Follow live coverage of Arsenal v Newcastle in the Premier League today
“I think if it’s a national stadium and it’s a catalyst for the regeneration of that part of south Manchester… there needs to be a dialogue with the government.”
While many of the interviews Sir Jim Ratcliffe gave to the media on Wednesday, following the final confirmation of his 27.7% takeover of Manchester United, thrilled United fans, there were more than a few things that came as a surprise.
Between jokes about “knocking Manchester City and Liverpool off their perch” and feel-good stories about befriending Sir Alex Ferguson, his comments about the women’s team made them seem like an afterthought, simply saying that “if it’s a team that wears the badge Manchester United wear their shirt, then it’s Manchester United’s turn and they have to focus on winning and succeeding.” But to give the benefit of the doubt, these are early days and perhaps there are big plans for the future.
His response to the question about Mason Greenwood and making a “new decision” about the forward’s future also set off alarm bells, but it’s probably fair to judge him on this matter when the nature of the “new decision” is made clear. clear.
Ratcliffe highlighted this photo as one of his favorite moments for United this season (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)
What also stood out were his comments about Old Trafford and the potential refurbishment of United’s home stadium or the possible construction of a new one.
Ratcliffe has suggested that, when the time comes to rebuild or replace Old Trafford, he will seek some sort of public funding, also suggesting that this would be part of a potential regeneration of that area of Manchester.
Ratcliffe said: “People in the north pay taxes and we could think of a more ambitious project in the north which would be suitable for England, for the Champions League final or the FA Cup final and would act as a catalyst to regenerate the south of Manchester, which has quite a significant history in the UK.”
The easy (and not unreasonable) conclusion is that Ratcliffe invoked the British taxpayer even though he was not one himself. He was asked about his residence in the tax haven of Monaco, to which he replied: “I have paid tax for 65 years in the UK. And then, when I reached retirement age, I went down to enjoy a bit of sunshine.” A happy coincidence that the only possible place “to enjoy some sunshine” is also where the income tax rate is zero%.
But while that’s true, that distracts from the main issue, which is trying to guilt-trip the taxpayer into subsidizing a new stadium for Manchester United.
US sports fans will be familiar with the tactic: A sports team owner pressures the local government to provide millions of dollars in financing or tax subsidies for a new stadium, earnestly promising that it would cost nothing because it would bring a host of economic benefits. to the local community.
However, numerous studies in America have exposed this claim as, at best, extremely exaggerated and, more realistically, complete nonsense.
There are many examples of this, but one is the Atlanta Braves: in 2013 Cobb County authorities committed $300 million (£237 million) to the construction of Truist Park, the team’s future new home (which replaced Turner Field, itself built only in 1996). ), which came with a number of other surrounding commercial and residential developments. The suggestion was that it would all be a worthwhile public investment. In 2022, a report by JC Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University, found that although there were increases in things like sales taxes, this did not cover the money initially invested by authorities.
Bradbury wrote that “the evidence does not support the widespread assertion that the $300 million invested by the county to finance the stadium was a good financial investment” and that “the stadium has significant annual deficits, which are likely to continue for the remaining 25 years of life”. the County’s commitment.”
This example is cited because at least there was enough time to judge whether it was beneficial or not, but it only adds to the effect. Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, which recently hosted the Super Bowl, cost $1.9 billion, of which $750 million came from public funding. A recent NBC report states that approximately $33 billion in public funds has been spent over the past 50 years to build new stadiums or renovate old ones.
Ratcliffe doesn’t have the same influence as those US owners, because invariably the threat they leave hanging over the authorities is that they will move their team to a more accessible city to provide them with a shiny new home. Even hinting at the vague possibility that he might consider something like that would be the easiest way to violently burn away any good will towards him from practically anywhere.
Public subsidies for stadiums are an entrenched problem in US sport, but they cannot be allowed to take hold in the UK. For starters, where would the money come from?
A report into Manchester Council’s budget process recently revealed that they could be facing a budget gap of £71.9 million in 2026-27, which coincidentally is likely to be just around the time that work on the ‘Old Trafford, if Ratcliffe could do it.
There will no doubt be a dispute over which public authority should provide the funding to United, not least because Old Trafford is technically not in Manchester, but the point remains: at a time when councils across the UK are going bankrupt (often , strangely, because they have been involved in reckless and economically unsound construction projects), meaning that basic services are catastrophically affected, how can anyone who goes out of their way to justify public money to beautify a team’s stadium football or buy a new one?
Ratcliffe believes a new or revamped Old Trafford is key to United’s progress (Simon Peach/PA Images via Getty Images)
Ratcliffe is not wrong when he mentions southern bias (by which he means London) when it comes to national sporting facilities in England.
He is also right that the north of England has historically been neglected and ignored by the British government.
But even if Ratcliffe is right, it’s hard to take him seriously because we know he’s false at best. He is not calling for a separate “Wembley of the North” to be built for the benefit of the people: he is calling for the redevelopment of his club’s stadium to be (at least in part) paid for by the people.
United don’t need money. In the last financial year they grossed £648m, up 11% on the previous one. They were in fourth place in the recent Deloitte Money League ranking of the richest clubs in the world. One would imagine that they would easily be able to obtain financing based only on the increased revenue that would come from a new or renovated stadium. They also have a recent elite example in Tottenham, who managed to build their new stadium without public money. The expense wouldn’t hurt their profit and sustainability calculations either, since infrastructure costs are exempt.
And on the most basic level, it’s hard to take seriously a man who is personally worth £29.7 billion, according to the latest Sunday Times rich list, which suggests his latest acquisition needs a new home and you should pay for it yourself, which would also increase the value of your investment.
Ratcliffe’s suggestions were only the first suggestions, and there is no indication that any public body would actually be willing to take them up. But even so, the idea that public money should be used to help renovate or rebuild Old Trafford should be stopped as soon as possible.
(OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images)