Seems that Manchester United's Jim Ratcliffe is in a spot of bother.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

Jim Ratcliffe is the founder, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the INEOS chemicals group.(1) INEOS owns ManU. While ManU fans have been raging at their ownership for years, Ratcliffe seems to have poured petrol on their dumpster fire.

His latest misstep was to go on a Reform Party-style rant that "the UK has been colonised by immigrants" and "nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in." (2) Sounds familiar, right?

So of course, milquetoast UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer DEMANDED an apology. (3) Ratcliffe did. (4) Sure I believe him, just like I believe Trump wants to will his fortune to Black Lives Matter. But Starmer's got Epstein problems anyway, and the UK version of the "strongly worded letter" seems unlikely to help him much while the wolves in his party circle, one red-headed female one in particular. (5)

What this means for the football club is anyone's guess at this point. Fan groups have much more influence over what happens in European sports clubs than in the US, but I still don't expect Ratcliffe to be ousted just now. Put a pin in it and stay tuned.

Me, I think they should have 50 points deducted and be relegated from the Premier League, but that's just me wanting Tottenham Hotspur to stay up.

============================
(1) https://www.ineos.com
(2) https://www.the-independent.com/bulletin/news/jim-ratcliffe-uk-immigration-starmer-man-united-b2918555.html; https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2169841/Sir-Jim-Ratcliffe-immigrant-interview-Man-Utd; https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/breaking-manchester-united-jim-ratcliffe-36707625.
(3) https://www.the-independent.com/bulletin/news/keir-starmer-jim-ratcliffe-colonised-immigration-man-utd-b2918646.html
(4) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jim-ratcliffe-migrants-manchester-united-b2919206.html
(5) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/angela-rayner-keir-starmer-resign-labour-leadership-b2915827.html

[RandySF]

1. So dumb question.

Are English soccer clubs franchised the way American sports teams are and can Ratcliffe be stripped of ownership?

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

3. From what I can determine,

ownership is complex. I have no visibility into precisely who owns what these days. The league probably knows, but it's not obviously public. Or it's beyond my search skills.

In ManU's case, Wikipedia says that the Glazer family still have a 90% stake, but INEOS seems to run things. It could be that Wikipedia is out of date on this one. The club was acquired gradually by the American Glazer family, owners of the Tampa Bay NFL team, in the early 'oughts. They privatized it by 2005. It was a highly unpopular move for the local fanbase, some of whom started a non-league club (i.e., below the fifth tier on the pyramid) called "FC United of Manchester" in protest. It's still playing in the Northern Premier League (7th tier) where it's currently third in the table and in a promotion playoff spot. But long story short, the fanbase were unable to oust the Glazers. The death of the family patriarch Malcolm Glazer in 2014, combined with diminishing success on the field, has complicated things. That somehow brought INEOS to the fore, which gave Ratcliffe his leadership position. It's been a rocky ride on the field until the appointment of their current "interim" manager, Darren Fletcher, who has, at least temporarily, turned the club around.

To complicate ownership questions further, many UK clubs have shares trading publicly on various exchanges; the London Exchange, for example. ManU shares are listed (or at least were) on the NYSE. One needs to remember that most football, rugby, field hockey and county cricket clubs in England (and the UK in general) have been around for a very long time. ManU dates from 1878, for example. "Owners" come and go, the clubs tend to stay in place. Stakeholders in the various clubs have different degrees of influence, depending on the club. Fan groups have voice and influence even when they don't have actual ownership, and I think ManU have at least two different ones of those. Oh, and then there's the Football Association making rules and the UK government making rules. It's typically British in complex opaqueness.

It's probably worthwhile to note that Manchester is a decidedly Labour Party town. The current Manchester City Council consists of 87 Labour members, 4 LibDems, 3 Greens, 1 Workers Party and 1 Independent; which is to say NO Tories and NO Reform members. So Ratcliffe isn't winning any popularity contests in his club's municipality.

[msongs]

2. punish the team and players for the views of the owner? nt

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

4. Just evil wishful thinking.

I'm a Tottenham Hotspur fan, and Spurs really suck this year and most of their starters are injured. On the other hand, Spurs did punish ManU by winning the UEFA Europa League last season, thus qualifying for this year's UEFA Champions League despite finishing 17th in the table. So perhaps it's Karma, or Zen, or something.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Tottenham Hotspur are majority owned by the Lewis family who own a holding company called ENIC Group. They own a lot of different things in general all over the world, but seem to specialize in nothing in particular other than the club, its stadium, and apparently some of the real estate around it. Family Patriarch Joe Lewis was recently pardoned by Donald Trump for financial crimes. Looking at the ownerships of Premier League clubs gives you a laundry list of nefarious billionaires and oil emirs, and very little else. Kinda like the NFL but perhaps worse. Put one of those assholes in front of a microphone and you get what Ratcliffe did. It's just that most of them are wise enough to have mouthpieces.