Washington Post Article on United

I like the article even though it didn't have too much that most of us wouldn't already know (especially if you've read "Manchester Unlimited"). I appreciate the fact that the reporter obviously took great pains to get a number of key statistics right and made some great comparisons in terms of salary and percentage of revenues going to salary with American sports leagues.

Of course, the bashing has already begun in the "Business and Media" section for calling United perhaps the winningest club on the planet.

I mean, come on, folks complain if there's nothing about the game in mainstream media, they complain if there's a glaring error like the "game winning goal vs. Greece in a World Cup semifinal comment" but an article shows obvious research, committment and passion, and they complain about that. Sheesh.

What really matters is that I've already gotten a few E-mails from friends (soccer folks and nonsoccer alike) who know I'm a United fan commenting favorably on the article.

 

I was going to as well but it's patently obvious that all you'd get in response is United-bashing. If these folks aren't willing to recognize the positives, so be it.

 

Excellent article. Well written and well researched.

One minor point: The article pointed out that "United's key to profits is disciplined control of costs, especially player salaries, while at the same time growing revenues." If my information is correct here, United used to control player salaries well, but they started paying their players quite a bit more, starting with Roy Keane, when he was being coutrted by several big clubs a few years ago. United decided it was less expensive to pay their established stars a good salary than pay money to get new players to Old Trafford. The article justifies the above statement by citing that United's salaries are 48% of revenue, well below most other clubs. But the reason for this is not that the salaries are low, but that their revenues are so high.