“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 conversation with the government.”
While many of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s media interviews on Wednesday, following the final confirmation of his acquisition of 27.7 per cent of Manchester United, may have delighted United fans, there were more than a few elements that caused surprise.
Between letters about “knocking Manchester City and Liverpool off their feet” and cool stories about hanging out with Sir Alex Ferguson, his comments about the women’s team made them sound like an afterthought, saying just that “if it is a team wearing a Manchester United badge. their shirt, then it’s Manchester United and they have to be focused on winning and being successful.” But to give the benefit of the doubt, these are early days and there may be big plans afoot.
His response to the question about Mason Greenwood and making a “new decision” on the forward’s future also raised alarm bells, but it’s probably fair to judge him on that matter once the nature of the “new decision” becomes clear.
Ratcliffe highlighted this photo as one of his favorite moments at United this season (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)
What also stood out were his comments about Old Trafford and either the possible renovation of United’s stadium or the possible construction of a new one.
Ratcliffe suggested that when the time comes to either rebuild or replace Old Trafford, he would seek some sort of public funding, also suggesting it would be part of a potential regeneration of that area of Manchester.
Ratcliffe said: “People in the north pay their taxes and there is an argument that you could think of a more ambitious project in the north that would be suitable for England, for the Champions League final or the FA Cup final and it worked as catalyst to regenerate south Manchester, which has quite an important history in the UK.’
The easy (and not unreasonable) twist is that Ratcliffe invoked the British taxpayer when he was not himself. He was asked about his residency in the tax haven of Monaco, to which he replied: “I paid my taxes for 65 years in the UK. And then, when I reached retirement age, I came down to enjoy some sun.” A happy coincidence that the only possible place “to enjoy some sun” also happens to be where the income tax rate is zero percent.
But, while true, this distracts from the main issue, which is trying to get the taxpayer to subsidize a new stadium for Manchester United.
American sports fans will be familiar with the tactic: a sports team owner pressures the local government to provide millions of dollars in funding or tax subsidies for a new stadium, honestly promising that it would actually cost nothing because it would bring a series of economic benefits to the city. Local community.
However, many studies in America have exposed this claim as, at best, grossly exaggerated and, more realistically, complete nonsense.
There are many examples of this, but one is the Atlanta Braves: in 2013 Cobb County authorities allocated $300m (£237m) to build Truist Park, the team’s future new home (which replaced Turner Field, the which was only built in 1996 ), which came with a number of other surrounding retail and residential developments. The suggestion was that the whole thing would be a sound public investment. In 2022, a report by JC Bradbury, an economist from Kennesaw State University, found that while there were increases in things like the sales tax, it did not cover the money that authorities had originally invested.
Bradbury wrote that “the evidence does not support the widely held claim that the $300 million the county invested in financing the stadium was a good financial investment” and that “the stadium is running significant annual deficits, which will likely continue for the remaining 25 years. county commitment’.
This example is mentioned because at least there has been enough time to judge the benefit or not — but it is only increasing. Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, which recently hosted the Super Bowl, cost $1.9 billion, $750 million of which came from public funding. A recent NBC report stated that over the past 50 years, approximately $33 billion in public funds have been spent on either building new stadiums or renovating old ones.
Ratcliffe does not have the same leverage as those US owners because the threat they always let hang over the authorities is that they will move their team to a city more likely to offer them a shiny new home. Even hinting at the vague possibility that he might think such a thing would be the easiest way to violently ignite any goodwill towards him from almost anywhere.
Public funding for stadiums is an entrenched mess in US sport, but it cannot be allowed to take hold in the UK. For starters, where will the money come from?
A report into Manchester Council’s budget process recently revealed that they could be looking at a £71.9m budget gap in 2026-27, which coincidentally is likely to be just when work could start on the Old Trafford, if Ratcliffe has his way.
There will no doubt be some dispute over which public authority will provide United with the funding, not least because Old Trafford isn’t technically in Manchester, but the point remains: at a time when councils across the UK are going bankrupt (often, funnily enough, because they were involved in ill-advised and financially unsound construction projects), meaning that essential services are disastrously affected, how can anyone justify committing public money to build a football club’s stadium 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 to mention the southern (by which he means London) bias when it comes to national sporting venues in England.
He is also right that the north of England has historically been neglected and ignored by the UK government.
But even though Ratcliffe has a point, it’s hard to take him seriously because we know he’s disingenuous, at best. He is not asking for a separate ‘Wembley of the North’ to be built for the benefit of the people: he is asking for the redevelopment of his club’s ground to be paid for (at least in part) by the people.
United don’t need money. They brought in £648m in revenue last financial year, up 11% on the previous year. They were fourth in the recent Deloitte Money League ranking of the world’s richest clubs. They could, you imagine, easily secure funding based solely on the increased revenue that would come from a new or renovated stadium. They even have a recent elite example in Tottenham, who managed to build their new stadium without public money. The costs wouldn’t even hurt the profit and sustainability calculations since infrastructure costs are excluded.
And at the most basic level, it’s hard to take seriously a man who is worth £29.7billion, according to the latest Sunday Times Rich List, which suggests his latest acquisition needs a new home and that you have to pay for this, which will also increase the value of his investment.
Ratcliffe’s proposals were only early proposals and there is no indication that any public body would actually be receptive to them. 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)
