Gatwick airport on Tuesday morning was filled with Tottenham fans. They crowded into cafes and restaurants, but mostly stood staring at the departure boards, confused by a crowded schedule of flights to Bilbao. At passport control in Bilbao, the queue was a long snake of white shirts, punctuated by the occasional green or purple. The bus into town was almost entirely full of Spurs supporters, alongside a few business travelers and an older couple surprised to find their city hosting a major European final.
Yet, despite the excitement of thousands of fans, this Europa League final between Tottenham and Manchester United has not felt like a typical major European final. The two teams sit 16th and 17th in the Premier League, each having won only one of their last ten league matches. The fixture has been ridiculed as a clash of struggling teams, a symbol of the growing financial inequality in football, and described with unflattering metaphors. Still, it remains a European final, and the enthusiastic turnout shows it still matters deeply to many.
The idea that two teams in poor form should meet in a final is undeniably odd, but the game carries weight. For Tottenham, winning would mark their first trophy since 2008 and their first European title since 1984. For Manchester United, victory would mean adding a third trophy in three seasons and claiming a seventh European trophy in the club’s history.
More importantly, both clubs know that winning this game secures a spot in next season’s Champions League, with all the financial rewards that come with it. In an era where football has become increasingly commercialized, the Europa League final could be as financially valuable as the Championship playoff final arguably the most lucrative single match in English football.
While a trophy meant everything for Crystal Palace on Saturday, for Tottenham and Manchester United, the Europa League has become a route to financial stability and future revenue. It is less about glory and more about securing income streams, though for many supporters the hope and pride attached to winning a trophy remain very real.
When Ange Postecoglou arrived at Tottenham, his football philosophy seemed a perfect fit. His style had been influenced by Ferenc Puskás, and shared traits with the push-and-run Tottenham side of the early 1950s. Yet, despite Postecoglou’s insistence on his preferred style, Spurs’ best performances this season often came when they played more pragmatically. Their 4-0 win at Manchester City, for instance, was built on counter-attacking and game management rather than the high-intensity possession football Postecoglou champions.
Similarly, their wins in Europe against Eintracht Frankfurt and Bodø/Glimt were tactical and cautious, more reminiscent of Mourinho’s defensive approach. This raises a tactical dilemma for Postecoglou in the final: should he stick to the attacking style that brought success in some league games, or adopt a more cautious approach that worked in recent European rounds?
The injury situation further complicates decisions. Spurs will likely be without creative midfielders James Maddison and Dejan Kulusevski, and Lucas Bergvall is doubtful. This suggests a midfield pivot with Yves Bissouma, Rodrigo Bentancur, and Pape Matar Sarr.
On the other side, Manchester United seemed vulnerable with injuries earlier but now have some reinforcements returning. Their strong European form compared to league struggles could be explained by the slower pace of Europa League games, which suits players like Casemiro and Harry Maguire better.
Postecoglou’s challenge is how to press United effectively without compromising the defensive solidity that saw Spurs through the knockout stages.
Despite all the criticism, doubts, and commercial calculations swirling around this final, it remains a major occasion. One team will lift a trophy, an achievement that will be celebrated and remembered. For all the complexities of modern football, the final is a moment of genuine significance a reminder of the game’s enduring magic and drama.
