Lead: On Feb. 11, 2026, billionaire and Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe said in comments to Bloomberg Terminal that the United Kingdom had been “colonized” by immigrants, a remark that he later said had offended “some people”. The statement prompted a swift rebuke from Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who called the comment “offensive and wrong,” and criticism from fan groups. The dispute intensified public debate around immigration rhetoric and the club’s relationship with its diverse squad. An updated report on Feb. 12 noted the developing reactions from political and supporter circles.
Key Takeaways
- On Feb. 11, 2026, Jim Ratcliffe told Bloomberg Terminal that the UK had been “colonized” by immigrants; he later issued an apology for offending “some people.”
- Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly described the remark as “offensive and wrong,” saying it benefited those seeking to divide Britain.
- The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club accused Ratcliffe of echoing far-right narratives that “frame migrants as invaders.”
- About 70% of Manchester United’s current squad are foreign-born, a fact critics cited to highlight the immediate relevance of the remarks to the club.
- The comment and backlash were documented in reporting updated on Feb. 12, 2026, as responses from political figures and fan groups continued to surface.
Background
Jim Ratcliffe is a British billionaire industrialist and the founding figure behind INEOS; he is also a co-owner of Manchester United, one of England’s highest-profile football clubs. Ownership changes and investments in top-tier clubs often put business leaders in the public spotlight, especially where national identity and football fandom intersect. Immigration has been a heated subject in UK politics for years, with recent governments and parties debating policy, border control, and integration. Public figures who use charged language about migrants can provoke broad reactions from politicians, civil-society groups and club supporters, given football’s diverse domestic and international followings.
Supporter groups have increasingly used organized platforms to hold owners and executives to account on social issues as well as sporting matters. Manchester United’s global fanbase and multinational squad make the club particularly sensitive to commentary about immigration and identity. Previous controversies involving football owners and senior executives have shown that off-field remarks can affect supporter relations, sponsor decisions and local political responses. In this context, Ratcliffe’s wording quickly drew attention beyond routine business commentary.
Main Event
The remark first surfaced in an exchange with Bloomberg Terminal on Feb. 11, 2026, when Ratcliffe used the word “colonized” to describe how immigrants have settled in the UK. Within hours, the comment was widely reported and prompted immediate pushback from political leaders and fan organizations. Ratcliffe subsequently said he regretted offending “some people” with his choice of language, framing the response as an apology for the phrasing rather than the broader topic of immigration.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed the statement directly, calling it “offensive and wrong” and warning that such language “played into the hands of those who want to divide Britain.” The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club issued a separate statement accusing Ratcliffe of perpetuating narratives favored by the far-right and of framing migrants as invaders. Those statements underscored the tension between a club with an international roster and public commentary that audiences interpreted as exclusionary.
Reporting updated on Feb. 12 recorded the continuing fallout: media coverage, political comment and responses from supporter groups. Stakeholders inside and outside the club were reported to be monitoring both the public reaction and any potential impact on community relations and commercial partnerships. The immediacy of the reaction reflected how quickly a single, charged phrase can shift a public-relations agenda for a major football institution.
Analysis & Implications
Politically, the episode highlights the sensitivity of migration discourse in the UK ahead of ongoing debates over immigration policy. When a high-profile business leader uses language associated with historical domination—such as “colonized”—it can reshape the terms of public discussion, prompting political leaders to respond to mitigate division. Starmer’s swift condemnation signaled a desire by the government to distance mainstream politics from rhetoric perceived as inflaming social tensions.
For Manchester United, the incident raises reputational risks that go beyond short-term headlines. A squad where roughly 70% of players are foreign-born means comments about migrants resonate internally with players and externally with a global fanbase. Sponsors and commercial partners typically seek to avoid association with divisive rhetoric; sustained controversy can trigger contractual scrutiny or pressures that affect sponsorship values and community outreach programs.
On a broader social level, the event illustrates how elite voices can amplify narratives that are already present in parts of the public sphere, including far-right framing that describes migration in militarized or invasionist terms. Experts in integration and social cohesion caution that such metaphors make constructive policy conversation more difficult and risk increasing alienation among immigrant communities. The apology offered by Ratcliffe addressed the wording but left open questions about how his views will influence club governance or public debate going forward.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Reported Figure / Date |
|---|---|
| Ratcliffe’s remark reported | Feb. 11, 2026 |
| Manchester United squad foreign-born share | About 70% |
The table above places the timing of the comment beside the most-cited statistic about the club’s squad makeup. The “about 70%” figure is drawn from coverage responding to the remark and is intended as an approximate indicator of the squad’s international composition. That composition helps explain why the comment generated immediate and pointed responses from fan groups and political figures.
Reactions & Quotes
Political leaders responded quickly to the report, framing the comment as harmful to social cohesion and inconsistent with mainstream political discourse.
“Offensive and wrong.”
Keir Starmer, Prime Minister
Supporter organizations singled out the language as echoing exclusionary narratives and called for accountability from club leadership.
“Frame migrants as invaders.”
Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club
Ratcliffe also issued a short apology focused on the reaction to his word choice rather than a full retraction of his broader views.
“I apologize for offending some people.”
Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United
Unconfirmed
- Whether any commercial sponsors or partners have opened formal reviews in response to the remark is not publicly confirmed as of Feb. 12, 2026.
- Internal discussions within Manchester United leadership about disciplinary or reconciliatory steps were not publicly disclosed at the time of the update.
- The reported “about 70%” figure for foreign-born squad members is an approximate number provided in coverage and may vary by the specific roster snapshot used.
Bottom Line
The episode demonstrates how a single phrase from a high-profile owner can spark national-level political reaction and mobilize supporter groups, particularly when a club’s roster and fan base are highly international. Ratcliffe’s apology acknowledged offense to “some people,” but it did not fully neutralize the political and reputational repercussions triggered by the remark. The incident will likely prompt closer scrutiny of public comments by owners and executives in football and other sectors.
Going forward, stakeholders to watch include political leaders setting public standards for discourse, supporter organizations holding clubs accountable, and commercial partners assessing reputational risk. If the controversy persists, it could influence sponsor negotiations, club–community outreach, and how owners engage publicly on sensitive social topics.
Sources
- Bloomberg — news/press (original report and update on Feb. 11–12, 2026)