Manchester United’s owner is considering the option of hiring an external company to manage stadium catering, so the club would no longer handle that work itself.
Manchester United may be preparing another significant operational change at Old Trafford as part of Jim Ratcliffe’s wider drive to reduce costs and restructure how the club is run.
According to reports in the English press, the club is studying the option of outsourcing the stadium’s catering operation to an external provider, meaning that the food and drink served on matchdays and event days would no longer be managed directly by Manchester United. Instead, a specialist third-party company would take on responsibility for supplying products, staffing certain functions, and running the end-to-end catering service.
On the surface, this kind of move can look like a simple cost-saving exercise, but it usually sits within a broader debate about what a club should operate in-house and what it should contract out. Catering at a major stadium is a complex, high-volume business. It covers not only kiosks and concourse stands, but also hospitality lounges, corporate boxes, premium seating areas, staff canteens, and sometimes conference and non-matchday events. Each of these segments has different expectations and different profit margins, and clubs often review whether they can run them more efficiently by using an operator whose core business is large-scale venue catering.
The reported proposal has already created concern among employees in the catering department, largely because outsourcing is often associated with reorganisations that can change job roles, working conditions, or staffing levels. Even if the club’s intention is not to reduce the headcount, the uncertainty alone can be unsettling for a workforce, particularly in a climate where Manchester United has already implemented sizeable changes across the organisation. When a department hears that external options are being evaluated, the immediate fear is that roles could be transferred, contracts could be renegotiated, or long-standing positions could be phased out once a new provider takes over.
A source quoted in the reporting sought to calm those concerns by insisting that the discussion is not about cutting jobs, but about choosing the most suitable model for the club and, above all, for supporters. That point is important because outsourcing can, in theory, be positioned as a service improvement rather than only a financial measure. A large catering operator might bring stronger purchasing power, more sophisticated logistics, updated equipment, improved speed of service, and a more consistent product range. For fans, the practical issues tend to be familiar: queues that move too slowly, limited options, food quality that does not match the price, and intermittent stock shortages at peak times. If the club believes an external specialist can improve those pain points while also creating a more predictable cost base, it becomes easier to present the change as fan-focused rather than simply austerity.
At the same time, outsourcing is not a guaranteed upgrade. Supporters can be wary of a more corporate, standardised matchday offer, particularly if it feels generic or disconnected from the club’s identity and local culture. If a third-party provider prioritises margins over quality, or reduces portion sizes while increasing prices, it can quickly become a negative talking point. In a stadium environment, perception matters as much as the product itself, because fans are already sensitive to the broader cost of attending matches. Any shift that appears to push prices up, even marginally, can be interpreted as the club passing financial pressure onto supporters.
This is why the club’s reported emphasis on finding the best model for fans is likely to be central if the idea progresses. If Manchester United does go down the external route, the key will be the commercial and service-level terms: pricing policy, minimum quality standards, staffing commitments, response times at peak periods, and accountability mechanisms if performance falls short. The best arrangements typically include clear benchmarks for queue times, availability of popular items, hygiene and safety performance, and a feedback loop that allows the club to intervene if supporter experience deteriorates. Without those controls, the club risks losing day-to-day influence over a highly visible element of the matchday experience.
The report also notes that Manchester United is one of only two Premier League clubs that does not use external catering, which adds context to why the club would even consider changing course. Many elite clubs have long since decided that third-party catering is the most efficient way to manage large venues, especially when they want catering operations to scale smoothly for concerts and other events. In those cases, the club focuses on oversight and brand standards while the operator handles procurement, staffing, and delivery at scale. If Manchester United has historically kept catering in-house, moving to an outsourced model would represent a meaningful cultural shift in how the club manages its stadium operations.
This potential development also fits within the wider pattern of Ratcliffe’s approach since he arrived at the club in February 2024. The stated goal has been to ease financial strain and modernise how Manchester United operates, and the club has already undergone significant restructuring, including several hundred redundancies. In that context, even changes that are presented as service-led are likely to be viewed through the lens of cost reduction and efficiency. For staff, it reinforces a sense that no department is immune from review. For fans, it can be interpreted as part of a larger reset, where the club is trying to align spending, processes, and operations with a more disciplined financial model.
There is also a strategic layer to this kind of decision. Catering revenue is not only about selling pies and drinks. At major clubs, hospitality is a substantial business line, and premium customers expect a high standard. If the club believes it can increase hospitality revenue through an improved offer, better service, and more professional delivery, outsourcing may be evaluated not only as a way to reduce cost, but also as a way to grow a revenue stream that can be reinvested elsewhere. Conversely, if the hospitality experience declines, the club risks damaging one of the commercial engines that helps fund competitiveness on the pitch.
At this stage, the key point is that it is reported as an option under study rather than a confirmed decision. If the club proceeds, the next steps would usually involve internal consultation, an assessment of current performance and costs, and then either a tender process or direct negotiations with potential operators. How Manchester United communicates the rationale, how it protects staff, and how it safeguards fan experience will likely determine whether the idea is received as sensible modernisation or as another unpopular cost-cutting move.
