A Wembley of the North – Discussing Manchester United’s Proposed Stadium

Over the past couple of seasons, the iconic Old Trafford stadium has acted as a kind of allegory for the recent demise of the team that plays there, Manchester United. A leaky roof, outdated facilities, a lack of technological infrastructure, and everything else constantly reminded fans that Old Trafford was long past its glory days.

Well, as we have learned recently, the dream of a new “theatre of dreams’ has taken a small step forward. Plans have been released for the as-yet-unnamed stadium that will host the 20-time Premier League winners. While some of the images of the plans received a bit of scorn (it does look like a circus top), there are some very ambitious key points, including a capacity for 100,000 fans.

We do not want to spend too much time discussing the ‘what’ of the stadium, as the plans may change in the coming months and years, but we do want to discuss the why and how, as it is interesting and has caused a bit of controversy.

It’s clear a new stadium is needed

First, the why. United’s decline over the last ten years (some believe it started before Alex Ferguson left, despite the team’s success right up to the end of his tenure) has raised questions about all aspects of the team. Old Trafford is still England’s best-attended club stadium, and United rarely have difficulty selling 74,000+ tickets for each home game.

Fans will arguably come to see United with a new stadium or not. But the matchday experience can be a bit miserable. Most fans don’t ask for much: they’ll want some decent Wi-Fi so they can place a bet online; they want some decent grub; clean toilets. Yet, the crumbling (literally) infrastructure has meant that enough was enough. It was – is – embarrassing for the club that calls itself the biggest in the world to be housed there.

Of course, it is obviously understood that a bigger capacity would lead to more revenues, which could be spent on improving the team. Again, United would likely have no trouble selling an extra 25,000 tickets for each home game, and that could earn tens of millions per year in additional revenue without also factoring in what those fans will spend in the club’s shops and eateries. It all makes sense, especially when you factor in that United’s co-owner, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, said in a recent interview he wanted to make the club the world’s most profitable.

The club will need to raise revenue

Yet, those who have been following the Red Devils will know that the club is also in dire financial straits, leading to extreme cost-cutting measures across the business. So, how can United afford to build one of the world’s football stadiums? The simple answer is it can’t, at least without investors. Those investors – or funders – will include the UK government. Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham seems especially keen to help build a “Wembley of the North” and reports suggest £300 million will funnel through from there. But there is still £1.7 billion to find of the stadium’s reported £2 billion cost.



One imagines the shortfall will be met through bank loans and private investment. United already has a lot of debt, so that will certainly leave a bad taste in the mouths of some fans. There is also the prospect of raising revenue internally, especially through ticket price increases, something which has been at the heart of protests by United fans of late.

All of this leads us to a scenario where fans will get a shiny new stadium but at a considerable cost, almost certainly a personal financial cost. And it’s worth noting that a new stadium does not lead to instant riches. While Arsenal, for example, is riding high now, the team had to operate under budgetary pressures for several years to pay for the Emirates. In short, the new stadium will represent a bit of a gamble for everyone involved, at least in the short term. In the longer term, while a stadium doesn’t deliver success, a new home for one of the world’s biggest football teams seems necessary.