{"id":321999,"date":"2025-08-06T08:10:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T08:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/321999\/"},"modified":"2025-08-06T08:10:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-06T08:10:14","slug":"how-manchester-united-can-afford-to-spend-big-on-benjamin-sesko-and-explore-more-signings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/321999\/","title":{"rendered":"How Manchester United can afford to spend big on Benjamin Sesko and explore more signings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Manchester United fans have a favoured refrain, often given prominence during leaner times, one that ends with the view they\u2019re \u201cnever ignored\u201d. It is a maxim proving true this summer.<\/p>\n

On the back of their worst domestic showing in half a century, with no European football on the horizon, staff numbers being scythed and, just five months ago, an owner claiming the club would have gone \u201cbust at Christmas\u201d without cost-cutting measures, one might have expected a quiet transfer summer at Old Trafford.<\/p>\n

No chance.<\/p>\n

Only two new faces have arrived, though Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo cost a combined \u00a3127.5million ($169.5m) in guaranteed transfer fees alone. Even with that spend and without permanent departures \u2014 though Marcus Rashford\u2019s loan to Barcelona does have a purchase option<\/a> \u2014 United\u2019s name continues to crop up frequently in high-profile transfer discussions.<\/p>\n

For all their recent malaise, they remain one of the preeminent clubs in world football, at least off the pitch.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Now they are closing in on a deal to sign Benjamin Sesko from RB Leipzig<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Like Cunha and Mbeumo before him, Sesko won\u2019t come cheap. After Newcastle United sent an improved bid to Leipzig on Monday<\/a>, Manchester United followed up with their opening bid on Tuesday<\/a> of \u20ac75million plus \u20ac10m in add-ons. Sesko\u2019s preference is to move to Manchester United<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That Manchester United can commit so much money to deals this summer might perplex some. As well as up front, the club have been considering their options in midfield \u2014 and in goal too, even as first-choice \u2018keeper Andre Onana is expected to stay put. At the same time, for all the talk of outgoings, nobody has yet been sold for any money this summer.<\/p>\n

Naturally, the question arises of how United can be so active. Even against a backdrop of tightening finances, United are pondering more big spending.<\/p>\n

We say more not just because of Cunha and Mbeumo, but because of what has come before. Indeed, it is that \u2018before\u2019 that led minority owner Jim Ratcliffe to bemoan<\/a>, as recently as March, United still having sizeable instalments to pay on transfers long since inked.<\/p>\n

Cunha\u2019s signing was confirmed before United\u2019s June 30 year-end, meaning the \u00a371.3m total cost of bringing him in (according to the club\u2019s third-quarter financial report) fell into 2024-25 for accounting purposes. Add the \u00a3272.1m spent in the nine months to March 31 and United\u2019s outlay on player registrations last season rises to a staggering \u00a3343.5m \u2014 the third-highest single-season mark in English football history (though Liverpool may soon bump them to fourth).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It represents United\u2019s highest single-season spend, though it is hardly out of character. They have spent more than \u00a3200m on new signings in each of the past three seasons, recouping comparatively little in return on sales. The \u00a366.3m earned last season was United\u2019s second-highest player sales figure in the past decade \u2014 they still spent a record \u00a3277m net last season.<\/p>\n

That includes Cunha, so this season\u2019s spend is lower than if we look at a transfer window basis, but the overall sums United have spent in recent years are huge. They have contributed directly to the financial woes Ratcliffe aired this year and, correspondingly, the ongoing job cuts.<\/p>\n

Assessing a club\u2019s ability to spend in the modern age spans two areas: profit and sustainability rules (PSR) and the presence of, or access to, actual cash.<\/p>\n

United\u2019s purported PSR woes are less than once recently thought. As The Athletic revealed in June<\/a>, that\u2019s in part because the club\u2019s PSR calculation is based on the results of Red Football Limited, stripping out some chunky costs at the PLC level that don\u2019t come under the sphere of football activity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Figures for last season aren\u2019t yet known, but The Athletic estimated United could have lost \u00a3141m in 2024-25 without incurring a breach of PSR. They didn\u2019t and, on the back of improved commercial and matchday income (offsetting a big drop in broadcast revenues) and a noteworthy drop in the wage bill, United likely still made a loss but a manageable one, at least in the context of the three-year \u00a3105m PSR limit.<\/p>\n

Though they will hope for a big improvement in the Premier League, United won\u2019t generate any TV money from Europe this year, and their continued high transfer spending won\u2019t help bring down a player amortisation bill nearing \u00a3200m a year.<\/p>\n

There are, however, already elements helping reduce, or at least restrain, any 2025-26 losses. Rashford\u2019s departure might not have brought in a transfer fee but will save \u00a314m in wages this season.<\/p>\n

United have not sold anyone yet but they have benefited from others selling their former players \u2014 moves involving Alvaro Carreras, Anthony Elanga and Maxi Oyedele have earned them more than \u00a320m in sell-on fees. A further \u00a35m has arrived from Chelsea after they failed to turn Jadon Sancho\u2019s loan move into a permanent deal, though that sum will be eaten into if Sancho isn\u2019t sold this summer, as United are now back on the hook for his full wage.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

United have profited from Newcastle\u2019s purchase of Anthony Elanga from Nottingham Forest (Lampson Yip \u2013 Clicks Images\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

Those transactions help United\u2019s bottom line, and, depending on the timing of payments in those deals that have spawned sell-on fees, could also help their cash position. In truth, it\u2019s that, rather than too many PSR woes, that provides the clearest limiting factor on United keeping up their heady rate of transfer spending.<\/p>\n

Projecting United\u2019s PSR headroom for 2025-26 is tricky (or foolish) as it requires estimating two full years of financials at a club undergoing significant change, particularly for expenditure. Yet based on United\u2019s third-quarter earnings statement, a loss last season in line with 2022-23\u2019s deficit doesn\u2019t seem unreasonable. That result drops off the PSR calculation this season, one figure replacing the other.<\/p>\n

In other words, our estimate of their ability to lose \u00a3141m in 2024-25 without a PSR breach could hold true again for this season.<\/p>\n

Past spending could catch up with them in other ways. United\u2019s net transfer debt \u2014 instalments owed to clubs, less those owed from clubs \u2014 has exploded in recent years, from below \u00a3100m in June 2021 to \u00a3308.9m at the end of March.<\/p>\n

The signings of Cunha and Mbeumo have only added to the sum, with each of their fees spread over instalments. That is better in the immediate term than having to fork out nearly \u00a3130m immediately (and so widens the scope for United to spend more this summer), but then they already owed a significant amount in fees soon \u2014 at the end of March, net transfer payments owed before the end of March 2026 stood at \u00a3175.5m. The three-year payment term of the Cunha deal also came after United had unsuccessfully sought five years of instalments, a clear sign of their need to be careful with cash.<\/p>\n

United have also invested in infrastructure recently, the Carrington Training Complex being the most obvious example, all of which further squeezes cash. The club\u2019s cash balance was \u00a373.2m at the end of March, even after \u00a3238.5m of equity injections from Ratcliffe. That\u2019s still a lot of cash by most clubs\u2019 standards, but then United aren\u2019t most clubs. They have a lot of bills to pay.<\/p>\n

United have held a few revolving credit facilities (RCFs \u2014 effectively, corporate overdrafts that aid day-to-day liquidity) for a while, though they only started dipping into them to deal with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Surprisingly, at the end of April, they paid off \u00a350m of their existing RCF borrowings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In a roundabout way, that gave them extra borrowing scope this summer. On April 28, following the \u00a350m repayment, United had drawn down \u00a3160m across their three RCFs, which have \u2014 or at least had \u2014 an overall combined limit of \u00a3300m. At the end of April, therefore, United could draw down a further \u00a3140m if they chose to, though of course they would be on the hook for extra interest costs in doing so.<\/p>\n

Activity since the third quarter report was filed on June 6 is unknown and won\u2019t be confirmed until the club\u2019s full year 2024-25 accounts are published. But on July 10, a new charge was registered against various United entities at Companies House in favour of Bank of America, which already acts as the security trustee across the existing \u00a3300m of RCFs.<\/p>\n

A year ago, on 28 June 2024, a linked charge was filed, as United extended a \u00a3150m tranche of the RCF to expire in June 2027. The new charge suggests a further time extension related to the RCFs, or it is possible that United have increased their borrowing capacity, drawing down even more than the \u00a3140m we know was available to them at the end of April.<\/p>\n

When contacted by The Athletic, the club declined to comment on the matter, other than to state any changes to the nature or size of the RCFs would be detailed in the club\u2019s 2024-25 annual accounts, expected to be published in September.<\/p>\n

Separately, there\u2019s also the point of those staffing cuts and other cost-saving measures having a tangible effect on cash flow. Savings might be a drop in the ocean compared to if United could get rid of millions in player salaries at the drop of a hat, but they can\u2019t, and the amount of redundancies since Ratcliffe\u2019s arrival will clearly have an impact.<\/p>\n

United also projected adjusted EBITDA (an accounting measure they use as a proxy for operating performance) for 2024-25 in the \u00a3180m-\u00a3190m range, a marked increase on 2023-24\u2019s \u00a3147.7m, which should have translated to stronger operating cash flows last season.<\/p>\n

Even now, United can still spend if they wish to. Cash needs to be rather more carefully managed than was the case in the past at Old Trafford, but a combination of recent actions and the club\u2019s continued ability to borrow, if they wish to, means there are avenues available to them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

United have the money to pay for Sesko (Maja Hitij\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

Still, it is expected, both inside and outside the club, that sales will be made. It isn\u2019t controversial to say United need to improve at selling, having lagged behind peers for a long while. That ballooning transfer debt is proof enough of their need to get better at player trading \u2014 and there\u2019s no time like the present.<\/p>\n

Alejandro Garnacho and Antony are the most obvious candidates for sales that might make United decent money this summer. Meanwhile, the prospect of Sesko arriving increases the chance of Rasmus Hojlund departing<\/a> just two years into his five-year deal.<\/p>\n

Hojlund signed from Atalanta for an initial \u00a364m that, after tagging on agent fees and the Premier League\u2019s transfer levy, leaves his current book value at \u00a343m. United will consider offers of \u00a330m (though the player has said he wants to stay). That would be an eight-figure loss for PSR purposes \u2014 but could generate some useful cash.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Additional reporting: Mark Critchley and Laurie Whitwell\u00a0<\/p>\n

(Top photos: Getty Images)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Manchester United fans have a favoured refrain, often given prominence during leaner times, one that ends with the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":322000,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8813],"tags":[748,393,4884,2465,98,101,10031,25711,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-321999","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-manchester","8":"tag-britain","9":"tag-england","10":"tag-great-britain","11":"tag-manchester","12":"tag-manchester-united","13":"tag-premier-league","14":"tag-soccer","15":"tag-sports-business","16":"tag-uk","17":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114980810572623077","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321999\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/322000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}