Jim Ratcliffe's 'Colonisation' Comments on Immigrants Land Awkwardly at Manchester United: Full Breakdown
Meta Description: Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe sparked a firestorm after claiming the UK had been "colonised by immigrants." Here's everything you need to know — the comments, the backlash, and what it means for the club.
Introduction: When a Billionaire's Words Detonate a National Debate
In the world of football, owners are expected to make headlines for transfers, trophies, and tactical decisions. Rarely do they ignite a full-blown national political crisis. But Sir Jim Ratcliffe — the billionaire co-owner of Manchester United — managed to do exactly that in February 2026, when a television interview spiralled into one of the most explosive controversies the Premier League has seen in years.
Speaking to Sky News on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, the INEOS founder and chemicals magnate described the United Kingdom as having been "colonised by immigrants." The fallout was instant, furious, and far-reaching — drawing in the British Prime Minister, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, fan groups, anti-discrimination charities, and ultimately even the Football Association (FA) itself.
This article breaks down everything that happened, why it matters, and what the consequences could be for one of the world's most famous football clubs.
What Exactly Did Jim Ratcliffe Say?
During the Sky News interview, Ratcliffe was discussing the state of the British economy and what he described as profound political, social, and economic challenges facing the nation. The INEOS chairman, speaking as a business leader, took aim at both welfare costs and immigration levels.
"You can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in," Ratcliffe told the broadcaster. He then added: "I mean, the UK has been colonised. It's costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it?"
He went on to point to population growth as evidence: "The population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, his figures were immediately challenged by official data. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the UK's population was approximately 66.7 million in mid-2020 and around 70 million in mid-2024 — not the 58 million Ratcliffe cited.
The word "colonised" was the real lightning rod. The term carries enormous historical weight, evoking centuries of imperialism, displacement, and systemic oppression. Using it to describe immigration into Britain — a country that itself colonised vast portions of the globe — struck many observers as not just factually incorrect, but deeply offensive.
The Political Firestorm: Starmer, Burnham, and Downing Street React
The reaction from Britain's political establishment was swift and unambiguous.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer took to X (formerly Twitter) within hours of the interview airing, writing: "Offensive and wrong. Britain is a proud, tolerant and diverse country. Jim Ratcliffe should apologise."
A spokesperson for Downing Street went further, saying that Ratcliffe's remarks "play into the hands of those who want to divide our country" and demanding an immediate apology from the Manchester United co-owner.
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester — and a key partner in Ratcliffe's ambitious Old Trafford stadium regeneration project — was particularly scathing. "These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood: a place where people of all races and faiths have pulled together over centuries to build our city and our institutions, including Manchester United FC," Burnham said.
The Mayor drew a sharp distinction between legitimate debate and inflammatory rhetoric: "Calling for curbs on levels of immigration is one thing, portraying those who come here as a hostile invading force is quite another. It is inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory and should be withdrawn."
Burnham also highlighted the irony of such comments in the context of football: "Footballers who have arrived from all over the world to play in Greater Manchester have enhanced the life of our city region, as have the many people working in Greater Manchester's NHS and other essential services and industries."
The Football World Reacts: Fan Groups, Kick It Out, and the FA
The reaction from within football was equally intense. Anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out — a prominent force in the fight against racism and inequality in the sport — issued a strong rebuke, stating: "Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments are disgraceful and deeply divisive at a time when football does so much to bring communities together."
The Manchester United Muslim Supporters' Club (MUMSC) accused Ratcliffe of "perpetuating narratives favoured by the far-right that frame migrants as invaders," a particularly pointed charge given that around 70% of Manchester United's first-team squad are immigrants or of immigrant heritage.
The Manchester United Supporters Trust emphasised that the club "belongs to all of its supporters," adding: "No fan should feel excluded from following or supporting the club because of their race, religion, nationality or background. Comments from the club's senior leadership should make inclusion easier, not harder."
Supporters' group The 1958, meanwhile, labelled Ratcliffe "a total embarrassment" and criticised him specifically for "commenting on the issues of our country while living in Monaco to avoid paying tax" — a reference to Ratcliffe's well-known relocation to Monaco, which does not levy personal income tax or capital gains tax, in 2020.
Perhaps most significantly for the club, sources reported that the English Football Association (FA) was aware of the comments and would look into whether they breached FA Rule E3.1, which covers general behaviour and bringing the game into disrepute.
Manchester United's Response: Caught in an Uncomfortable Middle
Manchester United's official response found the club performing an awkward balancing act — distancing itself from Ratcliffe's language without directly criticising the man who holds a 25% stake in the club and oversees its sporting direction.
"Manchester United prides itself on being an inclusive and welcoming club," the club said in a statement. "Our diverse group of players, staff and global community of supporters, reflect the history and heritage of Manchester; a city that anyone can call home."
The statement pointedly referenced the club's All Red All Equal campaign, launched in 2016, which embeds equality, diversity and inclusion into club operations. But notably, the statement did not name Ratcliffe and made no direct reference to his comments.
The MUMSC called the response inadequate: "We have noted Sir Jim Ratcliffe's apology for his 'choice of language.' However, we do not believe this sufficiently addresses the seriousness of what was said."
Ratcliffe Apologises — But Only Partially
After a day of mounting pressure, Ratcliffe issued a statement on Thursday, February 12, 2026. It read: "I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth."
For many critics, the apology fell well short of what was required. The MUMSC noted that "expressing regret for causing offence is not the same as acknowledging the wider impact of words used. Leadership requires accountability as well as openness to debate."
The Irish in Britain organisation described the original remarks as "not just historically illiterate" but also as demeaning to the rich cultural and economic contributions of those who had built modern Britain. The group pointed out that Manchester's history — including the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, largely built by Irish navvies — was inseparable from migrant labour.
The Irony of It All: Ratcliffe Is an Immigrant Himself
One of the most pointed dimensions of the controversy is that Sir Jim Ratcliffe is, by any definition, an immigrant. He relocated from the United Kingdom to Monaco in 2020 — a country he chose to live in partly because of its favourable tax arrangements. Monaco has no personal income tax and no capital gains tax.
His company, INEOS, also accepted a government support package worth over £120 million in December 2025 to prevent the closure of its Grangemouth chemical plant in Scotland, saving approximately 500 jobs. INEOS also invested £150 million into the site.
Ratcliffe has simultaneously lobbied the British government to provide public funds toward the redevelopment of Manchester United's stadium — a stadium in a city he says has been "colonised."
The contradiction was not lost on supporters or commentators. As one fan group put it, it is difficult to call for controls on immigration while personally living as a tax-exile in a foreign country and drawing on British public money.
What the Experts and Economists Say
Beyond the political drama, economists and migration experts were quick to challenge the factual underpinnings of Ratcliffe's argument.
According to government PAYE data, skilled worker migrants pay a median of approximately £9,100 per year in income tax, while health and care workers pay a median of around £3,500 — and these figures exclude national insurance, VAT, and council tax, meaning real contributions are considerably higher.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has noted that new migrants tend to be of prime working age, giving them a proportionally higher workforce participation rate than the native population. The OBR calculated that migrants' per capita contribution to the UK economy is around £19,500 per year — close to the amount paid by the average UK adult.
Academic experts on migration history have been equally direct in their criticism of the word "colonised," with one noting that the term fundamentally misrepresents the power dynamics at play. "Immigrants in Britain today don't have that power, and don't want to exert that power — they are ordinary people moving to other countries for work, for families, to study," one expert told The Big Issue.
What This Means for Manchester United — and English Football
Jim Ratcliffe's comments arrive at a sensitive time for Manchester United. The club is in the middle of a major restructuring process under his ownership, with significant cost-cutting measures, staff layoffs, and a broader strategic overhaul underway. Ratcliffe himself acknowledged in the Sky News interview that he has become "very unpopular" at the club because of the changes made.
His comments on immigration have only deepened that unpopularity — not just among fans, but reportedly among the players themselves, a significant number of whom are immigrants or sons of immigrants. The comments risk undermining the culture of unity and inclusion that any high-performing dressing room requires.
The FA investigation — if it proceeds to formal action — could result in sanctions ranging from a fine to a formal censure, though full suspensions for club owners over political statements are historically rare.
Perhaps most significantly, Ratcliffe's words may have damaged one of Manchester United's most valuable assets: its global brand, which relies heavily on its reputation as a welcoming, cosmopolitan club with fans in every corner of the world.
Conclusion: Words Have Consequences — Especially at a Club Like Manchester United
Jim Ratcliffe is a polarising figure even before this week's controversy. His business acumen is undeniable, and his passion for turning Manchester United into the most profitable club on the planet appears genuine. But leadership at one of the world's most scrutinised football institutions requires more than financial vision.
The "colonisation" remarks, the partial apology, the factual inaccuracies, and the uncomfortable irony of a Monaco-based tax exile lecturing Britain about immigration — all of it adds up to one of the worst self-inflicted PR crises the club has seen in recent memory.
For Manchester United's 70-million-plus global fanbase, many of whom are themselves immigrants or the children of immigrants, the message from the stands is clear: this is not the kind of leadership they signed up for.
Post a Comment