Recruitment has been mostly poor at Old Trafford for around 15 years

There’ve been claims recently that Manchester United’s owners have done more damage to the English game than Manchester City’s, on the basis that the former have taken so much money out while the latter have pumped a huge amount in.

Yet the Abu Dhabi money men merit all the punishment that is, fingers crossed, coming their way for cooking the books at the Etihad and driving up transfer spending and wage bills.

In my view the Glazers (and, latterly, Jim Ratcliffe) actually deserve to be presented with medals for preserving some semblance of competitive balance.

Without them, the Red Devils would definitely have been the biggest spenders in English football.

It never ceases to boggle my mind when Manchester United supporters moan that ‘the manager hasn’t been backed’.

Let’s deal in facts here.

From the summer of 2005 when the Glazers took control at Old Trafford, only one club has exceeded United’s transfer spending deficit – City.

The Blue side of Manchester spent E2.115 billion more than they brought in; the Red Devils are almost E1.916 billion in the red in that regard.

Chelsea are third on that list (-E1.405bn), Arsenal fourth (-E1.323bn), Tottenham fifth (-E1.232 bn), and Liverpool sixth (-E1.216 bn).

Clearly all the various managers operating at Old Trafford have not been left short of a bob of two.

Even when it comes to gross spend, that remains true.

For that 21-year period from the summer of 2005, Chelsea spent the most (£4.1bn), followed by City on £3.74bn, with United third on £2.89bn.

Liverpool (£2.61bn), Tottenham (£2.56bn), and Arsenal (£2.3bn) make up the rest of the top six.

The picture remains broadly the same whether you look at the last 10 years or even the past five.

Over the past decade the order of biggest spenders overall is: Chelsea (E2.97bn), City (E2.36bn), United (E1.87bn), Tottenham (E1.75bn), Arsenal (E1.7bn), and Liverpool (E1.66bn).

Yet in terms of net spend, Manchester United remain at the top, with a transfer balance deficit of E1.317bn. City and Arsenal have almost identical deficits – around E1.099bn – closely followed by Tottenham (E1.068bn), then Chelsea (E941m), finally Liverpool (E897m).

The last five years are the only time over which United fans have some cause for complaint – although their E1.12bn spend is still slightly above that of Liverpool (E1.11bn) and Arsenal (E1.05bn), the champions of the past two seasons.

Chelsea remain top of that metric (E2.07bn), followed by City (E1.49bn), then Tottenham (E1.27bn).

Yet on net spend, only Tottenham (-E811m) have a larger transfer balance deficit than United’s -E775m. Next are Arsenal (-E728m), Chelsea and Liverpool both on -E699m, and City on ‘only’ -E599m.

Given that their club has not won the league since 2013 and barely made any impact in the Champions League since the legendary Alex Ferguson departed, how can Manchester United supporters really complain about that level of spending?

Are they saying the only way they can win is by being the biggest spenders?

Their anger should mostly be directed elsewhere – at the middle management.

That’s where we come to the root of the problems at Old Trafford over the past decade-and-a-half, even before ‘Fergie’ left the club.

The issue hasn’t been a lack of money to spend, nor an absence of managerial talent.

The culprits aren’t the owners, nor the ‘bosses’ in the dugout, but the middle management – the men in charge of recruitment. Sure, the owners appoint them, but they are supposed to be the football experts,

Obviously Chelsea must have brought in a lot of money: you could ‘do the math’ yourself, but I’ll provide the figures here:

Since 2005 the London Blues have sold players totalling a staggering E2.69bn, more than a billion euro more than City (E1.63bn). Liverpool accrued E1.39bn from sales and Spurs E1.33bn.

Manchester United only come ninth in that category, with less than a billion euro brought in (E978m), ahead of Arsenal on E974m.

Aston Villa, Newcastle United, Southampton, and West Ham United have all earned more from transfers than the Red Devils.

If you buy badly, you suffer two-fold: on the scoresheet and on the balance sheet.

When players perform below the expectations you have of them, others know that too – and few will pay premium prices for a flop.

Fergie was the master of selling fringe players for more than they were really worth. It’s harder to do that when they’re not part of a title-winning squad.

Yet even before the great Scot’s departure in the summer of 2013, the players brought into Old Trafford were more ‘miss’ than ‘hit’.

After he left it got even worse.

E75m on Angel di Maria; E60m on Anthony Martial; Morgan Schneiderlin E35m; E105m for Paul Pogba; E42m for Henrikh Mkitaryan.

E59m on Fred. He deserves a sentence of his own – and the man who bought him should probably be jailed.

E87m on Harry Maguire in the summer of 2019. A solid centre half, but never more than a back-up option in a title-winning team.

E55m that same summer for Aaron Wan-Bissaka. A decent old school man-marking full-back, but one who offered little or nothing going forward.

E39m on Donny van de Beek.

E85m for Jadon Sancho.

E95m for Antony.

The madness just keeps on keeping on:

E80m for Rasmus Hojlund.

E68m for Mason Mount.

E50m for Andre Onana.

E50m for Manuel Ugarte. E42.5m for Joshua Zirkzee.

That’s more than a billion pounds spend on a lot of so-so players.

There were other, lower-priced failures that I haven’t even bothered listing.

Di Maria and Pogba were talented, no doubt, but their character and application fell far short of what was required.

Serious questions have to be asked about who made these calls.

With hindsight, the much-mocked Ole Gunnar Solskjaer deserves great credit for third- and second-placed finishes in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons.

The spending has improved somewhat in recent times, even if the club has had to pay a ‘Manchester United premium’.

Senne Lammens, Bryan Mbuemo, Mattheus Cunha, Benjamin Sesko, Carlos Baleba, and Youri Tielemans are all very good players. Leny Yoro is a good prospect, not yet 21, playing a position where experience is very important.

Yet the men in charge of transfer policy at Old Trafford have left every manager playing catch-up on Manchester City, Liverpool, latterly Arsenal – and even the madhouse merry-go-round at Chelsea.

Spending in the Glazer era:

Chelsea E4.1bn

Manchester City on E3.74bn

Manchester United E2.89bn.

Liverpool E2.61bn

Tottenham E2.56bn

Arsenal E2.3bn.

Transfer deficit in the Glazer era:

Manchester City -E2.115 bn

Manchester United -E1.916 bn

Chelsea -E1.405bn

Arsenal -E1.323bn

Tottenham -E1.232 bn

Liverpool -E1.216 bn

Spending over last 10 years:

Chelsea E2.97bn

City E2.36bn

United E1.87bn

Tottenham E1.75bn

Arsenal E1.7bn

Liverpool E1.66bn

Transfer deficit over last 10 years:

United -E1.317bn

City -E1.099bn

Arsenal -E1.099bn

Tottenham -E1.068bn

Chelsea -E941m

Liverpool -E897m

Spending over last five years:

Chelsea E2.07bn

City E1.49bn

Tottenham E1.27bn

United E1.12bn

Liverpool E1.11bn

Arsenal E1.05bn

Transfer deficit over last five years:

Tottenham -E811m

United -E775m

Arsenal -E728m

Chelsea -E699m

Liverpool -E699m

City -E599m

All info from Transfermarkt.