Baleba's Rp1.4 Trillion Move Judged a Failure, Has Manchester United Repeated the Mason Mount Mistake?

Manchester United are back in the spotlight after new midfielder Carlos Baleba was judged unworthy of his expensive signing status. In the match against Chelsea last weekend, the Cameroon international won only one of five ground duels and was withdrawn before the game had run an hour. Criticism has poured in, including from content creator Mark Goldbridge, who said Baleba is not a £70 million player.

Baleba was signed from Brighton & Hove Albion in a total transfer package of £70 million, or around Rp1.4 trillion. That figure makes him one of United's most expensive purchases under the INEOS regime. But high expectations quickly collided with reality: Baleba has yet to show the quality of a midfield anchor capable of shielding the area in front of the defense while distributing the ball cleanly.

Baleba's failure recalls the case of Mason Mount. The England midfielder was bought from Chelsea for £55 million plus add-ons in 2023, but has yet to record a single assist in the Premier League for United. Mount has also recorded only one big chance created and has made just 26 league starts since his arrival. Injuries have certainly worsened the situation, but his minimal impact on the pitch remains a talking point.

United's football director, Jason Wilcox, along with the INEOS hierarchy, was said to have made midfield the top priority in last summer's transfer window. But instead of bringing in a pure defensive midfielder who could act as a wall in front of the center-backs, United chose Baleba, who is better known as a box-to-box midfielder. That profile is seen as unsuited to a team that is tactically fragile.

"Baleba is not a £70 million player. He looked lost in midfield and did not provide the protection the defense needed," said Mark Goldbridge, as quoted from his analysis.

Pressure on Baleba is not actually new. Last season, while still at Brighton under Fabian Hürzeler, he struggled to break into the starting XI consistently. When United came with a big offer, Brighton flatly rejected the £100 million figure in the summer of 2024. Only a year later was a deal reached at £70 million. In other words, United paid a high price for an unpolished player, not for a ready-made holding midfielder.

For the Indonesian public, the Baleba and Mount cases mirror how big Premier League clubs often get trapped in purchases based on big names or raw potential rather than tactical needs. Manchester United supporters in Indonesia, who are vast in number, certainly feel the direct impact of this inefficient transfer policy. Every season, expectations are rebuilt, but results on the pitch never improve.

Most worrying is that this pattern seems to be a vicious cycle. In the Glazers era, United were known for spending freely and often buying the wrong players. Under INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe, hopes emerged for a more rational approach. But the Baleba transfer—at a sky-high price and with an unclear role—has again raised doubts over whether structural change has really happened at the level of football decision-making.

Michael Carrick, who now manages the team, is under pressure to fix performances quickly. This week, United will face AS Roma in the Champions League before hosting Aston Villa at Old Trafford. Those two matches could determine whether Baleba is given a second chance or left on the bench longer. If he again performs below standard, public pressure will grow, especially from fans already tired of transfer promises without results.

The question now is simple: will United keep buying expensive players without the right profile, or start admitting mistakes and rebuild the midfield on a clearer foundation? The answer will become clear in the coming weeks, and Baleba's fate could be an indicator of whether the INEOS era truly brings meaningful change or merely changes the name behind the same policy.