There are certain figures who hover into view at key moments of history, defining eras despite having little control over events.
You might remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who was dubbed by the UK media as ‘Comical Ali’ and became famous towards the end of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in his role as the country’s minister for information.
Al-Sahhaf offered bulletins throughout the conflict and as the Ba’ath Party’s position became worse, his messages became more optimistic. With rockets flying into Baghdad, according to Al-Sahhaf, the situation was well under control.
Saddam Hussein was nowhere to be seen. Everybody knew that everything happening was because of him and Al-Sahhaf’s front and centre presence instead gave an insight into just how useless the whole regime had become.
In fairness to Sir Jim Ratcliffe, at least he did not use one of his several media appearances this week to convince anyone that his football empire was not in danger of crumbling. Quite the opposite — the criticisms were meted out in liberal quantities, to a wide range of targets: a selection of unnamed senior players (“overpaid” and “not good enough”), former executives Richard Arnold and Ed Woodward (“Richard was a rugby man, he didn’t even understand football. Ed didn’t have the credentials to manage the club. He was a merchant banker, an accountant”), and even Ligue 1, with Ratcliffe saying he cannot bring himself to watch his other club, Nice, because “the level of football is not high enough for me to get excited”.
In fact, the only people Ratcliffe did not train his sights on were those most United fans deem culpable for the club’s decline — the Glazers, the U.S. family who, despite appearances, are the actual owners of the club courtesy of their 67.9 per cent controlling stake (the stake belonging to INEOS and its founder, Ratcliffe, is worth 28.94 per cent).
It was the Glazers who hired Arnold and Woodward, and the football executives who signed those apparently useless players. It was also on the Glazers’ watch that United’s financial position had, according to Ratcliffe on Monday, deteriorated to such an extent that the club was at risk of “going bust by Christmas”. Yet the main cause of that malaise — the crippling interest payments due on the £700million ($905.5m at current rates) worth of debt the Glazers’ leveraged buyout forced on United — also went curiously unmentioned.
Fans protest at the Glazers’ ownership (Carl Recine/Getty Images)
Then again, maybe it isn’t quite so curious. Ratcliffe is not allowed to publicly attack the Glazers due to the non-criticism clauses he agreed to when his minority investment was sanctioned in December 2023.
In legal terms, as revealed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing made at the time, this meant neither Ratcliffe or the Glazers “shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, make, or cause to be made any public statement or announcement that relates to or constitutes an ad hominem attack on, criticises, or otherwise disparage” the other party.
Ratcliffe knows that, as the owner with the lower share, he has to find a way to work with his partners, hence why he is so disinclined to talk about them in public. They were barely mentioned in the round of interviews Ratcliffe did on Monday with some British newspapers, the BBC and Gary Neville’s Overlap podcast (The Athletic were not offered the chance to speak to him); the Sunday Times had more joy in prising some thoughts out of Ratcliffe in an article which appeared online on Saturday but, for the most part, he toed the corporate line.
He suggested there wasn’t a “bad bone” in Joel Glazer’s body and that the family were “old East Coast” Americans — “they’re very polite, they’re very civilised, they’re the nicest people on the planet”. The subtext was that the family are too nice to do what Ratcliffe thinks needs to be done — namely, take a chainsaw to a bloated workforce.
Yet there were hints that the relationship between Ratcliffe and the Glazers is hardly close, given his remark to the Sunday Times that “we bought in and haven’t seen them since” and that they have largely retreated “into the shadows”.
The Glazers’ reputation is so bad that no amount of PR will change how they are viewed by most United fans, and maybe Ratcliffe was trying to subtly create a bit of distance from himself and his ownership partners. But the net effect of his publicity drive this week is that it is Ratcliffe who is in the line of fire.
An artist’s impression of United’s new stadium plan (Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
If you knew absolutely nothing about United, and nothing about football, you would look at all the coverage and assume that Ratcliffe is operating as a somewhat frazzled lone wolf given the way he lurched from warnings about bankruptcy to laying out plans for one of the most ambitious stadium projects the game has ever seen inside 24 hours.
The Glazers — whose opinion on all this stuff matters most given their controlling stake — have not uttered a word. We don’t know what they think about moving into a new 100,000-seater stadium that, if Ratcliffe has his way, will take just five years to build and cost around £2bn. It is the most significant decision the club has made since the Glazers’ takeover nearly 20 years ago, but their names have not appeared at the bottom of any of the bubbly press releases, and they certainly have not put themselves forward for interviews.
Not that this is new. The 20th anniversary of their takeover falls in June and, across the last two decades, the Glazers have probably said less about the club and revealed less about themselves than Ratcliffe has in the last seven days alone.
It must be stressed, especially from a journalist’s perspective, that being available is much better than being absent. Yet for the time being, Ratcliffe is doing little more than acting as a useful fireguard for the Glazers
United supporters know who has most of the power and this explains why the focus of their protests has remained consistent. Yet the more a filterless Ratcliffe runs around, attempting to explain the world away, the more he risks receiving an equal share of the blame when things go wrong.
(Top photo: Avram Glazer with Sir Jim Ratcliffe; Marc Atkins/Getty Images)
