Manchester United’s New Trafford Haunted by Old Legal Obstacles

On the 9th of March, when Manchester United hosted Arsenal at Old Trafford, thousands of supporters filled Warwick Road in protest against years of boardroom mismanagement and the Glazer family’s ownership. Chants of “sell the club” reflected frustration with the post-Ferguson era, marked by managerial churn and limited success.

Days later, co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe unveiled designs for a proposed “Wembley of the North”: a 100,000-seater stadium to replace Old Trafford. Ambitious as it sounds, the project now faces its real test: England’s planning and property law. 

For Ratcliffe & Co, such ambition must pass through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, where the Trafford Council will need to vote on whether a 100,000-seater stadium can replace the revered Old Trafford.

However, that process is likely to be lengthy, as it requires public consultation, which Manchester United is currently undertaking, as well as a formal Environmental Impact Assessment under the 2017 regulations.

To satisfy these requirements, the club would need to provide evidence to the council on traffic, noise, and the impact on the surrounding community, allowing anyone with a reasonable objection to be heard.

If the procedures are challenged by the club due to mishandling by the council, the club may seek judicial review, but only within a strict six-week window. Applying this to the current situation, it appears that the biggest obstacle in the current and short-term future is not engineering but ensuring compliance with planning law.

Even if the above does go in Manchester United’s favour, the club still faces more legal challenges regarding land ownership. Since the club wants the new stadium to be built adjacent to the current stadium, rather than in its place, it would need to acquire additional land to realise such plans. Manchester United owns some surrounding land, but not every parcel needed for the project, such as the nearby rail-freight site.

There is some tension in this matter, as a wide valuation gap exists between the club and the landowner. If negotiations collapse, Trafford Council could resort to a Compulsory Purchase Order under section 226 of the 1990 Act; however, that will require them to prove that the project enables redevelopment and is in the public’s best interest, followed by a confirmation from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Even then, affected parties could still challenge the order at inquiry or in court, bringing further uncertainty.

Therefore, Manchester United may advertise a “Wembley of the North”, but the decisive battles will be fought not on the pitch, but in council chambers and courtrooms. Planning permission and land acquisition lay the ground for the real matchups.

From a law student’s perspective, this illustrates how ordinary principles of planning and property law can shape one of football’s grandest ambitions.