Manchester United are reportedly not planning a move for Aston Villa star Ollie Watkins, despite being open to adding to their attacking options this summer.
While United's manager Michael Carrick is keen to bring in another dependable centre-forward, Watkins isn't seen as the right fit. With Benjamin Sesko the only guaranteed senior No. 9 and Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo better suited to wider roles, the club is looking for a different profile of striker.
United's transfer activity so far has focused on other areas, notably strengthening the midfield with new signings Youri Tielemans and Andrey Santos. The club's priority is to find experienced support for Sesko, but they appear set on pursuing a more budget-friendly and tactically suitable option than Watkins.
According to The Athletic, while United are still evaluating the striker market, a deal for the England international is not anticipated. Previously, United showed significant interest in Watkins, but they ultimately decided to prioritize investing in Sesko. This decision has shifted Carrick's requirements for a forward; the club now seeks a player willing to compete with Sesko, cover potential injuries, and provide tactical flexibility, especially with Champions League football on the horizon.
Watkins certainly offers Premier League experience, smart movement, and consistent goals. However, his likely high transfer fee and expectations regarding playing time make him a difficult acquisition for a rotational role. Furthermore, reports suggest Arsenal are also keeping tabs on Watkins, which could drive up Aston Villa's asking price. For United, this potential competition further justifies walking away from the deal, as paying a premium to outbid another top club for a player primarily intended to share minutes would create undue pressure.
Carrick might be better served by targeting a younger forward, an experienced short-term signing, or an opportunistic deal late in the window. While Watkins would undoubtedly boost United's squad immediately, the timing and cost are not ideal. The funds required for such a move could be better allocated to positions where the club still lacks a clear first-choice starter.
