Sports
Manchester United announce plans for new 100,000-capacity stadium
Manchester United intend to build a 100,000-capacity new stadium rather than redevelop their existing Old Trafford home.
United announced the ambitious plans on Tuesday, with London-based architecture firm Fosters + Partners selected to lead the project.
The new-build will be situated on land surrounding Old Trafford, as part of a wider regeneration of the Trafford Wharfside area. The club said in a press release that the new stadium and regeneration project have the potential to deliver an additional £7.3billion ($9.7bn) to the local economy, create 92,000 job opportunities and build more than 17,000 new homes, as well as drive an additional 1.8 million visitors annually.
The Old Trafford regeneration task force, which was set up to review options for the stadium and regeneration project, held a final meeting on Friday before being stood down.
Digital renders of what the new stadium and surrounding area could look like were unveiled by Foster + Partners on Tuesday. These included a three-pronged stadium canopy inspired by the Red Devils trident on the club’s badge. The conceptual images and scaled models will now provide “a masterplan for more detailed feasibility, consultation, design and planning work as the project enters a new phase”, the club said.
While it was determined that the capacity of a redeveloped Old Trafford could be as high as 87,000, it was found that a new build could accommodate as many as 100,000 supporters.
A survey of United supporters last year identified that 52 per cent of fans asked were in favour of building a new stadium from scratch, while 31 per cent preferred redevelopment.
“Today marks the start of an incredibly exciting journey to the delivery of what will be the world’s greatest football stadium, at the centre of a regenerated Old Trafford,” Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the club’s co-owner, said in the release.
“Our current stadium has served us brilliantly for the past 115 years, but it has fallen behind the best arenas in world sport. By building next to the existing site, we will be able to preserve the essence of Old Trafford, while creating a truly state-of-the-art stadium that transforms the fan experience only footsteps from our historic home,” Ratcliffe said.
“Just as important is the opportunity for a new stadium to be the catalyst for social and economic renewal of the Old Trafford area, creating jobs and investment not just during the construction phase but on a lasting basis when the stadium district is complete. The government has identified infrastructure investment as a strategic priority, particularly in the north of England, and we are proud to be supporting that mission with this project of national, as well as local, significance.”
Ratcliffe expects “a five-year project rather than a 10 year” with the planned “modular build” — where structures are built elsewhere and shipped in — designed to significantly cut down the build time.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
The task force delivered its options report looking into the benefits of both a new build and a redeveloped stadium earlier this year.
The report concluded that while both options will “deliver transformative benefits for the club as well as Trafford and beyond”, those benefits would be “amplified under the new build option”.
“Our long-term objective as a club is to have the world’s best football team playing in the world’s best stadium,” chief executive Omar Berrada said. “We are grateful for the feasibility work done by the Old Trafford Regeneration Task Force exploring options for the future of Old Trafford.
“We have carefully considered its findings, together with the views of thousands of fans and local residents and concluded that a new stadium is the right way forward for Manchester United and our surrounding community. We will now embark on further consultation to ensure that fans and residents continue to be heard as we move towards final decisions.”
(Michael Regan/Getty Images)
Sir Alex Ferguson, the club’s legendary former manager and winner of 13 Premier League titles, said: “Manchester United should always strive for the best in everything it does, on and off the pitch, and that includes the stadium we play in. Old Trafford holds so many special memories for me personally, but we must be brave and seize this opportunity to build a new home, fit for the future, where new history can be made.”
Funding remains a significant question mark, with the cost of a newly-built stadium estimated at more than £2bn. As reported by The Athletic in June, United would consider selling the naming rights to their new home to help pay for the project.
“As a PLC we can’t speculate too much about the funding,” Berrada said in a briefing with reporters in London following Tuesday’s announcement. “What I will say is as a centrepiece it is a very attractive investment opportunity. We are very confident we will find a way to finance the stadium.”
Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) welcomed the plans but raised concerns and the need for consultation with fans as the project takes shape.
“The announcement of plans to build a brand new stadium adjacent to Old Trafford is clearly very big news for United fans. Everyone wants the biggest and the best for our club and the visuals look both stunning and exciting. But against the backdrop of uncertainty around next year’s ticket prices, continuing poor performance on the field, speculation around sales of key young players, and the recent financial results, the news probably does beg more questions than it gives clear answers,” a MUST spokesperson said.
“If they are able to produce a new stadium as stunning as the plans suggest without harming the atmosphere, without hiking ticket prices and without harming investment elsewhere, then this could be very exciting. But until the questions are answered, our optimism about plans to make Old Trafford the biggest and the best again will be restrained by caution about what the consequences for fans might be.”
‘The major question is how this will be paid for’
Analysis by Manchester United correspondent Laurie Whitwell
This outcome was trailed as soon as Ratcliffe walked through the doors at Old Trafford. Last July in Los Angeles, senior United figures talked about the possibility of a new stadium reaching 100,000 capacity and Ratcliffe’s desire was clear then.
There is certainly appeal among the fanbase for a ‘New Trafford’ — especially with the urban regeneration plan alongside — but the view is not unanimous and many people will be sad that a ground holding so many memories is being left behind.
That being said, Ferguson’s support of the project, having been cut as an ambassador, is notable given he created so many of those moments etched in the club’s consciousness.
The major question is how the build will be paid for: acquiring more debt, via sponsorship, or through cash injected by INEOS? Ticket price rises would seem inevitable in this scenario, but extreme care has to be taken not to price out fans.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
The actual design of the stadium is crucial also. Old Trafford, for all its faults, has character and history. Many clubs have struggled when moving to new stadiums. Can some of the architecture be retained?
Ratcliffe hails Real Madrid’s Bernabeu and Barcelona’s Camp Nou, but both those grounds have been renovated on their original sites.
Lord Norman Foster, founder of Foster + Partners, said: “It all starts with the fans’ experience, bringing them closer than ever to the pitch and acoustically cultivating a huge roar. The stadium is contained by a vast umbrella, harvesting energy and rainwater, and sheltering a new public plaza that is twice the size of Trafalgar Square.”
Keeping supporters close to the pitch feels essential to sustain that connection to the action.
But the renders put out by United are a dramatic shift from the current stadium and will be hugely divisive. The tent on top of the ground strikes as an odd juxtaposition amid the landscape and what came before.
A naming-rights deal and more debt?
Analysis by senior football news reporter Matt Slater
“Naming-rights deals are like free money for clubs, and those who do not have them are simply leaving money on the table,” Michael Weaver, an expert on sponsorship deals who heads up the valuation advisory team at Kroll’s London office, told The Athletic. “You only have to look at the United States, where almost every stadium is named after a sponsor, to see that.
“If Manchester United sold the naming rights to Old Trafford, our analysis suggests they would earn about £15m a year but you could double that for a new stadium. A naming-rights deal for, let’s say, 10 years, would cover a significant chunk of the construction costs and enable them to borrow money for the rest at a better interest rate. I don’t understand why they would not do a naming-rights deal.”
Who or what would fit at United’s new home? Would anyone even use the new name?
These questions are harder to answer and United fans are divided — but Arsenal fans have got used to the Emirates and Manchester City fans seem to have no problem with calling their home the Etihad.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
“INEOS might be a more palatable sponsor than someone else as Manchester United are already actively associated with INEOS and it would suggest that Ratcliffe’s company is fully committed and in it for the long haul,” suggests Weaver.
“Our research suggests that British fans are no longer as opposed to naming-rights deals as they were. Fans are becoming more financially literate with their clubs and they know what it takes to compete on the pitch, particularly if you are up against rivals backed by sovereign wealth funds. You have to squeeze out all of the juice.”
So, a naming-rights deal will help but what about the rest?
“It is going to be very expensive,” says Tim Williams, who was United’s group financial controller for five years until 2015. “I’m sure it will have to be funded by a mix of equity and debt. There will be no shortage of global banks and private-equity firms that want to lend United money but it will be interesting to see how much they borrow and where that debt sits.
“Debt is a very loaded term at United but it is normally better to put any stadium debt on the club’s books or a club subsidiary. Separating club and stadium rarely works in the long term.”
(Top photo: Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
With the largest World Cup field in the history of the tournament, 32 of the 48 teams will be fighting for a spot in the knockout stage.
66.6% of nations will advance out of the group stage this summer, which is a massive upgrade from 50% in past World Cups. Because of this, sportsbooks have adjusted with less favorable odds.
Prior to the start of the tournament, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, England, and Germany entered with the strongest odds to advance from the group stage, supported by recent major-tournament success and talent-rich rosters.
All five nations are heavily favored at -10000 to advance to the knockout round.
The Spaniards are the defending European Champions while the Argentinians are looking to win back-to-back titles. Germany has not made it out of the group stage in the last two World Cups, but has always been a perennial contender— having won four titles in its history. And then of course there’s Brazil, which has more titles than any country with five.
Now, after the conclusion of the first day of the World Cup, Mexico has joined the group at the top. El Tri has surged to -10000 to advance to the knockout stage after initially being just -1400. Mexico’s huge leap up the oddsboard is a direct result of its dominating 2-0 win over South Africa.
With that in mind, let’s dive into the odds for each team to advance to the knockout stage of the 2026 FIFA World Cup as of June 12.
This page may contain affiliate links to legal sports betting partners. If you sign up or place a wager, FOX Sports may be compensated. Read more about Sports Betting on FOX Sports.
Odds to Advance to Knockout Stage
Spain: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
Argentina: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
Brazil: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
England: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
Mexico: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
Germany: -10000 (bet $10 to win $10.10 total)
Portugal: -5000 (bet $10 to win $10.20 total)
France: -5000 (bet $10 to win $10.20 total)
Belgium:-3500 (bet $10 to win $10.29 total)
South Korea: -2500 (bet $10 to win $10.40 total)
Switzerland: -1800 (bet $10 to win $10.56 total)
Netherlands: -1400 (bet $10 to win $10.71 total)
Morocco: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Colombia: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Uruguay: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Canada: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Ecuador: -900 (bet $10 to win $11.11 total)
Norway: -900 (bet $10 to win $11.11 total)
United States: -750 (bet $10 to win $11.33 total)
The U.S. men’s national team is currently -750 to advance from Group D (Photo by Omar Vega/USSF/Getty Images).
Croatia: -500 (bet $10 to win $12 total)
Austria: -500 (bet $10 to win $12 total)
Türkiye: -500 (bet $10 to win $12 total)
Ivory Coast: -500 (bet $10 to win $12 total)
Japan: -500 (bet $10 to win $12 total)
Egypt: -340 (bet $10 to win $12.94 total)
Algeria: -310 (bet $10 to win $13.23 total)
Scotland: -310 (bet $10 to win $13.23 total)
Senegal: -230 (bet $10 to win $14.35 total)
Sweden: -230 (bet $10 to win $1435 total)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: -220 (bet $10 to win $14.55 total)
Paraguay: -205 (bet $10 to win $14.88 total)
Iran: -200 (bet $10 to win $15 total)
Czechia: -165 (bet $10 to win $16.06 total)
Ghana: -140 (bet $10 to win $17.14 total)
Australia: -110 (bet $10 to win $19.09 total)
DR Congo: +100 (bet $10 to win $20 total)
Raúl Jiménez helped propel Mexico to a 2-0 win over South Africa in the opening match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (Photo by Yair Gonzalez/Jam Media/Getty Images).
Saudi Arabia: +105 (bet $10 to win $20.50 total)
Tunisia: +140 (bet $10 to win $24 total)
New Zealand: +150 (bet $10 to win $25 total)
Uzbekistan: +180 (bet $10 to win $28 total)
Cape Verde: +200 (bet $10 to win $30 total)
Panama: +200 (bet $10 to win $30 total)
Qatar: +275 (bet $10 to win $37.50 total)
South Africa: +320 (bet $10 to win $42 total)
Jordan +350 (bet $10 to win $45 total)
Iraq: +450 (bet $10 to win $55 total)
Haiti: +800 (bet $10 to win $90 total)
Curaçao: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total)
Cameron Brink said she’d appreciate some grace. She really would.
Sparks fans should give her some, because where else is she going to get it?
Certainly not from WNBA refs. Not from opponents with more to play for than ever. Certainly not from the game itself; basketball moves fast, and a bummer can become a bust in a blink.
But Brink, 24, is not on the brink of bust territory, no. Block that thought. Technically, it’s Year 3, but after a torn ACL derailed her as a rookie two summers ago, it’s practically like Year 2 for the former Stanford star. And by design, the WNBA is testing her confidence, her decision-making and her patience as she tries to reestablish herself as one of the WNBA’s best young players.
So, grace.
The recognizable 6-foot-4 forward — she’s the long-blond-haired hooper in the New Balance ads — was the No. 2 overall pick in 2024.
Now she’s her team’s No. 3 option in the post. She’s coming off the bench behind Nneka Ogwumike and Dearica Hamby for the Sparks, who are a modest 6-6 after wins this week over the expansion Portland Fire and the struggling Seattle Storm.
Against the Fire, Brink scored two points and picked up four fouls in nine minutes. Then she went to Seattle and had 15 points in 18 minutes but was pulled with more than five minutes left in the fourth quarter after getting her third, fourth and fifth fouls in 86 seconds. (WNBA players get six fouls before being disqualified.)
For the season, Brink has been called for 49 fouls in 208 minutes. A foul about every four minutes!
They’re silly fouls and they’re phantom calls. Egregious and ticky-tack. Costly and common. A real fouled-up buffet. She sets screens that get scrutinized as if by the most vigilant TSA agent. And sometimes, yes, she’s doing the accidental tripping. Other times, the officials are.
Her reputation precedes her, so everyone gets a superstar’s whistle when being defended by Brink. Opponents bake it into their game plans.
That can’t continue.
All that fouling is hindering Brink’s development because it’s robbing her of important in-game reps — which she needs, foremost, to figure out how to stop fouling.
Sparks forward Cameron Brink, left, blocks the shot of the Tempo’s Laura Juskaite during a game last month.
(Jeff Lewis / Associated Press)
“At the pro level,” said Tara VanDerveer, Brink’s coach at Stanford, “every young player always has a lot of work to do. And I saw her make a three. I see her block shots. She rebounds, she can handle the ball, she’s unselfish, she’s a terrific talent. But there’s always things players need to work on.”
We know what Brink’s thing is.
“She has to be disciplined,” VanDerveer said. “And if you want something so badly, if you want to be an All-Star someday or make the Olympic team, you’ve got to be dependable … and I think anyone can change, if it’s behavior they recognize is not in their best interests or not in their team’s best interests. It’s hard, but it’s something I think people can do.
“That’s what Cam is working on.”
And, VanDerveer added, “I’m really so excited that Nneka is there, because she will give her such great guidance and mentorship.”
And grace. Brink is getting that from Ogwumike — also a former Stanford star, the Sparks legend returned to L.A. this season after two seasons in Seattle — and her other teammates.
“I just do my best to lead by example,” Ogwumike, 35, said. “But then also let [Brink] know that she’s very capable, that she’s more than capable, which is exactly why she’s here with us and it’s exactly why we need her on this team.”
Sparks forward Cameron Brink, wearing a facemask, controls the ball while defended by Sun forward Raegan Beers.
(Joe Buglewicz / Getty Images)
But how long will Brink get grace from the Sparks in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business of basketball?
The foul trouble tells us why a win-now team wouldn’t trust her, why the Sparks would give meaningful minutes to two veteran post players ahead of her. Why they wouldn’t prioritize Brink’s development alongside winning as they strive to snap a previously unthinkable five-year playoff drought.
And what about fans? How patient will you all be with a player who was drafted immediately after Caitlin Clark and five spots in front of Angel Reese?
These days, that might depend on what the parlay calls for.
Or, preferably, whether you remember Brink’s first 15 WNBA games. All starts, all signs pointing to stardom. She showed up in 2024 throwing lavish block parties. Her 2.3 blocks per game were message-sending spikes, like what Lisa Leslie used to enthrall Sparks crowds with.
From the jump, she had guys coming to games at Crypto.com Arena wearing her No. 22 jersey and little girls arriving in groups with No. 22 painted on their cheeks and “I love Cam Brink” signs in hand.
And then the torn ACL cost her 25 games of her rookie season and another 25 last season, plus her spot on the United States’ Olympic 3×3 women’s basketball team in Paris in 2024.
She had to start over. Lost a lot of ground. But you see that masked woman stuck on the Sparks’ bench for all but 17 minutes per game?
You can’t miss her. She’s looking uncomfortable in protective facial gear that either hinders her breathing or her peripheral vision, her only options to protect the torn septum she suffered in a victory over the Las Vegas Aces last month.
She’s the one with the 6-8 wingspan who’s averaging 9.2 points, 4.3 rebounds and 1.5 blocks while shooting 52.1% from the field in her limited minutes.
She’s still Cameron Brink. Between fouls, she’s fluid and fast and covers more of the court than almost anyone in the WNBA, able to leap from defending guards to centers in a single bound.
“It’s just looking at every day as a new opportunity to learn and grow and not getting too bogged down when things don’t go exactly as you planned,” Brink told me. “Because more times than not, things are not going to go how you want them to. And that’s life. So I just want to be able to put my best effort out there every single night.
She knows what the Sparks need from her: “To perform, just come on the floor and compete.”
To prove she can stay on the floor to compete.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
When will Team USA lose in the 2026 FIFA World Cup? Or, will it not lose at all?
Let’s check out the odds for the Americans’ stage of elimination at FanDuel Sportsbook, as of June 11.
Team USA — Stage of elimination odds
Last 32: +170 (bet $10 to win $27 total)
Last 16: +220 (bet $10 to win $32 total)
Group stage: +500 (bet $10 to win $60 total)
Quarterfinals: +500 (bet $10 to win $60 total)
Semifinals: +1200 (bet $10 to win $130 total)
Runner-up: +2800 (bet $10 to win $290 total)
Outright winner: +6000 (bet $10 to win $610 total)
This page may contain affiliate links to legal sports betting partners. If you sign up or place a wager, FOX Sports may be compensated. Read more about Sports Betting on FOX Sports.
The outlook appears to be … ho-hum?
If the odds ring true, the Americans are expected to make it out of the group stage but fall in the first knockout stage game.
How would that result stack up against previous results? Well, at the 2022 World Cup, Team USA made it to the Round of 16, which was viewed as a stellar accomplishment.
The U.S. men’s national team currently has 60-1 odds to lift the 2026 FIFA World Cup trophy this summer (Photo by Omar Vega/USSF/Getty Images).
In 2018, the USA did not qualify for the World Cup, and in 2014 and 2010, the Americans also made it to the Round of 16. Their best result this century occurred in 2002, when the Americans made it all the way to the quarterfinals before being eliminated.
In 1998, Team USA lost in the group stage, in 1994, it fell in the Round of 16, and in 1990, it also fell in the group stage.
With the expanded World Cup format, 32 teams will advance to the knockout stage (out of 48), giving teams a much better chance of getting out of the group stage than in previous tournaments. In past years, only 50% of the field advanced to the knockout round, but now 66.6% of teams will move on.
With that being said, anything less than a knockout round appearance on home soil would be viewed as a major failure this summer for Team USA.
The second result on the oddsboard is the “Last 16,” meaning the USA would make it out of the group stage and win one knockout stage game, before falling in the second knockout stage game. The third result is that the Americans failed to make it out of the group stage, and the fourth is that they made it to the quarterfinals, meaning they won two knockout stage games.
Making the semis, losing in the championship game and winning the championship are the three results with the longest odds.
The U.S. begins its World Cup journey on Friday as the Stars and Stripes face Paraguay at Los Angeles Stadium. Getting off to a fast start in the group is crucial for the team’s World Cup dreams of making a deep run this summer.
-
Los Angeles, Ca22 minutes agoMLB to screen Hollywood classic at drive-ins nationwide
-
Detroit, MI42 minutes agoDetroit at Le Mans: Cadillac favorite, Ford poised for 2027
-
San Francisco, CA52 minutes agoHudson Pacific lands SF’s biggest office lease in nearly a decade
-
Dallas, TX57 minutes agoNFL Brazil tickets are available: Shop Cowboys vs. Ravens NFL Brazil tickets now
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoNorth Miami man accused of stabbing victim 7 times
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoEverything you need to know about Sail Boston 2026
-
Denver, CO1 hour ago
Broncos’ Jonathon Cooper arrested again on four charges, including harassment, violation of protection order
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoRibbon-cutting marks completion of mixed-income condos in Seattle’s Phinney Ridge
