Man City and Man Utd’s Net Spends in Last Decade Compared

Highlights

• Manchester City’s expenditure was the highest in the league between the 2013/14 season and the 2017/18 season, but they have reduced their overall net spend with player sales.
• Manchester United were second in gross spend from 2013/14 to 2017/18, but their spending has surpassed City since the 2018/19 season.
• Although both clubs spent heavily, City’s success contrasts with United’s minimal results.

There’s no doubting that there has been something of a power shift in the city of Manchester within the last 10 years. For much of the Premier League era, Manchester United have been the dominant force, a club that was used to challenging for honours and one that regularly found itself at the top of the Premier League table.

But the 20-time English champions have struggled to maintain their high standards in the last decade. They have gone from fighting off title contenders to battling over a final spot in the top four. It’s been 11 long years since the Red Devils last finished first in England’s top division, and every fan inside Old Trafford will tell you that it has been far too long.

In their place, their noisy neighbours have risen up. Manchester City have become a juggernaut in the last decade following their takeover, collecting silverware regularly on domestic soil, while also regularly reaching the latter stages of the Champions League, a competition they won for the first time in 2022/23.

Fans, however, are always quick to say that City ‘bought it all’, with them spending huge amounts of cash to get to the top. United supporters will quickly throw that accusation at their rivals, but is there actually that much of a difference between the two sides in terms of spending?

Ahead of the Manchester derby this Saturday, a game which will feature players bought for hundreds of millions, we’ve had a look on Transfermarkt to see exactly what each club’s net spend has been in the last decade, breaking it down into two five-year stints. And while City might have ‘bought it all’, it’s not stopped United from trying to.

City’s five-year spend between 2013/14 and 2017/18

Nobody spent more than City in five-year period

Let’s initially look at City’s expenditure. At the start of the 2013/14 season, the Sky Blue side of Manchester were just five years out of their takeover, still spending big to solidify their status as a big player in the league. And that was something that continued for the next five seasons.

Between the start of the 2013/14 season and the end of the 2018/19 season, the Cityzens spent an incredible total of £821.9m, more than anybody else in the league during that same period. 114 players were brought to the club in that time. Some were big hits, like Kevin De Bruyne and Raheem Sterling, but the less said about players like Eliaquim Mangala and Stevan Jovetic the better.

Within that time frame, their net spend was also way higher than anybody else, with the club only raising £201.7m through player sales. With them mainly shifting deadwood with little to no value in the market at the time, it’s hardly a surprise to see their 116 departures fail to bring in hefty sums.

It was a case of spending big to get ahead of the pack without bringing much in. Did it work? Certainly. City won five trophies in that time period, but that hefty sum certainly adds weight to the chants of ‘You bought it all.’

City’s five-year spend from 2018/19 to present day

Steep rise in player sales

However, in the five years that followed, City’s net spend is way lower, to the point where they weren’t even anywhere near the top of the table. In fact, they are only seventh overall for the last five years.

But that has little to do with their spending. Under Pep Guardiola, City have continued to rack up a substantial bill, focusing on refreshing their squad and adding greater depth. Those who became dissatisfied or benchwarmers at the Etihad were moved on, and a total of £831.2m was spent replacing them. Their transfer record was broken when they signed Grealish from Aston Villa, while they also spent big on players such as Riyad Mahrez and Rodri.

But the reason why their net spend is so low, despite their gross spend being so high, is because there has been a dramatic increase in the value of their player sales. Previously, the main players leaving the club were ones who weren’t good enough to take them to the next level, which meant that a lot went out without much money coming in. That isn’t true these days, with Cole Palmer, Sterling, and Gabriel Jesus just three players sold in recent windows.

United’s five-year spend between 2013/14 and 2017/18

Red Devils way behind their rivals for total expenditure

On the red side of Manchester, there are lots of similarities between their transfer policy and City’s. United were just as lavish in the market, dropping big money on players like Angel Di Maria, Anthony Martial, Paul Pogba, Romelu Lukaku, and Alexis Sanchez, although they did spend £127.2m less that their rivals in that same period.

But while City saw return on their investment, all five of the above and many others came for big sums and failed to make much of an impact. And to make matters worse, the club also failed to claw back much of their income through player sales.

£44.3m was accrued for Di Maria’s sale, with the club making a loss of £15m, and others such as Shinji Kagawa and Memphis Depay were sold for a fraction of what the Red Devils paid for. In total, United’s net spend in that time is the second-most in the league, but they are still some way behind City.

United’s five-year spend from 2018/19 to present day

Old Trafford outfit overtake their rivals’ spending

But the argument that City ‘bought it all’ really comes crashing down for United fans when we take a look at the subsequent five seasons. Hoping that big investment would return the club to the Premier League summit, the Red Devils spent even more than their rivals between 2018/19 and the current term.

In came the likes of Harry Maguire (£80m), Aaron Wan-Bissaka (£50m), Donny van de Beek (£39m), Jadon Sancho (£73m), Antony (£82m) – we could go on. But, despite all the money, the club failed to achieve their end goal. Premier League glory has continued to evade them, and question marks have been raised over several of the signings above. There were even reports that United even only valued Antony at £25m before they then went way over the mark.

Consequently, they have seen their total spend exceed what they dropped on players in the five years prior, while they also exceed what City have spent in that time. And despite that, they’ve only lifted a solitary League Cup in the last five years. Spending all that money for one trophy is hardly an indicator that it’s been worth the outlay.

And unlike their rivals, they haven’t offset that with player sales either, with many players purchased being sold at a discounted price, something which seems likely to happen again this summer as new owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe plans for a summer ‘exodus’.

United exceed City’s net spend in last 10 years

Former have spent over £1.5 billion to get back to Premier League glory

When it comes down to City, ‘buying it all’, it’s hard to say that they haven’t. Only Chelsea have a higher gross spend in the last 10 years than the Sky Blue club. But United being so close to them in gross spend and ahead of their rivals in net spend shows it’s not all about the money, especially when you consider their trophy hauls.

The Red Devils have dropped a fortune on players in the last 10 years, yet they have a fraction of City’s success to show for it. It’s not as if they haven’t tried to buy their way back into success either. Couple that with the fact that their rivals are making substantially more from sales nowadays, and the differences between how both clubs operate becomes stark.

New owner Ratcliffe is already attempting to right the wrongs of the past, cutting out deadwood while installing people behind the scenes like Omar Berrada and, potentially Dan Ashworth, to help United plan better in the future. But, importantly, for United to close the gap to the top of the table, they will have to spend even more to improve a team which has already had millions pumped into it in the last decade. City might have bought it all, but United will have to follow suit to get back to where they should be.