A core of Manchester United fans and journalists have for some time objected to the club’s ownership structure. Ever since a gaggle of ginger bearded weirdies – formally referred to as “The Glazers” – took over United in 2005, there have been various protests and attempts to wrest control from these American interlopers. Take, for example, the efforts by the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust (MUST) to convince a group of wealthy United fans (dubbed the Red Knights) to buy the club in 2010, or the green and gold scarves still seen dotted around Old Trafford (a reference to United’s origins as Newton Heath FC).
United fans have never been shy about their feelings towards Malcolm Glazer. (Photo:@Red_Evils_7 | Twitter)
Of course, their objections aren’t targeted at the nationality of United’s owners, or the fact that they’re ginger; it’s the mountains of debt the Glazers used to finance their acquisition and the de-listing of the club against which they rail. Of the £800 million spent acquiring the shares to complete their takeover, more than 80% came through leverage supplied by hedge funds, much of it at double-digit interest rates and secured against the club.
The long-held argument was that Glazernomics – the use of the club’s revenue streams to pay down debt rather than build up United – has hampered the Red Devils’ ability to compete in the transfer market, rendering them unable to acquire the megastar prima-donnas so regularly snaffled by Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea and, in recent years, Manchester City. The theory was given weight by Sir Alex Ferguson’s comparatively frugal approach to recruitment: while United certainly spent, they largely targeted players of promise at modest cost (if you can call $20M-$30M such a thing) relative to their uber-spending peers. See: Ronaldo, Jones, Smalling, Nani, Anderson, the Da Silvas, De Gea and Zaha if proof be needed.
Glazernomics is the use of the club's revenue to pay down the debt rather then build United. (Photo: @worldsoccertalk | Twitter)
And yet, last year’s omni-shambles aside, the Glazer era has been one of the most successful periods in the club’s rich history: five EPL titles, three League Cups, 1 Champions League title (as well as two further Finals appearances) and one FIFA Club World Cup title. While rarely setting deadline day alight, they were still tearing teams apart on the pitch.
How ironic it is, then, that the primary danger to the future success of Manchester United today isn’t a lack of spending, but the polar opposite. While he rarely spent extravagantly, Ferguson was always at pains to tell supporters the money was there if he fancied a splurge. Fans, pressure groups and media alike thought he was bluffing, but it now appears that Glazernomics wasn’t the shackle on exorbitant outlays; that was in fact Ferguson. No, Glazernomics is putting prudence in a box and throwing away the key.
As Ferguson’s shadow over United has lightened with both time and the sacking of his anointed successor, a new, Glazer-led transfer policy is emerging, one which we learnt in the past weeks can be neatly summed up in four misguided words: "a Suarez every year." Now, while United's management team didn't issue this quote themselves (in fact, it came from Kevin Roberts of magazine SportsBusiness International in discussing Man U's future with Sky News), it does nicely summarize the new modus operandi for the club.
Specifically, they want to use their considerable commercial successes – spearheaded by Edward Woodward and crowned by the enormous $1.2 billion kit deal with Adidas – to buy one footballing titan per annum. While the vast sums spent on players this summer were previously viewed as a necessary one-off repair job following a period of relative neglect, it would appear the acquisitions of the likes of Di Maria and Falcao (not to forget $60M Juan Mata in January) is in fact United’s “new normal."
Angel Di Maria's £59.7 million was the highest ever paid by a British team. (Photo:@TeleFootball | Twitter)
This bears all the hallmarks of Woodward: the man who masterminded the commercialization of United’s global brand (the corollary of the Glazer’s debt burden) now wants to use the club’s transfer policy to the same end: linking up with Japan’s leading noodle manufacturer or India’s premier tire maker is a considerably easier prospect with Falcao or Di Maria on your team; considerably less so if your poster boy is Tom Cleverley.
There’s nothing wrong with spending money on great players, just as there’s nothing wrong with using debt if you can comfortably meet the payments. But the danger with the "Suarez per year" approach is that clubs hoist marquee names on unsuspecting managers in order to shift jerseys rather than build a balanced team. Defenders, goalkeepers and tackling midfielders just aren’t sexy, and as such they’re shunned for shiny attackers who can do step-over after step-over until the opposing full-back vomits. Did Barcelona really need Luis Suarez when they already had Neymar and Messi? No. Was the acquisition of James Rodriguez shrewd football business when what Real Madrid really needed were defenders and a striker? No. Is a potentially knee-knackered Radamel Falcao the answer to United’s threadbare, confidence-shot defence? No, no and no again.
Radamel Falcao is the most recent United toy to be unveiled. (Photo:@Foxsoccer | Twitter)
If Ed Woodward does indeed keep the Glazers’ financial taps open for the next five years, and he allows his manager(s) to spent said money wisely to build a squad of depth and balance, of experience and promise, suited to the tactics he wishes to pursue, then United fans can likely look forward for another period of success. If, however, he targets shirt sales over clean sheets, the naysayers may finally be justified in slamming Glazernomics.
