Gary Neville’s latest judgment on Manchester United recruitment was less about one player than about an era. Since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013, the club has spent heavily, searched repeatedly for solutions and still left room for uncomfortable debates about which deals defined the slide most clearly. Neville has now put Antony at the top of that list.
Speaking in 2025, Neville said Antony was Manchester United’s worst signing since Ferguson’s exit, adding that Angel Di Maria belonged in the same conversation. It is a pointed conclusion, but not a surprising one. Antony arrived for £82 million and has become the clearest symbol of a recruitment system that too often chased urgency instead of fit.
Why Neville picked Antony
Neville’s case was not framed as a personal attack on Antony. Instead, he described the signing as a reflection of Manchester United’s decision-making. In his view, the club paid that kind of money after panicking, and the fee itself became part of the problem. That is why he said, plainly, that Antony and Di Maria were the names he would have to choose between, before settling on Antony.
The contrast with Di Maria is useful because Neville also admitted how excited he was by that move when the Argentina winger arrived from Real Madrid for just under £60 million in 2014. But the reality was stark. Di Maria made four goals in 32 appearances across all competitions in 2014-15 and stayed only one season before moving to Paris Saint-Germain. The talent was obvious; the fit was not.
That is the thread running through Neville’s criticism. Manchester United have had some successes in the post-2013 period, and Neville said Bruno Fernandes stands out as the exception, but the overall record has too often been defined by expensive players who did not settle or adapt. Antony, in that sense, becomes the emblem of a broader failure rather than an isolated bad deal.
There is still a difference between calling a player a poor signing and calling the transfer a poor decision. Neville’s wording mattered because he made clear that the issue was structural. He was not dismissing the player’s ability; he was criticizing the club for spending so heavily on a recruit that never looked fully secure in the role it was meant to solve.
That is also why this debate will linger. Manchester United have recently added Bryan Mbeumo, Matheus Cunha and Senne Lammens, and Neville said in 2025 that those players have settled, while Benjamin Sesko could yet do the same. The message is obvious enough: recruitment can still work, but only when the club gets the fit right. For United, the Antony discussion is less about reopening one transfer than about judging whether the habits behind it have really changed.
