Why a new Manchester United stadium would be bad for fans | OneFootball

When Jim Ratcliffe arrives at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on Sunday, he will get another tantalising view of the expanded concourse known as the Market Place. It helps Spurs take in around £1m per home game on food and drink alone. To some in the game, this is more impressive than the single-tiered South Stand.

It is also why, for all the talk of a “Wembley of the North”, what Manchester United owner Ratcliffe really wants is a “Tottenham Hotspur Stadium of the North”. That doesn’t sound as catchy, admittedly, but it has worked its way into the minds of many executives. Newcastle United have talked behind the scenes about how their reimagined St James’ Park would be comparable to Spurs’ project. And Chelsea have cast envious glances from across the capital.

Such is the admiration the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, the Premier League could well end up with equivalents all over the country; an update on the Emirates type that proliferated from the mid-2000s.

Many Spurs fans might lament the fact their actual football doesn’t garner the same respect. The two are of course linked, even if it doesn’t feel like it right now.

In the modern world of PSR, where broadcast income is centrally negotiated and commercial deals are viewed as “maxed out”, the big lever a club can pull is venue income. This may well end up being the main area for growth, and create a new land grab, so to speak.

It also shows how football has turned full circle on the importance of stadiums. Just over two decades ago, Arsenal were excitedly preparing to move into their stadium of the future, only to find that idea was out of time. The club had focused on matchday income through the Emirates, at the exact point when Roman Abramovich’s takeover of Chelsea changed the sport’s financial parameters. Broadcasting income also boomed, with an economic shift hastened by wifi making clubs’ commercial horizons limitless and state ownerships capitalising on that power. There was even a time when senior executives believed ticket prices could become irrelevant. That almost seems a cruel joke now.

open image in gallery

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has become the envy of the Premier League (Action Images/Reuters)

The regulatory response to all of this has changed the picture. The stadium has become an area of “growth”. Arsenal are themselves looking at expanding the Emirates.

One of Tottenham’s great successes has actually been to overshadow their neighbour’s house as north London’s premier venue, but its own views are wider. It is widely considered the best stadium in Europe, and has made the club one of the wealthiest in football.

That has been achieved through all of the elements that would be gushed about in promotional material. There’s the “dwell time”, from offering an area that means fans stay on the premises for much longer than just the game. Spurs’s £1m matchday take on food and drink is still seen as 10 years behind America, where digital wallets exclusively for stadium use have become big business, and 30 per cent of funds don’t even get used. That’s what’s to come. There’s also the many events outside of the football calendar, from concerts, boxing and rugby matches, to how the stadium has been officially declared the “home of the NFL in the UK”. There were obvious quips when news of a Beyoncé show leaked on transfer deadline day.

This is the future that Ratcliffe and his contemporaries covet: the world-class “multi-use stadium”.

There’s finally the crucial element that is spoken about with much less boisterousness: hugely expensive tickets. Spurs sell the second most expensive of the cheapest season tickets in the Premier League, at £856 – only behind Arsenal (£1,073). This comes as fan groups have launched campaigns about changes to concession policies, amid the general suspicion that most clubs ultimately want to take the American approach of more one-off tickets at higher prices. While Premier League chief executive Richard Masters disputed this on the eve of the season, the idea hardly goes against the direction of travel. Chelsea have even taken some of these concepts to extremes, with prices of up to £12,500 for exclusively-placed seats at choice matches.

open image in gallery

Old Trafford is showing serious signs of wear compared to Tottenham’s shiny new stadium (PA)

United are ultimately going to have to find £2bn from somewhere to fund their stadium plans, potentially through borrowing. Spurs themselves have spoken about how increased match receipts are “a critical revenue stream for the security of the stadium debt”. Through that swirl, and so much money, it’s hard not to wonder whether something else is lost.

One of the reasons that football makes so much money is because of the atmosphere generated in stadiums, as well as the sense of cultural authenticity. And yet it is the very pursuit of that authenticity by non-traditional fans that helps kill it.

This yearning for authenticity complicates the question of whether to simply refurbish a ground or build anew. The experience of a stadium is enriched by the knowledge that this was where Kenny Dalglish or Denis Law played; where history happened. “That pitch has seen our greats, and the fans walk the same streets,” says Barney Chilton, of United fanzine Red News.

This isn’t to argue for ancient standards and stadiums, but it is more about balance. It feeds into the frustration that a life-long Spurs fan like Daniel Gardiner has felt in recent years, despite his admiration for the new ground.

"It’s frustrating to see ticket prices soar, pushing loyal fans out in favour of those who can afford a day out,” Gardiner says. “It's a bitter pill to swallow, watching our rich history being replaced with a shiny facade that doesn’t quite capture the spirit of what it means to be a true Tottenham supporter.”

open image in gallery

Jim Ratcliffe believes regenerating Old Trafford could mean the stadium becomes a ‘Wembley for the North’ (Peter Byrne/PA)

Match-going United fan Anthony Shaw experienced a similar feeling from his last trip to Spurs for the Carabao Cup.

“Grounds built prior to the Nineties have a unique feeling and identity that doesn’t exist in modern stadiums. You obviously lose things such as character, traditions and history. Anfield in January had that old feeling.”

One insider does counter that none of this feels sterile if a team is winning on the pitch; that you only had to listen to the Spurs’ stadium singing “Angels” last season. Shaw believes there is still something else going on.

“I think my biggest concern is how a ‘need’ is being manipulated by owners. The aim is not to improve the matchday experience or atmosphere, it is purely about maximising revenues. Why do they sell ‘packages’ in what you’d think would be the most atmospheric areas?

“I believe there’s a naivety and misunderstanding of what the fundamental attraction of the English game is, one not seen since the same people thought the Super League would be welcomed. They may have changed strategy to a slower change, but it will still ruin the spectacle.”

Chilton ponders what fans actually want from a stadium.

“As I’ve looked around Old Trafford, I’ve wondered: ‘Who would get rid of this?’ So, yes, I look forward to ‘reverse’ beer serving and airport-style entry on Sunday, but it makes me fonder still for what we have, knowing it won’t be for long.

“New stadiums will of course provide new futures, but they aren’t building them for the likes of you or me…”