Billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe has spoken about immigration with authority that he clearly hasn’t earned. From Monaco mega-yachts to sun-drenched terraces he’s a long way from the Failsworth estate that raised him says Rob Williams
Manchester United is not simply a football club. It is a global institution. Its players come from every continent.
View 3 Images
You’ve got to wonder what lived experience of immigration the billionaire part-owner of Manchester United, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, actually has. He does live abroad himself, of course.
Does he encounter many immigration-related problems as he wanders through the luxurious streets of Monte Carlo? Is immigration something he faces much as he strolls past the mega-yachts of Port Hercule?
Feet up on the sun-drenched terraces of Moneghetti, does he have much time to ponder rainy old blighty and how it has apparently been “colonised” by immigrants?
73-year-old Ratcliffe is one of the UK’s richest men, with a net worth somewhere between £12.8bn and £17bn (what’s £5.8bn between friends?).
He is a regular on the monied pages of the Sunday Times Rich List, most recently ranking seventh. As such, he moves in a world of extraordinary privilege, where everyday concerns like overstretched schools, underfunded hospitals or rising rents simply do not exist.
Monaco
View 3 Images
From a terrace overlooking the Mediterranean, or a shopping trip in La Condamine, the struggles of Manchester’s immigrant communities are almost unimaginable. Yet he speaks about immigration as though he knows the subject intimately.
Without getting too starry-eyed about it, Manchester is a city built by immigrants. That’s not a slogan - it is a fact, one evident in the skyline, workplaces, and people.
For generations, Manchester has drawn those who wanted to build a better life and find a place to call home.
This is a city shaped by Irish labourers, Caribbean nurses, South Asian entrepreneurs, African students, Eastern European workers, and Jews fleeing the pogroms and anti-Semitic persecution of the early 20th century.
They did not displace Manchester’s identity, they helped create it. That is why Ratcliffe’s remarks about Britain being “colonised by immigrants” have stung, and why his subsequent non-apology-apology has rung so hollow.
As a storm gathered over his remarks, Ratcliffe apologised for his “choice of language” that had “offended some people.” He’s absolutely right to apologise, but you can’t help but feel he still doesn’t get it.
In fact, his apology is not really an apology at all. And it’s also not good enough. It is the kind of ‘sorry’ that acknowledges offence without acknowledging fault, that regrets the reaction rather than the words themselves.
In short it’s a mucky, evasive, carefully controlled PR move that refuses to grapple with why his words matter. It has left a nasty bitter taste in the mouths of many Mancs.
All this is said before we even tackle the strange errors in his claims over population.
He said the UK population was 58 million in 2020 and is now 70 million. In reality, it went from 66 million to 69 million. That is a big difference when you are trying to make a point about immigration.
Net migration is also falling.
Look, Sir Jim has the right to an opinion, like anyone else. But if you are going to launch into a highly-charged debate and use words like “colonised,” at least get your numbers right.
Manchester United is not simply a football club. It is a global institution. Its players come from every continent.
Walk into the Old Trafford dressing room today and you won’t just hear the local accent, you’ll hear a symphony of Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch. That’s the magic of the modern game - it’s a United Nations in muddy boots.
For Ratcliffe to sit in his Mediterranean bubble and talk about 'colonisation' is a slap in the face to fans who hail from all corners of the globe. Meanwhile, his stewardship of United has seen massively unpopular moves like slashing bonuses and cancelling the Christmas party.
You can't cash the checks from a global brand and then pull the ladder up behind you.
So when Sir Jim speaks about immigration in divisive language, while using numbers that aren’t true, it suggests not just hypocrisy, but an attempt to make a point he cannot justify.
Is there an important debate to be had about immigration in this country? Absolutely. Is our immigration system broken? 100%.
Should people be entitled to share what they think about issues regardless of how much money is in their bank account? Of course.
But these debates are febrile and they have a real world impact, and that is especially true when you are one of the richest people on the planet.
Manchester’s story has never been one of exclusion. It has been one of openness and belonging. That is not colonisation. That is not an invasion.
Sir Jim got it wrong, and he needs to understand that it is not just about the words he used. If he can’t grasp that then all it proves is that the son of a joiner, who grew up on a council estate in Failsworth, is long gone - and that these days he spends entirely too much time among the glistening mega-yachts floating serenely on the blue Mediterranean sea.