Lead: Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the 73-year-old billionaire co-owner of Manchester United, apologised on Thursday after saying the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” during a Sky News interview on Wednesday. He said he regretted the wording that “offended some people” but insisted the topic of controlled, well-managed immigration required open debate. The remarks drew immediate criticism from political leaders, fan groups and anti-racism organisations, and prompted a review by the Football Association into whether the comments brought the game into disrepute. Manchester United issued a statement stressing the club’s inclusivity and diverse makeup while not addressing the remarks directly.
Key Takeaways
- Sir Jim Ratcliffe apologised on Thursday for wording used in a Sky News interview on Wednesday that he said had “offended some people”; he remains the 73-year-old co-owner of Manchester United and founder of Ineos.
- The FA has told BBC Sport it is examining whether the comments brought the game into disrepute; if charged under FA rules, Ratcliffe could face disciplinary measures.
- Ratcliffe incorrectly claimed the UK population rose by 12 million to 70 million in the past five years; the ONS estimates an increase from 66.7 million to 69.4 million, about a 2.7 million rise.
- Political leaders reacted strongly: Sir Keir Starmer called the comments “offensive and wrong” and Downing Street welcomed the apology; Deputy PM David Lammy said many people found the language offensive.
- Football and anti-racism groups including Kick It Out and Show Racism the Red Card condemned the remarks as divisive and harmful to minority communities.
- Nigel Farage defended the broader observation about migration’s effects while asking for the word “colonise” to be omitted; Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said the comments contradicted Manchester’s inclusive tradition.
Background
Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a British industrialist who founded Ineos, one of the world’s largest chemical companies, and is widely reported to have relocated to Monaco in 2020. He became a major public figure again after buying a co-ownership stake in Manchester United; his profile includes past political activity, such as campaigning for Leave in the 2016 EU referendum. Immigration has been a dominant political issue in the UK in recent years, featuring in debates over small-boat crossings, asylum processing and labour-market needs.
The language Ratcliffe used — describing the UK as “colonised by immigrants” — tapped into longstanding tensions about national identity, economic pressures and public services. Public figures who comment on migration often trigger swift political response because the topic intersects with party politics, media coverage and grassroots sentiment. Clubs like Manchester United also sit at the intersection of sport and society: a comment by an owner can have reputational and regulatory consequences both for the individual and the institution.
Main Event
On Wednesday during an interview with Sky News, Ratcliffe warned that the UK faced economic strain from a combination of welfare spending and immigration, saying words to the effect that the country had been “colonised” by immigrants. That wording, rather than the policy point he intended, dominated reaction. Within hours, opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer called the remarks “offensive and wrong,” and public figures across the political spectrum expressed concern.
On Thursday Ratcliffe issued an apology for his choice of language, saying he was sorry that it had offended people in the UK and Europe, while reiterating a call for discussion about “controlled and well‑managed immigration that supports economic growth.” Manchester United issued a separate statement emphasising that the club prides itself on inclusivity and that its diverse players, staff and global supporters reflect Manchester’s heritage.
BBC Sport reported that the Football Association is assessing whether the comments amount to bringing the game into disrepute; FA procedures allow investigation of conduct that harms football’s integrity or reputation. Fan groups and anti-racism charities publicly criticised the remarks, and the episode immediately prompted commentary about what, if any, formal sanctions might follow.
Analysis & Implications
Politically, the episode underscores how migration remains a volatile electoral issue ahead of the next general election. Ratcliffe is a wealthy backer with prior political activity, and his comments are likely to be picked over by parties and pundits for weeks. An apology narrows immediate damage, but the substance of his claim — that migration has economic downsides — will feed into policy debates that span housing, public services and labour markets.
For Manchester United, the incident raises governance and brand-management questions. Owners’ public statements can affect club reputation, sponsor relations and supporter sentiment; the club’s quick emphasis on inclusivity sought to contain reputational spillover. If the FA decides to investigate, that process will be watched as an indicator of how football’s authorities police political speech by high-profile stakeholders.
Economically, the discussion exposes a common gap between anecdotal statements and official statistics. Ratcliffe’s numerical claim about a 12 million rise in five years was demonstrably inaccurate when compared with Office for National Statistics estimates; that gap risks undermining policy arguments that rely on empirical evidence. The wider implication is that high-profile interventions into migration policy need to be grounded in accepted data to influence debate constructively.
Comparison & Data
| Source | Claimed change | ONS estimate (actual) |
|---|---|---|
| Sir Jim Ratcliffe | Population rose by ~12 million to 70 million in 5 years | — |
| Office for National Statistics (ONS) | — | 66.7 million → 69.4 million (rise ≈ 2.7 million) |
The table shows the disparity between the claimed rise and ONS figures: public debate that uses numerical assertions benefits from referencing official estimates to avoid misleading conclusions. The ONS data above come from national population estimates covering the relevant multi‑year period; commentators who argue for policy shifts on the basis of demographic change should cite those statistics directly.
Reactions & Quotes
Political leaders and civil-society groups responded quickly, framing the remarks in different ways before and after the apology.
“Offensive and wrong.”
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader (as paraphrased)
Starmer’s summary reaction was cited by government spokespeople and amplified by media coverage; it set the tone for criticism from the opposition and some within government. Downing Street welcomed Ratcliffe’s apology as the appropriate step.
“I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe.”
Sir Jim Ratcliffe (apology statement)
Ratcliffe framed his apology around language rather than the substance of his broader argument about immigration management, and he reiterated a call for debate on controlled immigration that he says supports growth.
“Disgraceful and deeply divisive.”
Kick It Out (anti-discrimination campaign)
Anti-racism groups warned that such language echoes historical narratives used to stigmatise migrant communities and urged clubs and leaders to avoid rhetoric that could legitimise hostility.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the FA will formally charge Sir Jim Ratcliffe under its disciplinary rules remains unconfirmed as the FA’s review is ongoing.
- Any internal disciplinary or governance measures by Manchester United directly tied to the remarks have not been publicly announced.
- The extent to which these comments will change Ratcliffe’s influence over club decisions or investor relationships is speculative at this stage.
Bottom Line
The immediate outcome is reputational: Ratcliffe’s apology has calmed some backlash but not erased concern among political leaders, fan groups and anti-racism organisations. The episode highlights how choice of language by prominent figures can shift public attention from policy points to cultural impact and harm.
Looking ahead, the FA’s handling of the matter will set a precedent for how football regulates speech by owners and stakeholders; politically, the remarks feed into a broader debate on immigration that will remain salient for parties and voters. Observers should watch for any FA decision, Manchester United follow-up, and whether the incident prompts renewed calls for clearer guidance on public conduct by club owners.