In the coming days, Sir Jim Ratcliffe is expected to find out whether the Football Association’s legal team has decided that the Manchester United co-owner brought the game into disrepute with his comments on immigration last week, which drew condemnation from the Government and beyond.
The governing body could decide that his comments met the threshold required for him to be charged with a violation of its rules, it could write to the billionaire to remind him of his responsibilities, or it could choose to take no action.
Advertisement
But whatever the FA does, the impact of its claim that the UK had been “colonized by immigrants” – while citing incorrect demographic data – could be felt for some time to come.
Regardless of the fact that Ratcliffe also received support in some quarters for raising the issue of immigration in his interview with Sky News, the fact that United felt the need to issue a statement that read like a public rebuke to its own co-owner was a sign of the consternation felt at Old Trafford – as well as concern over the potential cost of the backlash his words provoked.
The pointed assertion of United’s “inclusive and welcoming” values - without directly naming Ratcliffe – was a deliberate attempt to distance the club from him and, according to Old Trafford sources, was endorsed at the highest level.
Hours earlier Ratcliffe said he said he was “sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration which supports economic growth”.
Advertisement
‘Glaziers will be horrified by Ratcliffe’s remarks’
Ratcliffe has always praised the Glazer family, describing them last year as “the nicest people on the planet.”
But according to a source close to the club, the club’s majority shareholders were “horrified” by his first comments, and saw it as “contempt for their shareholders”.
The Glazers – whose grandparents were Lithuanian Jewish immigrants to the United States – have yet to comment on the episode.
But the source believes one of the main reasons they have supported inclusive initiatives such as All Red All Equal at the club is because they see it as a brand to nurture and heavily market, and they will have taken a dim view of remarks which could prompt sponsors to reconsider their partnership with United.
Advertisement
“Large multinationals want to associate with youth, positivity and forward-thinking. United are currently struggling to find sponsors… and this is exacerbating that,” the source added, suggesting some potential partners would “run a mile”.
All of this happened just days after the Glazers reportedly expressed concerns about United’s commercial performance during a recent meeting.
It’s easy to understand why. United have been without a training kit partner since last season, with their shirt sleeve sponsor also set to expire this summer.
Last year, Marriott International – the world’s largest hotel company – decided not to extend your sponsorship agreement with United after his contract expired.
Advertisement
The club’s deal with Adidas is also worth £10 million less this year, as United have failed to qualify for the Champions League for two seasons in a row.
While United still managed to post a record commercial turnover of £333m last year, their main Premier League rivals have been catching up with them in recent years.
So even with the club’s statement and Ratcliffe’s nuanced apology, it’s easy to understand why there may be some nervousness among club executives in the wake of the controversy.
Perhaps more will now depend on the team’s ability to secure Champions League qualification for next season.
Advertisement
Glaziers retain their sales rights
What this means for the long-term relationship between the six Glazer siblings – who retain 70% of the club – and their British business partner is unclear.
It is worth noting that under the terms of the deal which saw Ratcliffe invest £1.25 billion in the club in 2024, if the Glazers receive an offer from a third party that they wish to accept, they can force him to sell his share.
And then there are the club’s hopes for a new 100,000-seater stadium as part of a 370-acre Trafford regeneration project that draws support from local and national politicians.
In January, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and Trafford Council leader Tom Ross both welcomed a new development company designed to enable the multi-billion pound plan to be delivered.
Advertisement
However, three weeks later, both men released statements condemning Ratcliffe’s comments. The same goes for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who had both previously expressed support for the redevelopment project.
While local authorities have promised that taxpayers’ money will not be used for the new stadium itself, public funds are being sought for surrounding infrastructure, including the crucial move of a nearby freight rail terminal to St Helens.
It’s unclear whether Ratcliffe’s remarks risk making the ongoing negotiations more difficult, but they come at an important time.
United’s hope will be that those involved focus on the 15,000 new homes, 48,000 new local jobs and billions of pounds in value to the economy that the project is expected to be worth.
The lifelong Manchester United fan bought a 27.7% stake in the club in February 2024 in a £1.25 billion deal (Getty Images)
“It’s a global club… apologies are a first step”
It appears Ratcliffe’s relationship with many United fans has also been damaged.
Advertisement
Ghulam Haydar, of the Manchester United Muslim Supporters’ Club (MUMSC), told BBC Sport his apology was “a first step” but said he would like the 73-year-old to agree to a meeting to provide assurances.
“It’s a global club… what are they going to do to really make sure that the club is a welcoming space for people of color, people from immigrant backgrounds?” he asked.
MUMSC said it did not believe Ratcliffe’s apology “sufficiently addressed the seriousness” of what was said.
“Expressing regret for having offended is not the same as recognizing the broader impact of the words used. Leadership requires accountability as well as openness to debate.”
Advertisement
Kick It Out – which fights against racism, sexism and homophobia in football and publishes global reports on discrimination have risen again after last season’s record – told BBC Sport she had already received a number of complaints about Ratcliffe’s comments.
After cutting jobs and raising ticket prices, Ratcliffe was the is the subject of a protest by a group of supporters just two weeks ago over the way the Ineos hierarchy has run the club since taking over football operations.
It will be interesting to see what kind of reception Ratcliffe receives when he next visits Old Trafford.
Uncertainty also surrounds the impact it could have on manager Michael Carrick – who will face questions on the subject for the first time when he addresses the media this week – as well as United’s multinational team and its staff.
Advertisement
Despite United’s recent uptick in form since the former midfielder’s appointment, times are tough for Ratcliffe and his business Ineos, the petrochemical company he founded and runs.
Last week, he warned that “the current conditions of the European chemical industry cannot survive without immediate intervention”.
These concerns were why Ratcliffe was at an industry summit in Antwerp. And that was clearly what he intended to talk about in an interview that ended up putting him at the center of a violent political storm.
This is a controversy that is unlikely to erupt quickly, and the real repercussions of which are not yet clearly known.
Ratcliffe said he was “sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe” (Getty Images)
