How painful it is when a defender known for costly mistakes suddenly delivers a convincing argument. Lisandro Martínez may not seem like the obvious person to assess Manchester United’s uneven start to the season, especially after his prominent errors against Fulham and Tottenham contributed to their problems. Yet after Tuesday night’s 2-0 defeat by Atlético Madrid, he openly questioned how the club had reached this point.
Those unwilling to consider Martínez’s actual remarks will find it easy to dismiss him. Former players often react uneasily when someone breaks football’s unwritten code of silence, even years after leaving the dressing room. Wayne Rooney called the comments disrespectful, Ashley Young questioned whether Martínez had earned the right to speak that way, and Rio Ferdinand warned that such situations rarely finish positively.
Attacking the speaker, however, is simpler than addressing his argument, particularly when similar concerns are reportedly shared by others inside the United squad. Recent controversies in English football have highlighted the game’s persistent unwillingness to examine the owners and senior executives who exercise enormous influence. Criticism is usually directed toward those on the pitch rather than those making decisions in the boardroom.
It is still important to examine Martínez’s complaint carefully because the situation is more complicated than it first appears. He criticised the board, particularly technical director Jason Wilcox, for not investing enough in the squad during the summer. United recruited three midfielders—Andrey Santos, Youri Tielemans and Carlos Baleba—along with reserve goalkeeper Karl Darlow, but added neither a striker nor a defender.
The reasons behind that failure require closer attention. United pursued Lewis Hall and Myles Lewis-Skelly but could not complete a defensive signing because they were unable to sell anyone in that position. There was little interest in Diogo Dalot, Noussair Mazraoui, Harry Maguire, Luke Shaw or Martínez, with some of those contracts due to expire next summer. That predicament reflects recruitment choices and agreements made several years ago. It also raises a broader question: why must one of the world’s richest clubs sell players before it can recruit replacements?
The answer may also explain why United refused to meet the price demanded for Elliot Anderson and instead chose the inconsistent Santos and the dependable but perhaps overrated Tielemans. The club is operating under financial restraint, with part-owner Jim Ratcliffe aggressively reducing expenditure and increasing ticket prices. His aim is to reverse years of wasteful spending in which ordinary players received excessive salaries and unsuccessful coaches collected substantial compensation. Even so, it remains difficult to understand why a club with United’s commercial power reached the point where such cuts became necessary.
One explanation lies in the more than £1bn extracted during the Glazer family’s 21 years of ownership through dividends, share transactions and interest payments on the debt used to acquire the club. During the same period, Old Trafford and the Carrington training complex were allowed to deteriorate. Whether Martínez intended it or not, his criticism of limited investment effectively challenges more than two decades of poor management and financial self-interest.
That context gives Martínez’s intervention greater importance than an ordinary weekly controversy. Few active United players have spoken so directly about the consequences of the Glazer era. Ole Gunnar Solskjær made a modest protest in early 2005 before the takeover, while Cristiano Ronaldo launched several criticisms shortly before his second departure in 2022. Many others waited until retirement, when expressing dissatisfaction could produce personal rewards without threatening their careers. Martínez is unlikely to receive the same protection and may face significant consequences for speaking now.
Will any of this improve United’s immediate results? Almost certainly not. Martínez tried to explain his remarks in a social media statement on Wednesday night, but he could still be excluded from the senior squad. His offence was to highlight that the current power structure was established largely through payment-in-kind loans and has left the club carrying the consequences.
Michael Carrick is also unlikely to remain for much longer. Only a few months ago, he appeared capable of cutting through the confusion surrounding the club, but that optimism now looks misplaced. The constant turmoil has overwhelmed him, while the goodwill earned last season has disappeared.
Carrick cannot be blamed for United’s failure to recruit a defender for almost two years, Bruno Fernandes continuing to play despite obvious discomfort, or Joshua Zirkzee remaining in a squad where his role is uncertain. Nor is Carrick responsible for the ownership’s summer campaign against season-ticket holders, which created widespread resentment and indifference. That mood is now evident at Old Trafford, where many supporters appear to be questioning how much emotional investment they have left.
Yet accountability tends to fall on those with the least power. Replacing a coach on a relatively inexpensive 20-month contract is much easier than removing Ineos or the Glazers, or dismissing senior figures such as Wilcox and Omar Berrada. This remains true even though parts of their reputations were shaped by another club whose conduct has since faced serious scrutiny. Strong financial returns for owners, rising prices for supporters and reduced investment in the team now define Manchester United. It is also a familiar reflection of the wider direction of modern football.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
