Manchester United and Everton are in talks over a January deal for Marcus Rashford, according to a report.

Rashford returned to Man Utd in the summer of 2026 after a loan spell at Barcelona.

The England international winger helped Barcelona win LaLiga last season.

However, Barcelona decided against making Rashford’s loan permanent for just £26million.

Rashford has made eight appearances for Man Utd so far this season, with Red Devils manager Michael Carrick making the winger an important part of his team.

However, the 28-year-old has not scored a single goal or provided an assist in those games.

Rashford is under contract at Man Utd until the summer of 2028.

It has now emerged that Davies Moyes’s Everton are in discussions with Man Utd over a potential deal for Rashford in the January transfer window.

Football Transfers journalist Steve Kay, who has over 19,000 followers on X, has reported that Rashford could leave Man Utd for Everton on a loan deal.

Everton keen on Marcus Rashford deal with Man Utd

Kay wrote on X at 5:15pm on October 24: “BREAKING: Everton have held talks over a potential January move for Marcus Rashford, according to my information.

“Rashford could leave Manchester United in the next transfer window if a deal can be agreed.

“Whether it would be a permanent transfer or loan remains unclear.”

Kay has reported in Football Transfers that Man Utd and Everton are ‘in discussions over a possible January move’ for Rashford.

The journalist noted: “We understand that Everton have already held discussions over a possible move in the winter.

“Given that it’s not even November yet, these talks are still at an early stage, with no guarantee of success.

“It remains to be seen if the Toffees will attempt to complete an outright purchase, or if they would prefer a loan with a permanent element.”

Man City wanted to sign Marcus Rashford from Man Utd

Earlier this week, Man Utd reporter Phil Brown, who has over 123,000 followers on X, revealed that Manchester City wanted to sign Rashford when Omar Berrada was the Chief Football Operations Officer at the Etihad Stadium.

Brown wrote on X at 7:39pm on October 19: “Marcus Rashford was given a new contract for one reason only which of course was never disclosed to him.

“He was having a great season during the time the club was put up for sale and the Glazers didn’t want to lose an asset of that value and it affect the sale price, exactly the same thing they did with Mason Greenwood.

“They told Rashford how important he was, what they planned to do with the team and how much the club loved him, meanwhile Omar Berrarda was offering him significantly more to come to City but he decided to stay with his boyhood club.

“Once INEOS came in, they looked at those players transactionally and wanted them out.

“If they had’ve just been honest with players and said ‘we don’t really care about you, we just want to make more money from the sale of this football club and you being under contract helps us do that’ then none of this would have happened.

“Subsequently they could’ve offered to cancel his contract but they didn’t because he can make them money in a sale.

“Undoubtedly Marcus Rashford made his own mistakes which he will readily admit to but when your employer is working hand in glove with individuals who are abusing you and your family then it tends to fracture the relationship a bit.

“I once asked Utd why they did that and the individual said (I kid you not) ‘well people have to work with Fox News’.

Brown was reacting to claims that Rashford is becoming a ‘problem’ at Man Utd.

The journalist wrote on X at 5:41pm on October 19: “Unsurprisingly, a Utd player who has played a total of 3 minutes in the last couple of games has been singled out in the media by people who have an odd fixation with him.

“It is total nonsense to claim that players have an issue with him internally such as Cunha.

“The individual(s) who wrote this invented b*******t didn’t write that not only is he carrying an injury but he recently had a death in the family.

“This fact would’ve obvious to anyone who is informed on the situation so either the individual(s) that write this nonsense are either completely uninformed or deliberately omitted a key contextual detail which is extremely unethical.

“So which is it?”