There is a table Manchester United top during Michael Carrick’s reign and it is the one that matters most. No one has taken more points since his January appointment. Over the last 13 years, however, United have been more accustomed to topping the spending charts. Now they may have a different kind of mid-table mediocrity, at least for those with an obsession with the transfer window.
When it closed, United were in the bottom half, according to Transfermarkt figures: there was an outlay of £148m, potentially rising to £155m, on midfielders, but no other purchase of a senior player. In contrast, Manchester City spent more than £400m, Chelsea and Tottenham over £300m, Newcastle, Aston Villa, Liverpool and Arsenal over £200m. Down in 11th place, United were outspent by promoted Ipswich and Hull.
Is this austerity, Old Trafford style? Carrick is not one to criticise his club. He stressed he is happy with the signings they have made; without the extra left-back that, by common consensus, they required, or another striker that many would have wanted, is the issue the signings they have not made? Carrick hinted as much.
“Certainly, the players that we’ve brought into the group, I’m absolutely delighted with,” he said. “I think we’ve done some really good business there for the quality and the level of player that we’ve got. You can always look at it, and there’s other things you can do or possibly could have done.”
There was the sense that United could not have done them; not in terms of high-grade targets, anyway. They were offered Rayan Ait-Nouri on loan on deadline day. They surely could not have bought Lewis Hall this summer, even if Newcastle were willing to sell.
Perhaps a host of factors coalesced. One was a regular reason: United’s inability to sell the unwanted. It was scarcely their fault that Manuel Ugarte was injured at the World Cup but they may have started the summer envisaging bringing in fees for the Uruguayan, Andre Onana and Joshua Zirkzee. Instead, the forward remains at Old Trafford and the goalkeeper has been loaned back to Trabzonspor. They may come to be grateful that Barcelona did not take up their option to buy Marcus Rashford: a proposed fee of £26m may come to look absurdly cheap and the Mancunian, unlike the others, has the quality to become a first choice.
But whereas United may have imagined bringing in an extra £50m, and perhaps even £100m, the only significant sum they banked came courtesy of a deal for Rasmus Hojlund with Napoli that was arranged in 2025. Remove that and only Coventry earned less money from sales than United. They occupy a higher place in the net-spend charts – Villa and Chelsea made profits while, for much of the summer, Newcastle were on course to – and seem an anomaly compared to the clubs who trade constantly.
They could look an anachronism in other respects, too: the inflation in transfer-market fees may be ridiculous but it appeared to catch United out. Midfielders they admired, whether Elliot Anderson or Mateus Fernandes, started to go for colossal fees. United could not compete.
But if United have their own credit crunch, it also reflects on past spending. The big losses they made on players such as Antony and Casemiro may have caught up with them. Even as Senne Lammens was a bargain last summer, there is a question if they paid over the odds for at least some of the £200m attacking trio of Bryan Mbeumo, Mateus Cunha and Benjamin Sesko. Their annual accounts invariably show the millions they owe other clubs in transfer fees. Plus, of course, there is the annual interest payments to service the debt the Glazers landed on the club.
.jpeg)
And Ruben Amorim’s reign cost United, whether in the €11m compensation Sporting CP received, or carrying on paying the Portuguese after his sacking. Finishing 15th in the Premier League in 2025 meant far less prize money; playing only 40 games last season – their Carabao Cup exit to Grimsby was under Amorim, the FA Cup defeat to Brighton under Darren Fletcher – also reduced their income.
So United’s has been something of a budget rebuild. Youri Tielemans’ £35m release clause meant he was £90m less than Enzo Fernandez. Andrey Santos was £77m cheaper than his former Chelsea teammate, even if he was often on the bench at Stamford Bridge while the Argentinian was in the team. At an initial £65m, Carlos Baleba was the most expensive of the trio but still only the 10th biggest buy by a Premier League club this summer.
“For what we’ve spent, we’ve certainly made the most of it, without a shadow of a doubt,” said Carrick. But maybe the most instructive element is what United have spent, how it compares and whether it leaves them short. There is a wider sense that no one has got everything they wanted. “What squad’s ever the perfect squad?” mused Carrick. “You’ve always got to find ways of adapting.” Maybe United’s lack of spending power will put more onus on him to adapt.
