Sir Jim Ratcliffe Takes Huge Risk In His Manchester United Rebuild

You don’t become a billionaire without making unpopular decisions. Still, you would imagine being branded “Scrooge” by Manchester United fans is not exactly the public relations message Sir Jim Ratcliffe hoped he’d have attached to his name over the festive period.

The reference to the tight-fisted character from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is a consequence of supporters’ raging response to two stories about cuts at the club.

First, the tabloid paper The Sun reported that funding to the Association of Former Manchester United Players—which supports former players who didn’t make it at the elite club—would be slashed.

Then, a story by Sky News business journalist Mark Kleinman claimed that the club’s charitable arm, the Manchester United Foundation, intends to reduce the benefits it provides from 2025 onwards.

“The disclosure about the latest target of cost-cutting by Sir Jim’s Ineos Sports group, which now owns close to a 29% stake of Manchester United,” Kleinman wrote.

He added, “A similar move has been made about funding for the club’s disabled fans’ group, while hundreds of full-time staff have been made redundant in recent months, and costs have been slashed across most areas of its operations.

And then, somewhat ominously: “People close to the club anticipate further cost-cutting measures being introduced as soon as next month.”

The actions come as the club hits new lows on the field. Manchester United is currently languishing in 14th position and on a run of three successive defeats.

A large section of the fanbase welcomed the decision to fire manager Erik Ten Hag earlier this month after handing him a new extended contract in the summer.

However, his replacement, Ruben Amorim, whom the club paid millions in compensation to poach from Sporting Lisbon, has failed to have any impact.

Rather than discussing the future, the Portuguese boss found himself discussing the possibility of being fired after another 2-0 loss to Wolverhampton Wanderers.

“I know the business that I’m in,” he told the media.

“The manager of Manchester United can never, no matter what, be comfortable.

“I know that if we don’t win, regardless, if they pay the buyout or not, I know that every manager is in danger. I like that because that is the job, so I understand the question.

“You can argue that I have been here one month and I’ve had four training [sessions], but we are not winning. That is the reality, and I’m quite comfortable with that.”

A Culture Of Marginal Gains?

In the media, influential pundits, such as former Manchester United defender Gary Neville, are calling for wholesale changes.

“There has got to be a cultural overhaul,” he said on his latest podcast, “it is a real torrid time, there is not a lot to like about performance levels or the way they play.

“They are all lads trying their best, it’s not a personal assault, but they are not good enough to play for Manchester United, because this club aims to be at the top.”

It would be interesting to know to what extent Neville sees Sir Jim’s changes altering the culture because the organizations whose funding is being cut would certainly argue that it is. These groups thought of themselves as embodying aspects of the Red Devils’ longstanding identity.

The ruthless cost-cutting of such groups is in contrast to the approach by the Glazer family. Although they might be unpopular amongst sections of the fanbase and are frequently accused by critics of taking too much money out of the club, they had nevertheless attempted to maintain the ethos that existed at the club prior to their arrival.

Of course, many would argue that Old Trafford’s decaying state and the lack of a league title since Sir Alex Ferguson over a decade ago indicate that accountability levels have dropped two levels. And perhaps, as Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s head of sport at his company INEOS, Sir Dave Brailsford would argue, if improvements can be made, there is nothing too small—marginal gains all add up.

But the question has to be, is this really the fat that needs trimming? As Dan Coombs, editor at supporters’ group United In Focus, told The Sun in response to the ex-players organization taking a hit: “After a summer where United spent £101million net and continue to pay incredibly high wages, the savings from this latest cut are a drop in the ocean, and are a kick in the teeth for many of the club’s former greats, who were not paid the excesses today’s footballers receive.”

Cutting a £40,000 donation to a group that organizes funerals for men who dedicated their young lives to the club but ultimately never could make it at the highest level loses more than it gains.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, Manchester United’s successes historically have all been based on harnessing the cultural power of the past. It channeled the tragedy of the Munich Air Disaster- which killed the Busby Babes – to win the European Cup in 1969 and then tapped into the glories of both eras to establish a dominant winning machine 30 years later.

Maybe it’s naive to think that a similar approach could be taken in the modern era. But if the type of class that Bobby Charlton or Sir Alex Ferguson promoted offers even minimal gains, you’d think maintaining funding to disabled groups and charitable arms is worth it.