Can Man United really build a winning team as well as a $2.6B stadium?

MANCHESTER, England (AP) — Manchester United wants to build the greatest stadium on earth. It wants to build the greatest soccer team as well.

Something has got to give, surely?

Ambitious plans for a $2.6-billion, 100,000-seat stadium come at a time when United is already hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and undergoing brutal cost cutting measures to avoid running out of cash by the end of the year.

The situation is dire on the field as well. The record 20-time English champion is languishing in the bottom half of the Premier League despite spending around $2 billion on players over the 12 years since it last won the title.

"Our number one goal is to get our teams winning and to get the men's team competing for all the titles consistently. We are not going to deviate from that," United chief executive Omar Berrada said.

Bad omens

History is not on United's side.

Arsenal's last league title came in the same year building began on its new home, the Emirates Stadium in 2004. In the following years, it witnessed the break up of its so-called "Invincibles" team, including Thierry Henry, and struggled to compete with its rivals to buy the top players.

Arsenal moved into the Emirates in 2006 and its wait for its first title at the stadium goes on.

United is starting from a much lower bar than Arsenal did, with Ruben Amorim's team 14th in the standings and looking likely to record its worst-ever Premier League finish. The squad Amorim inherited from former manager Erik ten Hag looks ill-equipped to play to his system and an overhaul is likely required at the end of the season.

Having spent around £500 million ($646 million) on players over the past three years, money is tight at a time when United has warned about the dangers of breaching the league's profit and sustainability rules, which can result in points deductions.

"We are trying to put ourselves in the best financial position to be able to invest in our team and making it better," Berrada said. "We are not necessarily going to be investing significant amounts. But that is going to be out of choice because we want to manage our football costs more efficiently."

Bad deals

It remains to be seen how that plays out in terms of United's recruitment strategy, but in the short term, at least, it seems unlikely it will be in the market for the very top players.

United's problem since former manager Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 has been to spend too much money on players who haven't delivered. Recent examples would be Antony and Jadon Sancho, who were signed for a combined fee of around £155 million ($200 million) and are both currently out on loan.

United's part-owner Jim Ratcliffe was critical of the club's business when in an interview with the BBC this week he said some players were "not good enough and some probably are overpaid."

Smart signings

Recruitment has been an ongoing problem under a succession of managers since Ferguson, with big-money signings rapidly seeing their values decrease.

United may have to adopt the strategy of a team like Brighton, which has made an art out identifying up-and-coming players before selling on for big profits.

With likely less money to spend than his predecessors, Amorim will have to be smart with his dealings and there are already examples of United investing in emerging talents.

Teenagers Chido Obi and Ayden Heaven were both signed after being developed by Arsenal's academy and 20-year-old Patrick Dorgu cost a relatively low £25.2 million ($32.6 million) to sign from Lecce in January.

Whether that is enough to build a team capable of challenging Liverpool and Manchester City is another matter.

City has dominated English soccer since the backing of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi allowed it to spend exorbitant amounts on some of the best players in the world, like Erling Haaland and Kevin De Bruyne.

Liverpool's transfer business has been celebrated but has still come at significant cost, with record amounts spent on players like Virgil van Dijk and Alisson.

While money is not a guarantee of success — as proved by United — soccer is dominated by the richest clubs. United need to spend better to improve its fortunes on the field, but it's likely it would still need to spend heavily.

Cost cutting

In January, United said it had lost more than £300 million ($371 million) over the past three years. Its latest accounts showed it was $650 million in debt.

Ratcliffe said this week that United was set to run out of money by the end of the year if not for the cost cutting measures put in place.

Those have included job cuts of up to 450. Even Ferguson was not beyond the reach of United's attempts to get its finances under control, and his lucrative ambassadorial role will also go at the end of the season.

Furthermore, United raised its lowest-priced tickets to £66 ($81) partway through the campaign, up from £40 ($49).

"The goal that we have is to become the most profitable club within the next two years," Berrada said. "Once you become profitable, then everything else becomes more manageable and it also allows us to to be able to invest in the future, which is what this stadium is about."

A bright future?

A state-of-the-art stadium could be completed by the 2030-31 season.

Ratcliffe says United needs an arena befitting its status as one of the world's most popular teams.

But with finances being so closely monitored, will United be able to build a team befitting of the stadium?

___

AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer