Ratcliffe’s job cuts aren’t really about Man Utd – something else is going on

I’ve crunched the numbers so you don’t have to, and the financial disparity at Manchester United is staggering. The average UK salary, per the Office for National Statistics, stands at £37,430. Yet, it takes nearly ten full-time staff members (9.4, to be precise) to collectively earn in a year what Casemiro reportedly makes in a single week—£350,000.

Even if these figures aren’t pinpoint accurate, they expose a glaring inefficiency. If we extend the math further, Casemiro—a player who has largely been reduced to a fringe role—costs United a staggering £18.2 million per year. That’s the equivalent of 486 average UK salaries.

Now, against this backdrop, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a self-proclaimed advocate of financial efficiency, is leading widespread job cuts at the club. Reports suggest at least 100 more positions are set to be axed, potentially doubling that number, on top of the 250 roles already eliminated. This raises an uncomfortable question: does Ineos’ economic team understand basic arithmetic?

Ratcliffe insists that these cuts are designed to improve the team’s performance. But if that were truly the goal, wouldn’t the logical first step be offloading a player like Casemiro, whose wages alone could sustain the club’s existing staff structure while still yielding savings?

Imagine the morale boost that could bring. Instead of employees dreading the next round of layoffs, they could work with confidence, bringing fresh energy to Old Trafford and Carrington. A rejuvenated staff could, in turn, uplift a team that desperately needs a spark to shake off its slump.

United fans have endured enough negativity from the pitch; they don’t need more of it from boardroom decisions. Staff aren’t just statistics; they are people. Take Jackie Kay, for example—the head of first-team logistics, who has been with the club for 30 years. Despite her dedication, she was recently let go. But the responsibilities of her role remain, likely to be absorbed by an already overburdened colleague.

Casemiro’s bloated salary is just one symptom of United’s deeply flawed recruitment strategy. While Ratcliffe might argue that he inherited this problem, Ineos’ own decisions have done little to reverse the trend. Since taking over football operations, they’ve already hired and fired a sporting director, Dan Ashworth, who spent more time on gardening leave than actually working at United. The club reportedly paid around £3 million in compensation to bring him in—only to spend even more to show him the exit.

And then there’s the managerial merry-go-round. Just a month before Ashworth’s departure, Ineos dismissed a manager to whom they had only recently handed an extended contract. The financial impact? Around £25 million, factoring in the costs of sacking Erik ten Hag and appointing Ruben Amorim.