Many people tuning in to watch Rishi Sunak’s second outing at Prime Minister Questions on Wednesday will have been left scratching their heads at the wheatsheaf badge MPs were wearing.
While many politicians are already wearing the familiar poppy badge in honour of the upcoming Remembrance Day on Friday, 11 November, several members from both sides of the Commons donned the less recognisable wheatsheaf for the latest PMQs and there’s a very specific reason why.
As confirmed by the National Farmers’ Union online, wheatsheaves are being worn to mark ‘Back British Farming Day‘, an initiative that is exactly what it says on the tin.
Those pinning actual wheatsheaves to their chests in Parliament did so to show support for the seventh year of the now annual campaign, which aims to remind people of the importance of British food and national farming standards.
The farming industry contributes over £120 billion to the UK economy each year, making up over 0.5% of the nation’s GDP and employing over four million people even in the modern technological era.
ADVERTISEMENT
While the likes of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and his shadow deputy Angela Rayner were both seen wearing variations of the wheatsheaf pin badge – typically wrapped in wool at the base – fledgling Prime Minister Rishi Sunak chose not to wear the agricultural symbol.
Safe to say, many were left disappointed by his decision to forego the wheatsheaf and, in turn, his apparent lack of support for the Back British Farming campaign.
Given how the UK government continued to go toe-to-toe with various trade unions this year, it might be a surprise to some how many Conservative Party members did choose to wear the badge.
Sunak also came under fire today after yet another U-turn, deciding to attend COP27 after all despite saying the economy meant he was “too busy” to participate in this year’s climate conference.
Manchester United announce record revenue despite on-pitch struggles
Danny Jones
Manchester United have declared a record revenue figure for the full 2025 fiscal term, even with their poor performances on the pitch over the past 12 months.
They may still be a continually struggling Premier League side who seem to be in a perpetual state of transition, but they remain nothing short of a global giant in terms of sporting brands.
Yes, despite Man United recording two of the worst finishes in domestic history in the previous two campaigns and head coach Ruben Amorim having already overseen the worst start to a top-flight season in the modern era following the defeat on derby day, the football club has reached a monetary milestone.
According to their official reports for the fourth and final quarter of the financial year, they brought in a record-breaking £666.5 million throughout 2024/25 – but, as always, it’s more complicated than that.
"There are some tough decisions to be made"
BREAKING: Manchester United have announced record revenues for 2024/25 of £666.5m – but the club still made an overall loss of £33m 🚨 pic.twitter.com/jlQS7SMjJ8
Released on Wednesday, 17 September, Manchester United PLC confirmed that they had managed to record the biggest revenue figures on several fronts despite crashing out of the Europa League, finishing 15th in the table overall and failing to secure a place in any European competition this season.
The first half of Amorim‘s tenure at Old Trafford saw the club’s worst competitive placing since 1973/74, a.k.a. the last time the Red Devils were relegated from the first division.
Nevertheless, a fresh shirt sponsorship agreement with Snapdragon, new brand partnerships with the likes of Coca-Cola, an extension of their contract with travel experience company, SportsBreaks, and numerous other deals saw United achieve a record commercial revenue of £333.3m.
Elsewhere, match revenue was also up and reached new heights, tallying approximately £160.3m in the 12 months leading up to 30 June 2025 – the most they have ever registered when it comes to ticket sales, concessions, and other transactions in and around game days.
Although this number is a reduction of more than 70.8% what they lost last year (£113.2m), there is still plenty of concern among supporters over how money is still not only being spent but moved around.
Co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the INEOS board did pay sizeable chunks of MUFC’s debt, which has piled up at an alarming rate in the two decades since the Glazer takeover, but there has still been plenty of borrowing.
In addition to a number of shorter-term loans, there has also been an increased level of amortisation and significant transfer spending this summer, despite being admittedly cash-strapped.
As well as actually having less money to play with over the past 12 months, they are also set to receive less in TV rights and broadcasting revenues this season due to not making it into any European competition, hence why they went on a post-season Asian tour to try and make up for funds lost.
It’s estimated that the business earned a further £8 million from these games, but it’s also worth noting that significant sums have been spent not only on new signings but also on severance fees and redundancy packages, so it’s hard to assess how much this extra injection helped with the fine margins.
While it's good to see that we're paying down our long-term debts, I'm a bit worried about how the club have maybe over-leveraged short-term borrowings. Debt restructure needed imo. pic.twitter.com/LQuUdbzK1h
Divisive CEO and former City Football Group exec, Omar Berrada, wrote in the comments section of the full findings and financial report: “As we settle into the 2025/26 season, we are working hard to improve the club in all areas.
“On the field, we are pleased with the additions we have made to our men’s and women’s first team squads over the summer, as we build for the long term. Off the field, we are emerging from a period of structural and leadership change with a refreshed, streamlined organisation equipped to deliver on our sporting and commercial objectives.”
He adds: “We are also investing [in upgrading] our infrastructure, including completion of the £50m redevelopment of our men’s first team building at Carrington, on time and on budget, following prior investment in our women’s team facilities, to create a world-class environment for our players and staff.
“Meanwhile, planning continues to meet our ambition of developing a new stadium at Old Trafford as part of a transformational regeneration of the surrounding community.
Total Manchester United revenue may be up but they’re about to shell out seismic outlay for their new stadium costs.
Berrada signs off by insistig that for the club to have “generated record revenues during such a challenging year for the club demonstrates the resilience which is a hallmark of Manchester United.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Our commercial business remains strong as we continue to deliver appealing products and experiences for our fans, and best-in-class value to our partners.”
“As we start to feel the benefits of our cost reduction programme, there is significant potential for improved financial performance, which will, in turn, support our overriding priority: success on the pitch.”
What do you make of Manchester United’s 2024/25 annual report and how it fits into the wider picture/struggles elsewhere around the club?
FIFA confirm new changes to international breaks – and many fans are divided
Danny Jones
Global sporting body FIFA have announced new changes to the annual football calendar and the ever-divisive international breaks, specifically.
It’s fair to say that not everyone is in agreement over the update to what many fans and even players already find a frustrating format.
Put simply, FIFA have revealed that they will be merging the traditional September and October breaks into one extended period of international football from 2026 onwards.
Once again, although the decision has been met with plenty of support, it has also faced just as much, if not potentially even more, resistance.
That's well better. Always thought instead of having 3 short international breaks in autumn we'd be better off having one long one
As detailed by multiple outlets following full confirmation on Monday, 13 September, footy fans are now looking at a combined 16 days of watching national teams in World Cup qualifiers and other fixtures.
While other clubs further down the footballing pyramid will still be able to watch their team, supporters of Premier League sides and several other divisions will see domestic action cease for roughly three weeks when taking into account rest days between international and club fixtures
Besides incorporating more teams into this year’s World Cup (now a 48-team affair) and the still relatively recent advent of the Nations League – which UEFA introduced in the hopes of creating more interest in the much-maligned international breaks – this is one of the biggest changes in some time.
At present, there are typically four breaks: September, October, November and March/April – not including major tournaments themselves.
One criticism of this format has been the stop-start consequence it has on club football, and indeed, struggling to create any real momentum and/or excitement, as well as the impact on form it sometimes has on players both away on national team duty and when they get back to their clubs.
I suppose it’s better than having two different breaks in Sept and the October, and the stop start nature of the club season.
Another big concern these breaks have always been met with is the added risk of fatigue and injury.
Despite being athletes who regularly train to remain at the peak of their physical fitness, the increasingly congested fixture calendar – particularly for those playing in England, with multiple cup competitions, the prospect of European football AND no break over Christmas – continues to push bodies to the limit.
Once again, these new changes to international breaks won’t come into effect until next year, but there are plenty of pros and cons that professionals and supporters alike will continue to debate until the new schedule is implemented.
Danny Jones -
2nd November 2022 
