The awkward truth for Man United behind Jim Ratcliffe’s toxic comments

Some at Old Trafford were enjoying the sound of silence. Manchester United have started to win on the pitch while becoming less newsworthy off it. After some of Ruben Amorim’s more explosive or entertaining interventions, Michael Carrick’s capacity to downplay everything in amiable fashion was appreciated.

But Amorim’s comments, if exaggerated at times, were never as toxic as Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s interview with Sky News. Ratcliffe, of course, is not merely United’s co-owner but chairman of Ineos, owner of Nice, and a cycling team. Yet United’s profile as a footballing and cultural institution is such that his political statements stick with them.

Advertisement

By saying that the United Kingdom had been “colonised by immigrants”, Ratcliffe delivered rhetoric that felt Farage-esque or Jenrick-esque. Indeed, Nigel Farage soon agreed. That Ratcliffe’s numbers seemed based on incorrect figures may have been instructive; some would say the far right never let the facts get in the way of such assertions, after all.

Ratcliffe may have spoken with the hypocrisy of a man who emigrated himself. His remarks were “offensive and wrong,” Sir Keir Starmer said. The prime minister called on the billionaire to apologise. The Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, called Ratcliffe’s views “inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory”. He said: “These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood.”

Whether Ratcliffe, a Monaco-based tax exile and Brexiteer who had made a bid for Chelsea, ever stood for Manchester is a moot point, but when he bought a 27.7 per cent stake in United, he was portrayed as a local boy made good. His political views can be personal opinions, but for a club with a global fanbase and a multinational squad, they were divisive at best.

United’s goalscorers under Carrick come from Cameroon, Denmark, Brazil, Slovenia and Portugal, not Chorlton, Denton, Burnage, Salford and Prestwich. Only three of the players Carrick used in Tuesday’s draw with West Ham are English. One of those, Harry Maguire, has Irish heritage. Kobbie Mainoo’s parents are from Ghana.

United’s recent history is built on the exploits of men from overseas. Previous immigrants include Cristiano Ronaldo, Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Dwight Yorke, Jaap Stam, Patrice Evra, Nemanja Vidic and Edwin van der Sar. Ratcliffe may not consider the Irish, immigrants, but Roy Keane and Denis Irwin are foreigners, too.

Advertisement

Or maybe Ratcliffe simply considers them the right kind of immigrants and others the wrong kind. Footballers are wealthy, after all. Not every fan is, though. As the Manchester United Supporters Trust said: “Manchester United belongs to all of its supporters. No fan should feel excluded from following or supporting the club because of their race, religion, nationality or background. Comments from the club’s senior leadership should make inclusion easier, not harder.”

The 1958 went further, calling Ratcliffe “a total embarrassment”. They have previously branded him an “incompetent clown”. Ratcliffe’s assessment that he had done the “difficult things” but the “right things” at United jarred.

By most objective measures, his time at Old Trafford has been wildly unsuccessful. Carrick has started well in his short-term stint in charge. Until then, however, the Ratcliffe regime had got every major footballing decision wrong: from not sacking Erik ten Hag in the summer of 2024 to appointing Amorim a few months later, to keeping him last summer. Some of the signings – Manuel Ugarte and Joshua in particular – have been terrible. Millions have been wasted; hiring and firing Dan Ashworth for instance. United have recorded their lowest league finish for half a century. Ratcliffe has sacked 450 members of staff, some of whom were far better at their jobs than some of those he brought in. Lives were damaged in the process. Ratcliffe nevertheless congratulated himself on his tough choices.

Ratcliffe has grandiose ambitions, as his plans for a new Old Trafford show. United have stressed they do not want public money to pay for it, though it would be required for wider regeneration of the area. There are former employees who doubt it will ever be built, though.

Advertisement

But Ratcliffe gives the impression he sees himself as a man of vision and drive; the implication is that the immigrants whose names he does not know and whose numbers he exaggerates are not, and are all on benefits.

Which ties into a wider theme. Somehow, the people who have done best seem to think society is biased against them. The super-rich have an assumption that possessing a fortune gives them greater wisdom; yet every time Ratcliffe speaks in public, he tends to say something stupid. There was an added unpleasantness to his latest interview.

A particularly notable country is currently experimenting with government by an ignorant, bigoted billionaire. It isn’t going well, but the response is always to blame others. There was, perhaps, something predictable in Ratcliffe gravitating towards Farage. He can vote how he wishes, even from Monaco. But it would be interesting to know the reaction of a Manchester United squad colonised by immigrants to his verdict on them.