Football has long tried to imagine itself as existing in a separate realm to politics. But last week’s controversy surrounding Manchester United’s co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe was a reminder that the game is made up of much more than just the ninety minutes on the pitch.
In an interview with Sky News, Ratcliffe claimed that the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” while discussing the economic pressures the country is facing. He also incorrectly claimed the UK population had risen by 12 million in five years, figures contradicted by the Office for National Statistics.
After drawing significant backlash, Ratcliffe later apologised, saying he was “sorry that my choice of language has offended some people”, but defended the need to discuss “controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth”. Despite this, his words have already caused damage both to his own reputation and to the club’s image.
In a response from Manchester United, they did not name Ratcliffe directly but issued a statement emphasising inclusivity: “Our diverse group of players, staff and global community of supporters reflect the history and heritage of Manchester; a city that anyone can call home”. The message was clearly designed to distance the club from Ratcliffe’s remarks while reaffirming its global, multicultural identity.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also called the comments “offensive and wrong”, emphasising that “Britain is a proud, tolerant and diverse country” while pressuring Ratcliffe to apologise. Local leaders, including Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, also criticised the billionaire, calling his comments “inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory”, instead highlighting the positive contributions that migrants have made to the city and the football community.
The Football Association is reportedly reviewing whether Ratcliffe’s comments brought the game into disrepute, with the result revealed in the coming days. If they decide to charge him, he could face sanctions under FA rules. Whether that happens or not, the controversy is a reminder that club owners are not simply investors, but that their words have implications too.
Photo taken from inside Old Trafford. Credit: GoldenSharkk @ pxhere
A sense of irony also emerges from the incident. Those on the right have been long-standing proponents of the classic phrase ‘politics doesn’t belong in football’; the first to criticise moves towards diversity and political statements from players like Marcus Rashford, who began a movement to continue free school meals into the school holidays during COVID. To critics, a player advocating for free school meals went too far, but a club owner using terms like ‘colonised’ to describe immigration is considered acceptable.
And that’s not all. Ratcliffe has a long history of high-profile public statements. He campaigned for Brexit, has expressed frustration with UK tax policies, and has overseen major restructuring of Manchester United since buying a 27.7% stake in 2024. His tenure has included 450 redundancies, management changes and even saw the end of free lunches for club staff.
The Glazer family, United’s majority shareholders, were reportedly “horrified” by Ratcliffe’s remarks. Sources suggest that they view the club as a brand to protect, and with United already struggling to attract new sponsors and facing a £10m drop in revenue from their Adidas deal after failing to qualify for the Champions League two years in a row, any further controversy risks worsening financial pressures.
To make matters worse, plans for a new 100,000-seat stadium, part of a £370 million redevelopment in Trafford, relies on cooperation with local and national authorities, who have condemned and disapproved of Ratcliffe’s remarks, potentially complicating negotiations.
For fans, the reaction to Ratcliffe’s comments has been mixed, though largely negative. Many are frustrated that off-field controversies distract from the football itself, but rising support for a similar type of anti-migrant politics has seen some argue that he raised legitimate points.
Ultimately, Manchester United would be nothing without immigration. For a club with players and supporters from across the world, the language he chose was inappropriate and divisive. Football is meant to be for the masses, for the working-class, for players who rose up from nothing. According to the Sunday Times Rich List, Sir Jim Ratcliffe was the 7th richest person in the UK in 2025.
On 16 January, a new billboard appeared outside Old Trafford reading “Immigrants have done more for this city than billionaire taxdodgers ever will”. For Ratcliffe, his billions include his stake in Manchester United, but also a hotel in the French Alps, two superyachts, and properties spread between London, Hampshire, Switzerland and Monaco. Most of his money, however, is sourced from INEOS, the chemical giant that he runs. In 2020, the company produced 22.8 million tonnes of toxic petrochemicals, all while Ratcliffe was changing his tax residency to Monaco, a move that was estimated to save him around £4 billion. In that very same year, migrants in the UK made tax contributions of an estimated £20 billion.
It is the hate and spitefulness of billionaires like Ratcliffe that truly seek to divide the sport, not immigrants. For Manchester United, the immediate hope will be that results on the pitch drown out outside noise. But for Ratcliffe, one hopes the lessons may be sharper.