Prior to the game much had been made about the crisis that continues to envelop Manchester United. Protests against ownership took place with a planned march ahead of the clash with Liverpool, although the appetite for a mooted walkout to show solidarity against the Glazer family never manifested.
The anger from the 4-0 demolition that Erik ten Hag's men had suffered at the hands of Brentford last week had cooled somewhat over the following days, the club's continuing involvement in the transfer window and eventual acquisition of Real Madrid midfielder Casemiro in a £60m deal taking some of the edge off what had been planned.
Pundits were predicting a cricket score for Liverpool, who had made a slow start to the new season, but as Manchester United applied the pressure from the off on the Reds anyone holding those hopeful views saw them quickly evaporate, just like the walkout plans that some had been trying to drum up support for online during the week.
READ MORE: What's going wrong at Liverpool and how Jurgen Klopp and FSG can fix it
READ MORE: Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp fumes as Bruno Fernandes red card attempt fails
After the final whistle sounded on a chastening evening for Liverpool at Old Trafford it was many Reds fans who were asking questions, issuing a clarion call to owners Fenway Sports Group to address their midfield issues in the transfer market before it was too late, the makeshift trio of James Milner, Jordan Henderson and Harvey Elliott not a viable solution for the Reds in the centre of the pitch if their injury issues persist.
Familiar calls arrived, with FSG's perceived lack of transfer spend and penchant for keeping their net spend low a focus. The defeat, the deficiencies that existed in midfield prior to the game due to injuries and the fact that United were parading around a new acquisition all added to the melting pot.
Following Liverpool's defeat at Old Trafford, football finance expert Swiss Ramble compared and contrasted the financial performance of the two clubs over the past decade.
Over the last 10 years the net spend at Manchester United on transfer stands at £1.4bn compared to Liverpool's £1bn, and only three times have Liverpool spent more than Manchester United on players in a season over the same period.
Where there has been a rise is the wages that have been paid out, with United paying 50 per cent more than the Reds in 2014 on wages (£215m to £144m). But since then that gap has closed significantly as Liverpool have committed more and more to payroll, the gap down to just £9m in 2021's accounts with Liverpool's wage bill at £314m. The previous season they had paid out more than United on wages for the first time due to bonus payments paid to players for winning the Champions League.
Revenues have been closed significantly over the past decade, something that has allowed for the extra spend. A gap of £217m existed between the two when it came to revenues as recently as 2017, something that has been closed to just £7m (Liverpool achieving £487m in revenue in 2020/21) due to the greater success that the Reds have had in raising commercial deal value and increased broadcasting money, more than United.
Liverpool are a financially well run club, one of the best of the elite group in European football. The problem that they have in terms of their success in recent years is that they are now competing with Manchester City and not Manchester United for the top honours. The closing of the gap on United is one thing that was seen as key early in the FSG reign, but with City now the dominant force domestically and others willing to spend, such as Chelsea, to try and make sure they stay the pace it has seen the more holistic approach to running a football club by FSG challenged year after year.
With Mohamed Salah signing a new deal in the summer and the Reds landing their number one target in Darwin Nunez, there was the feeling that FSG had managed to create some goodwill on the playing side of things and that the plans to head into the market again before it closes at the end of the month would be avoided, although the issue over a midfield that needed another key addition remained. But the slow start, injuries, Wolverhampton Wanderers' move for reported target Matheus Nunes and the spend of other clubs such as crisis club Manchester United on Casemiro and even Nottingham Forest's open wallet policy has meant that the focus is back once more on an ownership group - who are feeling similar heat over their recruitment policy and perceived lack of investment at both Liverpool and a struggling Boston Red Sox baseball team.
There are few topics as divisive as ownership on football Twitter when it comes to Liverpool. To see operations from an FSG perspective and to accept the model is seen as enabling a lack of investment at key times that will ultimately hold the club back in the future and hamper their prospects of winning the biggest prizes, while to want the owners to freely spend or even sell up to whoever will spend the most in the market is seen as reckless in some quarters and ignoring the issues that come along with that, such as the Glazer chaos at Manchester United and the arguments over sports-washing at both Manchester City and, more recently, Newcastle United.
There isn't really a right answer. Most football fans traditionally support their clubs because it is their identity, and winning trophies and seeing your team be successful is what much of it is all about. Having a sustainable business that underpins success is something most people would want alongside that, but when rivals are spending more and seemingly caring a little less about the bottom line there is an understandable level of anger that Liverpool have been perceived to not do the same. Fans want the best players and success, they want to be top of the Premier League table and not the net spend table.
But there are crucial differences that exist alongside this. Moving forward it is likely that the era of the open wallet, unless it comes from regimes with a reputation to launder, will pivot towards clubs being stronger financially, where they will turn themselves into thriving businesses that sees their value grow. Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital didn't acquire Chelsea to drain their wallets, and while they have spent considerably since taking over the club from Roman Abramovich there is very much a plan to turn the £2bn-plus purchase fee into a business valued at far more in the future.
US private equity has flooded in to European football in recent years. It has a scarcity value, it is seen as having under-developed revenue streams and it has media rights that have still yet to peak, many believe. But where there is private equity there is a requirement for the business to be successful, and net spend and a focus on streamlining player trading is something that there will be more of moving forward.
Nottingham Forest have spent more than £150m on 16 new signings this season, the most recent the £40m+ addition of Wolves midfielder Morgan Gibbs-White. How they can spend so freely yet Liverpool have been so reserved, despite the fact that the revenues of both clubs for the 2020/21 accounting period has a gap of some £486m with Forest revenue around 3.7 per cent of Liverpool's for the same period, has sparked significant debate.
For Forest it is a case of need (they lost a large chunk of their squad at the end of the season) and risk and reward. Forest have a huge payday of more than £130m from promotion to the Premier League and access to its riches, but to remain a part of the elite pack for the longer term means that the £150m transfer outlay would be well worth it in the long run, provided they stay up of course. It is an investment into what they hope will be an established Premier League future.
The signing of Casemiro by Manchester United in a £60m deal from Real Madrid has also been a source of some ire from Reds fans ahead of the two teams meeting at Old Trafford on Monday evening.
United have seen to be something of a toxic club in recent years, the drought without a Premier League title heading to a decade by the end of this current season. Absentee ownership, poor recruitment, no strategy and precious little leadership has seen them descend into a shadow of their former selves. But while the crisis continues to hang over Old Trafford like moody clouds, only breaking for some rays of sunshine with the victory over Liverpool on Monday, the sheer ability of the club to continue spending on transfer fees for the likes of Casemiro has helped quell some of the anger. Transfers and the ability to sign big names has often been the panacea for poor club optics, particularly during the Glazers stint at the helm, most notably the return of Cristiano Ronaldo.
While the Glazers and FSG both own major Premier League teams and US sporting franchises there are key differences between them. For the Glazers they have been able to extract hundreds of millions in personal dividends over the years despite putting precious little back in. They don't need the club to win trophies to get their money out, they need it to be competitive enough for them to retain big commercial partnerships and its global brand, which allows them to pay shareholder dividends.
For FSG at Liverpool it is different. The notion that money is somehow syphoned off from the club to their US owners is a false narrative. There are no salaries paid to FSG top brass and in having key men such as Mike Gordon, one of Jurgen Klopp's closest Liverpool allies, in constant dialogue means that there isn't a case of absentee ownership as is seen at Manchester United. The value for John Henry and Tom Werner et al is in the continued value of the club moving forward, both financially and competitively. For Liverpool there is a finer balancing act with a lot of their financial growth and increased value attributed either directly or indirectly to the success that they have had on the pitch and the manner in which Klopp has delivered it.
Football is a business nowadays and that is a fact that cannot be disputed. There are a mix of different ownership groups that have different ideas on how success is achieved and what is required to get there. For some football success is secondary to shareholder dividends, for others success requires spend to achieve other causes, whether that be related to soft power motives or otherwise. Then there are owners who see their clubs as emotional business assets that require them to stick to a business minded approach to raise value, at the same time knowing that they have to achieve competitive success to realise their growth ambitions and at the same time giving fans what they crave.
Many Liverpool fans have understandably called for FSG to address their midfield problems ahead of the window closing. The performance against United and limited options mean that the call will reach its crescendo next week when the window gets set to close.
The notion of 'next summer' is something that has been known to rankle. Luis Diaz was going to be a summer signing until Tottenham Hotspur forced them into action to make their play in January, and if Nunes was really the man they wanted they would have expedited their business to move in a similar fashion when Wolves came calling. They didn't, suggesting that they are stuck on someone else, whether that is Borussia Dortmund's Jude Bellingham or another target remains to be seen.
Some see low net spend as something that is a bad thing, others believe it to be indicative of how well a football club is run. Many football fans don't want to watch the game through the eyes of accountants, applauding strong balances sheets and brand value growth. They want the best players, they want to win trophies, and when you are a club with the storied history of winning that Liverpool does that is amplified. It's football and everything else is secondary to winning, and that is entirely understandable. It is an emotional escape, where people place their hearts and minds. The euphoria of winning cannot be matched. It does, in reality, have to be paid for, though.
Klopp would surely love to have someone like Bellingham in the building now. If FSG sanctioned a £120m move would he protest at it being too much? Doubtful. But there will be broader, deeper plans at play that determine transfer policy, such as how moving for certain players at certain times will impact other transfer business in other windows, especially if there is limited scope for strong player trading. The juggling act comes in to play when considering whether now is the time to strike with it, and given how the season before last panned out when they didn't act during a defensive crisis that almost cost them Champions League football, it would be another risky move.
Henderson and Milner have both been stalwarts for Liverpool, but while they remain important players they aren't delivering what they did. They are 32 and 36 respectively. Thiago is a marvellous footballer, world class, and when he plays well the rest of the team seems to hum along to his tune. But he has missed 47 games through injury since his 2020 summer arrival from Bayern Munich, meaning that he has been available for just 60 per cent of the time. That leaves a gap of real quality that needs to be filled.
Keita, while superb when on song, has been inconsistent during his spell, with question marks now raised over his own future while Oxlade-Chamberlain has operated on the fringes for some time.
One of the key considerations will be that when Liverpool have a fully fit midfield they cannot allow for hundreds of thousands of pounds in wages to be sitting in the stands each week if they make another addition. Add more wages, amortised transfer costs (for example, Bellingham at £120m and on a five year deal would be accounted for as £24m per year) and the club could feasibly add another £37m a year to their costs, on top of a growing wage bill after renewals. They would ideally need to move on before they acquire, that has always been the way and success in player trading is what has set the likes of Liverpool and Manchester United apart in recent years (the Reds making £274m compared to United's £81m in the last five years).
FSG's approach, however frustrating, has been consistent, and while some believe that one Premier League and Champions League title under Klopp isn't enough given the chance they had to hit the gas, it ignores the fact that only Liverpool have been close to staying the pace with Manchester City at home and abroad at a time when teams have been free spending to stack their team with stars, like Paris Saint-Germain did with Neymar Jnr, Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappe.
The approach will continually be tested and its flaws will be exposed, but it is highly unlikely that it will be deviated from unless there is a threat to maintaining their competitive edge on the pitch domestically and in Europe, and based on the early showing this season there are a few alarm bells ringing on that front. The issue of the midfield struggles is one thing, but other areas of concern have started to rear their head in early performances and there are no guarantees that a new midfielder changes everything for the better and the Reds get back into their groove in a timely fashion.
Success on the pitch is closely linked for Liverpool and FSG. Unlike with the Red Sox there is no option to take a bad season on the chin and hit the reset button next year, the very nature of Premier League football requires them to be in amongst the very best year after year, and that requires strategy, vision and investment. The first two have been constants for Liverpool, that is undeniable, and having the right people in the right places continues to be one of FSG's greatest skill sets.
The Anfield Road development grows and the steelwork rises up, a demonstration of the commitment from ownership into growing Liverpool off the pitch to support its growth on it. It is investment in the future. But for FSG they may need to invest in the here and now to ensure that their future plans don't get blown off course, although the answer is never as simple as just opening a wallet.
READ NEXT
-
What Bruno Fernandes said to Jurgen Klopp in 'emotional' exchange after Liverpool defeat
-
Liverpool player ratings as Virgil van Dijk and three other stars awful against Manchester United
-
Erik ten Hag delighted with Manchester United wind-up merchant and sends x-rated Liverpool message
-
Jamie Carragher slams 'unforgivable' Liverpool mistake that led to Manchester United defeat
