Have Glazers really made United worse?


In this Eurosport article, Glazers were accused of draining £1 billion from Manchester United, and making the club worse. In this post, I am going to find out, if Glazers have really made Manchester United worse!


It has been 10 years since the infamous takeover of Manchester United from the Glazar family. Most fans of Manchester United, didn’t like that takeover, and are still not liking it. I believe that a lot has to do with the way Glazer family took over Manchester United. I mean United got a big debt on their shoulders, because of the takeover, which in a way didn’t really help the club, at least in financial terms.


Before the Glazers, lets say since 1991 to 2005, Manchester United won 8 Premier League trophies, and after 2005, they won 5 Premier League trophies. That is not really a big difference given that Manchester had less competition till 2005, than after it. United also won one Champions League title before 2005, and one after it. I mean given the trophies, Manchester United didn’t really suffer with the ownership of Glazers.

The next thing is, that Manchester United hasn’t really fallen behind the competition. Around year 2000, there were mostly Italian clubs that were the richest in the world. Since then, only two clubs are ranked as the richest in the world. Real Madrid, or Manchester United. Because of this they are the clubs that can afford the best players on the market, which means that they are the most competitive football clubs in the world


People used to say that Manchester United failed to get proper reinforcements, because the Glazers didn’t want to give the money. Well the thing was, that Alex Ferguson didn’t really need all those reinforcements. He managed to keep United competitive without all those superstars.


Its really hard to say how much money did Glazers took from Manchester United (I really doubt that there was £1 billion), but the fact is that every owner has usually one goal when buying a football club, and that is getting the profit. Other than that, it simply doesn’t make sense of buying a club. So Glazers surly made a profit, but it didn’t really hurt Manchester United in terms of performances.
Some are saying that it was their fault for not keeping Cristiano Ronaldo, but when the player decides he wants to leave, there is no point of keeping him at the club. This has happened before at Manchester United, and is happening in every other club, so there is no point of blaming Glazers for this either.

I am not surprised that criticism has intensified since Ferguson has left. The results have clearly floundered, and there is big money being spend on players that aren’t really producing results. But that was always going to be problem, when Ferguson would retire. So this would happen no matter who would be in charge of the club.


So to sum up, I believe that Glazers didn’t really make Manchester United worse like some fans are suggesting, I even think they improved Manchester United. I am predicting that there will be increasing criticism of the family, because the results will probably never be as good as under Ferguson, but I believe that Manchester United will stay as one of the richest clubs in the world, and probably one of the most competitive, no matter what happens.