Manchester United’s descent revives ownership question
Plus, the Tokyo Olympics corruption probe, Disney’s sports empire, and much more
This summer’s transfer window has baffled the world of football. Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital are spending freely at Chelsea, defying fears that American investors would tighten the purse strings. FC Barcelona have shaken off the financial straitjacket long enough to register some (not all) of the club’s many new signings. And newly promoted Nottingham Forest have taken an unorthodox “buy an entirely new squad” approach to this season, spending £130mn so far on 15 arrivals.
Over at Manchester United, a much bigger trade is rumoured to be in play: the Glazer family could, perhaps, just possibly, be willing to sell England’s most famous club. It’s worth noting that headlines about United being for sale have been around for more than a decade.
Still, we spent the week ringing up the sort of investors who’d love to buy in . . . but they’re sceptical. Further, we have a special dispatch from the FT’s Asia business editor Leo Lewis on corruption arrests related to last year’s Tokyo Olympics. Do read on — Samuel Agini, sports business reporter
Manchester United head into this weekend in an unfamiliar position: sitting bottom of the Premier League. The team’s dire performance has led to demands for “radical change” from the supporters’ trust, and helped fuel speculation that the Glazer family’s hold over the club might be up for discussion. Billionaire fan Jim Ratcliffe even pitched himself as a heroic white (or red?) knight should the “for sale” sign go up.
Critics accuse the club’s American owners of hoovering cash out since they bought it in a leveraged buyout in 2005. More than £1bn has gone on interest payments, debts and dividends under their ownership. All that money has come from the club’s own coffers, while rivals Manchester City and Chelsea have had the support of wealthy benefactors.
But United’s on-pitch troubles cannot be blamed on being frugal. The club has spent £1.35bn on players in the past 10 years, according to Transfermarkt, the fifth biggest spender in Europe and third highest in the Premier League. In that time the club has recorded a negative balance of £971mn in the transfer market, easily the worst in Europe. Waste, not want, has been the issue.
As recently as 2018, United sat at the top of Deloitte’s financial league table of European football in terms of revenue. Now it languishes in fifth.
The Glazers have long resisted vitriol from supporters. Despite the club’s poor start to the new season, longtime Glazer watchers are sceptical about the prospect of a change of control. After all, the family has sold shares before, notably in the club’s 2012 initial public offering in New York, without giving up their hold on the voting rights.
And if all that’s up for grabs is a minority stake, why bother? The Glazers, loathed by fans and struggling to build a side that can win, would still call the shots.
“Nobody in their right mind would take a minority interest in the club if the Glazer children continued to play any part in its affairs,” said a financier and United supporter watching the situation closely. The club has not commented this week on reports of a possible stake sale.
Others do see the logic. Sports bankers say United have no shortage of suitors. The club is a bigger brand and business than Chelsea, which fetched £2.5bn from US financier Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital in May.
Shares currently trade at about $14, well off the high of more than $20 last year. With an equity value of $2bn, getting in now could be attractive for an investor convinced of either better days ahead or a future buyout offer big enough to start a conversation. And in a scenario where the Glazers felt compelled to sell, a chunky stake should guarantee a seat at the negotiating table.