Lead: On Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, Manchester United’s leading decision‑maker, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, sparked national controversy after saying the U.K. is being “colonised” by immigrants. His remarks — made in a wider interview about the petrochemical industry and his work at United — prompted criticism from Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and local leaders, and led Ratcliffe to say he was “sorry if my choice of language has offended some people” while not withdrawing his broader point about immigration. The episode has pulled the football club into a heated public debate, raising questions about the responsibilities of high‑profile owners and the potential local and political fallout.
Key Takeaways
- Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a United decision‑maker and businessman based in Monaco, used the word “colonised” to describe immigration to the U.K. in an interview on Feb. 12, 2026.
- U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer publicly called the comments “offensive and wrong” and said Ratcliffe should apologise.
- Ratcliffe later issued a statement saying he was “sorry if my choice of language has offended some people” but did not retract his concerns about immigration policy.
- Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham criticised the phrasing and noted the positive contributions of migrants to the city and to Manchester United’s squad and public services.
- The remarks come after a period in which Man United ownership has shifted from the Glazer family’s relative silence to a more vocal figurehead; Ratcliffe has previously advocated Brexit (2016) and is active in the petrochemical sector.
- Fans may remain divided: Ratcliffe was applauded at Old Trafford in November 2024 when he presented Bruno Fernandes with an award for his 250th United appearance, but the club’s global, diverse fanbase could see real‑world repercussions from polarising language.
- Potential practical consequences remain speculative, including whether local or national political support for planning matters (such as a new stadium scheme) could be affected.
Background
Manchester United’s public relationship with ownership has changed sharply since the Glazer era, when family executives rarely spoke publicly. Ratcliffe, who has roots in Manchester but lives in Monaco and runs industrial interests including a petrochemical business based in Cologne, has taken a different approach: more visible, more outspoken and more willing to link club plans to broader political or economic themes. He has previously supported Brexit in 2016 and has highlighted United’s global footprint in interviews, noting recognition in places as remote as Mongolia and supporters across Africa.
Football club owners in England typically avoid overtly political language because clubs are global brands with diverse followings; fan communities cross nationality, class, race and faith lines. Manchester itself has a long history as an immigrant city — from Flemish weavers in the 14th century to modern arrivals who work in the NHS and other public services — and many current United players and local workers were born outside the U.K. That demographic reality is a key reason why public remarks about immigration by a club figure can provoke a strong reaction.
Main Event
On Feb. 12, 2026, Ratcliffe was being interviewed about problems in the petrochemical industry when he drew a parallel to the scale of change he believes the U.K. needs, using the word “colonised” to describe immigration. Because he is the most prominent voice associated with Manchester United, the line quickly became front‑page news and reframed what had been an industry interview into a national debate. The comments reverberated beyond sport: the U.K. prime minister intervened, and local officials spoke out.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the comments as “offensive and wrong,” saying Britain is “a proud, tolerant and diverse country” and urged Ratcliffe to apologise. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham emphasised Manchester’s multicultural history and the contributions of migrants to the city’s institutions, including the NHS and local industries, and said the rhetorical framing of newcomers as an “invading force” contradicted the city’s values.
Ratcliffe subsequently issued a brief statement acknowledging the reaction: he said he was sorry if his “choice of language has offended some people” but maintained that raising immigration levels was a legitimate policy discussion. The partial apology — regret over phrasing rather than substance — left the core policy contention intact and meant the story remained unresolved as the club entered a quiet stretch with no match until Feb. 23, 2026.
Analysis & Implications
Owners and leading decision‑makers at globally followed clubs act as both private investors and public custodians. When they speak, their words carry weight beyond boardrooms; they influence fans, local communities and, increasingly, political conversations. Ratcliffe’s comments illustrate how an owner’s off‑field commentary can transform a sporting institution into a political lightning rod, creating reputational risk for the club and potential friction with local leaders and national politicians.
For Manchester United specifically, the timing and nature of the remarks are sensitive. The club is rebuilding on and off the pitch under new leadership, and Ratcliffe’s visibility has been an asset in some respects — he is credited by some fans for ambition and direct engagement. But polarising statements can erode goodwill among broad segments of the club’s global fanbase and among local stakeholders whose cooperation is often needed for projects such as stadium redevelopment, planning approvals and community partnerships.
Politically, the episode exposes a dilemma for public officials. Criticising an influential private figure can spotlight civic values and mobilise defenders of diversity, but it also raises questions about whether and how public authorities might respond in practical terms. Any decision by government or local bodies that touches the club — from planning support to funding decisions — risks being portrayed as retaliatory if tied to speech rather than demonstrable legal or regulatory grounds.
Comparison & Data
| Year | Owner/Context | Public posture |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Jim Ratcliffe | Publicly supported Brexit (reported) |
| Nov 2024 | Ratcliffe at Old Trafford | Applauded while presenting Bruno Fernandes with 250th‑game award |
| Feb 12, 2026 | Ratcliffe interview | Used the term “colonised”; prompted national response |
The small timeline above shows how Ratcliffe’s public interventions have punctuated his tenure: policy advocacy (2016), fan engagement (Nov 2024) and controversy (Feb 2026). That pattern underlines a shift from the previous era of limited public comment by owners to a more interventionist, visible ownership model.
Reactions & Quotes
“These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood.”
Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor (official)
“Offensive and wrong. Britain is a proud, tolerant and diverse country. Jim Ratcliffe should apologise.”
Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister (official)
“I am sorry if my choice of language has offended some people.”
Sir Jim Ratcliffe (statement)
Each remark came with context: Burnham framed the comments as at odds with Manchester’s history of multicultural civic life; Starmer emphasised national values and urged an apology; Ratcliffe expressed regret about wording while retaining his broader policy concern, leaving the dispute focused on tone as much as substance.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Ratcliffe’s remarks will materially affect government decisions on planning or financial support for any proposed Old Trafford redevelopment remains unconfirmed.
- It is not yet clear if the partial apology will satisfy sponsors, local partners or a significant portion of the global fanbase over the long term.
- No definitive evidence has emerged that the remarks will change match‑day attendance or commercial revenues for Manchester United.
Bottom Line
The episode is a reminder that ownership at globally followed clubs carries public responsibilities. Ratcliffe’s language has widened a debate from industrial policy to national identity and local belonging, and by doing so has entangled Manchester United in a charged political conversation that extends far beyond football.
How this plays out will depend on three things: whether Ratcliffe pursues further comment or clarifies his views, how political and civic leaders respond beyond rhetorical rebukes, and whether fans and commercial partners shift their behavior. For now, the immediate fallout is reputational and conversational rather than legal or financial — but prolonged controversy could produce practical consequences for club projects that rely on public or political cooperation.
Sources
- The New York Times / The Athletic (media report; original article and updates on Feb. 12, 2026)