualified for the Champions League only
twice. That means our actual revenues have been significantly below what the club would have budgeted for.
At the same time, our player sales have been poor:
- 2025/26: €55m
- 2024/25: €77m
- 2023/24: €121m
- 2022/23: €58m
- 2021/22: €23m
- 2020/21: €31m
That's only
€365m in sales over six seasons.
So you have a combination of:
- Lower revenues because of fewer Champions League matches and less matchday/broadcast revenue.
- Huge transfer commitments from previous summers that are still being paid.
- Poor player sales, meaning we generate very little cash from the squad.
- Lower player values, because several of our expensive signings have not performed as expected.
And then you add the cost of developing a new stadium, whether that is ultimately financed by INEOS, the club, debt, or a combination of the three. This is why I think people are underestimating our financial constraints.
Look at Chelsea over the same period. They played in the Champions League three times, reached the quarter-finals twice, participated in the extremely lucrative Club World Cup and reportedly generated around €100m from it.
They also spent roughly €1.7bn on transfers while generating around €1.1bn in sales — meaning they recovered roughly
65% of their gross transfer spending through player sales.
United, by comparison, have recovered only around
33%. That's a massive difference.
Chelsea have obviously made plenty of questionable decisions themselves, and I'm not saying their model is necessarily sustainable. But they have had significantly more transfer-market liquidity because they have been much more active and successful in selling players. At some point, you have to pay for the mistakes of the past.
United have spent enormous amounts on players over the last decade, while simultaneously failing to generate enough revenue through Champions League football and player sales.
So when people ask why we couldn't spend another €100m this summer, my answer is simple:
It's not necessarily because INEOS doesn't want to invest. It's because the club is carrying the financial consequences of the previous 10 years of poor management.
You can't spend €200m every summer forever while also carrying hundreds of millions in outstanding transfer commitments, generating relatively little from player sales, missing out on Champions League revenue, and potentially financing a new stadium.
At some point, the bill comes due. And I think we're seeing that bill now.
