Manchester United’s decline is no longer just a story of struggling managers and disappointing results. It is a deeper problem rooted in poor recruitment, questionable squad building and years of decisions that have gradually stripped the club of its status as one of English football’s dominant forces.

The latest struggles under Michael Carrick have once again placed the manager under scrutiny, but focusing solely on the man in the dugout risks overlooking the bigger issue. Manchester United may no longer be an elite team experiencing a temporary dip. They have become a mid-table side whose reputation and occasional good results have concealed their declining standards.

Since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013, United have appointed eight permanent managers, yet none has managed to restore the sustained dominance that defined the club for more than two decades. Different coaches have arrived with different philosophies, but the same problems have continued to surface.

The constant managerial changes have offered the promise of a fresh start without addressing the weaknesses that have repeatedly undermined the team.

Billions spent, but where is the quality?

Perhaps the strongest argument that United have become an average team is their record in the transfer market.

The club’s net spending since 2016 stands at approximately £1.4 billion, about Ksh241.7 billion, around 40 per cent higher than that of any other club in the Premier League.

Such investment should have produced a squad capable of competing consistently for league titles and the biggest European honours. Instead, United have repeatedly found themselves rebuilding, changing managers and searching for solutions to problems that expensive signings were supposed to solve.

Their spending has often been greater than the quality of football they produce. Findings reveal that United’s net-spend ranking was higher than their expected-points ranking in eight of the previous 10 seasons. In none of those seasons did their expected-points ranking surpass their spending ranking.

That is a damning indictment of recruitment.

Manchester City and other well-run clubs have demonstrated that transfer spending must be supported by a coherent footballing strategy. Signing talented individuals is not enough. Players must fit the manager’s system, complement one another and address clearly identified weaknesses.

United, by contrast, have accumulated expensive players without consistently building a balanced and dependable team.

Manuel Ugarte, Matthijs de Ligt, Leny Yoro, Joshua Zirkzee and Benjamin Sesko are among the players yet to justify their price tags. Earlier recruitment disappointments included Antony, Jadon Sancho, Rasmus Hojlund and Romelu Lukaku.

These players arrived under different managers and different recruitment structures, but their collective record illustrates how expensive mistakes can leave a club with a squad that costs more to assemble than its present market value warrants.

The consequence is a team that spends like a giant but often performs like an ordinary Premier League side.

Managers have become convenient scapegoats

United’s managerial carousel has become one of the defining features of the post-Ferguson era.

From David Moyes to Louis van Gaal, Jose Mourinho, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Erik ten Hag and the managers who followed, each appointment has brought fresh expectations. Yet repeated changes have failed to produce lasting improvement.

Carrick is now facing the same uncomfortable reality. A disappointing run of results has raised questions about his tactics and future, but changing the manager will not automatically improve the players already at his disposal.

A coach can organise a team, improve individual performances and develop a playing identity. However, the manager cannot be held solely responsible for a squad assembled through years of inconsistent recruitment.

As Gary Neville argued earlier, the people responsible for recommending and signing players must also answer questions about the club’s direction.

The responsibility extends beyond the head coach to the sporting director, recruitment department and senior executives who determine which players arrive, how much the club pays and whether those signings fit a long-term plan.

When different managers encounter similar problems, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that the manager is always the central cause.

United need to examine the system producing the squad, rather than repeatedly replacing the person expected to make it work.

No clear footballing identity

A successful football club needs more than famous players and a celebrated history. It requires a recognisable identity that survives changes in personnel.

Manchester United have struggled to establish that consistency since Ferguson left.

Managers have arrived with different tactical approaches, forcing the club to recruit players for particular systems before another appointment potentially changes the requirements. The result is a squad containing players acquired for different footballing ideas, making it difficult to create a coherent team.

This cycle can become expensive and self-defeating. A new manager inherits players who may not suit his preferred formation, requests reinforcements and eventually encounters the same structural difficulties that confronted his predecessor.

The club then faces another managerial decision, often followed by another round of recruitment.

Without a clear long-term philosophy, even substantial spending can produce a collection of individuals rather than a team capable of competing at the highest level.

Elite clubs do not avoid every transfer mistake, but they need a system that limits the damage and ensures that recruitment serves a consistent sporting vision.

United’s repeated failures in this area have helped turn what should have been a temporary rebuilding period into a prolonged decline.

The gap between reputation and reality

Manchester United remain one of football’s biggest global brands. Their history, commercial reach, fan base and success under Ferguson continue to shape public expectations.

However, reputation cannot win matches.

The club’s supporters judge United against memories of Premier League titles, Champions League triumphs and teams that intimidated opponents before a ball was kicked. Today’s side is measured against that legacy, even when its performances suggest it belongs much closer to the middle of the table.

That disconnect makes every disappointing result appear like an extraordinary crisis. In reality, the more worrying possibility is that inconsistent performances have become normal because the squad has not been good enough to sustain elite standards.

A team that regularly struggles to control matches, defend consistently and convert investment into high-level performances cannot claim to be among the best simply because of its name.

United’s historical stature remains enormous, but their current footballing level must be judged by what happens on the pitch.

What must change?

The solution is unlikely to come from another short-term managerial reset.

United must first establish a clear recruitment strategy built around the type of football the club wants to play. Their sporting leadership must be held accountable for transfer decisions, while scouting and data analysis should help identify players who offer the right combination of quality, tactical suitability and value.

The club also needs to develop greater continuity between its recruitment department, manager and academy. Rather than rebuilding the squad around every new appointment, United must create a structure that allows coaches to improve a team designed for a consistent long-term objective.

There must also be greater discipline in the transfer market. Spending heavily is not evidence of ambition if the resulting squad remains unbalanced or requires another costly overhaul.

Most importantly, United need to stop confusing occasional strong results with genuine progress. Performance levels, chance creation, defensive organisation and the ability to compete consistently against the best teams should carry as much weight as the league table.

Manchester United’s decline cannot be explained by one manager, one transfer window or one poor run of results. It is the cumulative consequence of recruitment failures, inconsistent planning and an organisational structure that has repeatedly struggled to turn financial power into footballing excellence.