Record revenue, £1bn debt, a boycott: what do United’s accounts actually prove?

United banked the biggest revenue in their history this week and posted their seventh straight annual loss in the same set of accounts.

It came ten days after supporters protested at the derby over 685 banned season tickets, and as a #BoycottUnited campaign took off online, urging fans to cancel MUTV and stop buying the shirt. The club’s accounts and the fans’ anger are not two separate stories. They are the same argument, coming from opposite ends.

What has been confirmed?

The 2025/26 results, published on 23 September, show revenue of £677.6m, up from £666.5m. That is a club record, and it came in a season without European football. Operating profit was £22.6m, against an £18.4m loss the year before. Adjusted EBITDA rose 18.4% to £216.4m, and wages fell to £302m, or 44.6% of revenue.

The bottom line still went the wrong way. The loss before tax was £47.0m and, after a £4.0m tax credit, the loss for the year widened to £43.0m from £33.0m. Beneath the record, commercial revenue (£317.3m) and matchday revenue (£153.5m) both fell; broadcasting carried it, rising to £206.8m from £172.9m. Net finance costs more than tripled to £69.6m, and the club’s borrowings stood at £689m at the end of June.

The accounts also confirm £63.5m spent on land for the proposed 100,000-capacity stadium. And, in the same week, United offered club members a piece of the old Old Trafford pitch, set in a cube, for £125.

On ticketing, United announced on 11 September that it had reviewed account activity between March and June and flagged 1,617 accounts. It issued 685 bans, gave 464 supporters lesser penalties, and upheld 499 bans on appeal. The club says the sanctions followed “significant misuse of the ticketing system for financial gain” by “organised ticketing networks”. It also accepted that the inquiry “caused significant concern and distress for some supporters” and that it had “underestimated how common sharing account usernames and passwords was”.

Who is saying what?

Omar Berrada, chief executive (club statement). The results vindicate the plan. “We are pleased to have secured record revenues and adjusted EBITDA,” he said, adding that it “demonstrates the underlying strength of our business” and promising “a disciplined approach to ensure our finances remain sustainable”.

Kieran Maguire, football finance analyst (analysis). The record has an address. Speaking to Sky Sports, he credited two things: finishing third rather than 15th, and the average amount fans paid to attend rising from around £88–89 to £106 a match, corporate hospitality included.

Simon Stone, BBC Sport (reporting). The debt is the story. He reports overall debt still above £1bn, down from £1.3bn in December, net finance costs up 228.3% to £69.6m, £63.5m spent on stadium land against a projected £2bn build, and a £148m summer outlay beside Manchester City’s £458m.

Laurie Whitwell, The Athletic (analysis). In Could Manchester United have spent more in the summer transfer window? he argues that United’s restraint this summer was a choice shaped by a squeezed financial picture, not an inability to spend. His conclusion is that Carrick overachieved by finishing third last season on a wage bill below Arsenal’s, City’s, Liverpool’s and Chelsea’s. Carrick had arguably earned more reinvestment, but on this budget recruitment has to be near-perfect.

MUST, The 1958 and The Red Army (organised supporter groups). Their objection is to the process, not the principle. MUST’s statement puts it plainly: “Suspicious behaviour should trigger investigation. It should not constitute proof of touting.” It says roughly 80% of appealed cases were overturned or reduced. The 1958 asked United to “show the evidence”, and a Red Army banner at the derby read “THE WAY YOU TREAT US IS A DISGRACE”.

Where do they agree — and disagree?

More is agreed than the noise suggests. The club’s figures themselves are not in dispute: they come from United’s own filing, and neither Maguire nor Stone challenges any of them. How they have been reported is another matter, which is covered below.

The club and its critics also broadly agree that the sanctions exercise misfired. United acknowledged the distress caused to match-goers and admitted underestimating password-sharing, which sits alongside, rather than against, MUST’s 80% figure. No supporter group is defending touting. The argument is about evidence, not principle.

Where they part company is interpretation. Berrada reads the accounts as underlying strength. Maguire reads the same record as resting on a better league finish and a near 20% rise in what supporters pay per match. Stone looks past both to £1bn of debt and a finance-cost line that has more than tripled.

There is also a split inside the fanbase worth pointing out. The 1958, MUST and The Red Army are working through appeals, transparency and matchday protest. #BoycottUnited, driven on social media by accounts such as @UtdXclusive, urges fans to “boycott MUTV” and “all club merchandise”. It is a revenue campaign, not a matchday one, and some supporters question whether it would work. We have found no sign that the organised groups have backed it. They are not one movement.

What remains unknown is how many of the 685 bans rest on corroborated evidence of resale, rather than account behaviour alone; United has not published its evidential threshold. Nor is there any figure yet for cancelled MUTV subscriptions or lost merchandise sales. Next quarter’s numbers will be the first hard read.

How the numbers are being reported

I’m the only person behind United Roundup, and I’m not an accountant. When one results release produces this many different numbers, it’s hard to get a clear picture from the coverage alone. What I did notice was how differently the same figures were being reported. Are outlets quoting the loss before tax or after it? Gross debt or net? Does a transfer figure include add-ons and agent fees, or just the headline fees?

So I went through 36 reports from national newsrooms, news agencies, United sites and fan channels, and set their figures against the club’s own release. Revenue (£677.6m) and operating profit (£22.6m) are reported almost identically everywhere. These are the figures where coverage splits.

£43m or £47m? Both are real

The loss before tax was £47.0m. A £4.0m tax credit brings it down to £43.0m after tax. PA, the Telegraph, Kieran Maguire and The United Stand used the first figure; AFP, Reuters, the Guardian, MEN, ESPN and Talk of the Devils used the second. The mistake is calling £43m a “pre-tax” loss. Sky Sports, a BBC story on the turf sale, Hayters and United In Focus all did this, and Stretford Paddock’s live show read out both.

Three different debt figures

£577.6m is the long-term loans on their own, which the BBC calls the “historic debt”. £689m adds £110m of revolving credit plus short-term interest, and is the full borrowing figure. “Over £1bn” also counts transfer fees still owed to other clubs, which Sky puts at £350m to £400m. The Guardian calls £577.6m “net debt”, but it is a gross figure; by our own sum, borrowings minus the £67.2m in the bank come to about £622m. The BBC’s later figure of £1.15bn comes from a newer filing and includes £90m borrowed after the accounts closed.

“Loan interest” is really all finance costs

The £69.6m, up 228%, is net finance costs for the whole year, and the BBC reports that most of the rise was a currency loss. Maguire, MEN and nearly every fan channel call it “loan interest” or an “interest repayment”. The interest on the loans themselves is much lower: the Telegraph puts it at £38.8m. The Guardian has £69.2m, and the Telegraph uses both £69.2m and £69.6m.

The Amorim payout

The accounts show £8.2m of one-off costs, mostly from Amorim and his staff leaving. That was first booked at £16.7m in May, then cut when he joined AC Milan; the difference is the £8.5m saving that talkSPORT and several fan channels quote. The Independent turns that round and says he was paid off £8.5m. The BBC says £8.5m was saved from a £16.5m pay-off, and Stretford Paddock’s live show said it would have been £18m.

Transfer spend isn’t in these accounts

The summer window came after the financial year closed on 30 June, so it doesn’t appear in these figures at all. Outlets quoted it anyway, and disagree: £155m (The Athletic, Guardian, Telegraph, ESPN), £148m (BBC and others), £150m and £136m (MEN), and £191.7m once add-ons and agent fees are counted (BBC follow-up, UnitedPeoplesTV).

Smaller slips

The Guardian gives wages as £301m and one MEN analysis £303m; the accounts say £302.0m. A RedCafe summary calls it an “11% drop”; it was 3.6%. All Out Soccer has the revolving credit at £100m (it was £110m), and one fan channel put the land purchase at £68m (it was £63.5m). The Athletic says third place let the club “report record profits overall”; it was record revenue and a loss.

What happens next?

An extended international break now gives everyone time to stew, and plenty more opinion and analysis will be thrown into the mix. After it comes a five-game October: Spurs at home on 10 October, then Atlético Madrid away, Leeds away and Como away, before Bournemouth at home. And each month up to the new year only gets busier.

Left out of this piece: any suggestion the ticketing crackdown was intended to raise revenue or reallocate seats, which no evidence supports and the club denies; and any figure for MUTV cancellations or lost merchandise sales, as none has been published.