Lisandro Martinez is expected to be included in Manchester United’s squad for Sunday’s visit to Leeds after apologising for comments about the club’s recruitment and his team-mates following the defeat by Atletico Madrid. Michael Carrick has indicated that the apology allows United to put the dispute behind them.
The defender met Carrick and senior club officials on Thursday, including Omar Berrada and Wilcox, after his reaction to Tuesday’s 2-1 loss prompted questions about possible disciplinary action. His availability for Elland Road answers one of those questions, but it does not establish whether he will start.
Availability is not immunity from punishment
The reports agree on the central outcome: Martinez remains available for selection after acknowledging that his public intervention was a mistake. Carrick’s response on Friday presented that acknowledgement as sufficient for the football operation to proceed.
There is, however, an important distinction between ending the public dispute and imposing no punishment. One report, citing BBC Sport, says United have fined Martinez. The other focuses on Carrick’s acceptance of the apology without detailing a financial sanction. Those accounts are not necessarily contradictory: a player can face an internal penalty and still be considered for the next match.
That distinction matters because omission from the Leeds squad had been discussed as a possible consequence, rather than an announced decision. His expected inclusion should therefore not be treated as a reversal of a suspension that had already been imposed.
Neither account establishes the amount of any fine or provides a full explanation of United’s disciplinary process. What is clearer is that Carrick does not intend to make squad exclusion the public expression of the club’s response.
Two audiences for the same apology
Martinez’s comments created two separate problems. Criticism of recruitment challenged decisions above the dressing room, while questioning team-mates’ application risked damaging relationships within it. An apology accepted by club executives does not, by itself, demonstrate that both issues have been settled equally.
According to one account, the interview was poorly received among United’s players, with at least one team-mate confronting Martinez during the return flight. That detail is not independently developed in the other supplied report, so it remains an attributed account rather than a complete picture of the squad’s reaction.
His subsequent social-media statement acknowledged that frustration had led him to speak inappropriately and that his remarks had undermined togetherness. It addressed the consequences of speaking publicly, but the available reporting does not establish whether he withdrew his underlying assessment of recruitment or performance.
That leaves a gap between an apology for the intervention and agreement about the issues behind it. Carrick’s position closes the immediate selection controversy without requiring United to resolve those broader arguments in public.
Leeds selection will need careful interpretation
The next decision belongs to Carrick, and there is a limit to what can reasonably be inferred from it. Being named in the travelling group would confirm Martinez’s eligibility to contribute; a starting place would be a separate football decision.
Equally, a substitute role would not automatically demonstrate that punishment was continuing. Without an explanation from the head coach, treating every selection choice as a disciplinary signal would go beyond the evidence.
Carrick has instead established a narrower position: Martinez’s conduct has been addressed sufficiently for him to remain under consideration. That gives the manager room to choose his side without formally extending the dispute into another match.
The more revealing question may be whether United can keep subsequent discussion focused on the performance at Leeds. Public reconciliation can be announced quickly; evidence that working relationships are functioning normally is less immediate and harder to isolate from results.
Contract uncertainty remains separate
One report also says Martinez’s contract expires in the summer, with uncertainty over whether United will offer an extension and whether he would accept it. Neither supplied account establishes a connection between the outburst and any contract decision.
It would therefore be premature to read his inclusion against Leeds as reassurance about his long-term future, just as the reported fine does not establish that an exit is planned.
For now, United have separated an immediate conduct issue from team selection. Martinez has apologised, Carrick has accepted that response, and the defender is expected to be available. Whether he starts, how completely the dressing room has reconciled and what happens to his contract remain distinct, unanswered questions.