“I think if it’s a national stadium and it’s a catalyst for regeneration in south Manchester… there has to be a conversation with the government.”
Much of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s media interviews on Wednesday may have left Manchester United fans excited, but there were plenty of surprises as Sir Jim Ratcliffe finally confirmed his takeover of a 27.7% stake in the club.
Amid the good stories of “pumping Manchester City and Liverpool off their thrones” and intrigues with Sir Alex Ferguson, his comments about the women’s team make them sound like an afterthought, merely raising the question “What if this was a team wearing Manchester United?” The team that wears their jersey is Manchester United and they need to focus on winning and success. ” But to be fair, it’s still early days and perhaps grander plans are being made.
His response to questions about Mason Greenwood and the “new decision” on the striker’s future also set off alarm bells, but he can only be judged on the matter once the nature of the “new decision” is clear It’s only fair to judge.
Ratcliffe highlighted the photo as one of his favorite United moments of the season (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)
Also notable were his comments about Old Trafford and the possible renovations or possible new stadium at Manchester United’s home ground.
Ratcliffe said he would seek some kind of public funding when Old Trafford is rebuilt or replaced, suggesting it would be part of a potential regeneration of that area of Manchester.
Ratcliffe said: “Northerners pay taxes and there is a view that you could look at a more ambitious project in the north that would suit England, the Champions League final or the FA Cup final and act as a catalyst. .” Rebuilding South Manchester, which has a very important history in the UK. “
A simple (and not unreasonable) question is that Ratcliffe is quoting British taxpayers, but is not a British taxpayer himself. When asked about his stay in the tax haven of Monaco, he replied: “I paid taxes in the UK for 65 years. Then when I reached retirement age, I went to enjoy the sunshine.” In a happy coincidence , the only places where it’s possible to “enjoy a little sunshine” also happen to be places with zero income tax rates.
But while this is true, it distracts from the main issue, which is trying to guilt-trip taxpayers into subsidizing United’s new stadium.
This tactic will be familiar to American sports fans: A sports team owner pressures local governments to provide millions of dollars’ worth of capital or tax subsidies for a new stadium, with the solemn promise that it won’t actually cost them anything. , because it will bring a lot of economic benefits to the local area.
However, multiple studies in the United States have shown that this statement is extremely exaggerated at best and, more realistically, complete nonsense.
There are many examples of this, but the Atlanta Braves are one of them: in 2013, Cobb County authorities invested $300 million (£237 million) in the construction of Truist Park, the team’s future new home (replacing the 1996 Turner Field)), and is surrounded by a range of other retail and residential developments. The suggestion is that the whole thing would be a sound public investment. A 2022 report by Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury found that while items such as the sales tax increased, they did not cover the money the authority originally invested.
Bradbury wrote that “the evidence does not support the widely held belief that the county’s $300 million investment in the stadium is a sound financial investment” and that “it is very unlikely that the stadium will run a large annual deficit.” It will probably continue for the next 25 years”. County government’s commitment.
This example is cited because at least there is enough time to judge the benefits or otherwise – but it only increases. Las Vegas’ Allegiant Stadium, which recently hosted the Super Bowl, cost $1.9 billion, $750 million of which came from public funds. A recent NBC report said that over the past 50 years, approximately $33 billion in public funds has been used to build new stadiums or renovate old ones.
Ratcliffe does not have the clout of those American owners, as the threat they leave to the authorities is always that they will move the team to a city more suitable to provide them with a shiny new home. Even hinting at the vague possibility that he might consider such a thing would be the easiest way to violently incinerate goodwill towards him from almost anywhere.
Public subsidy of stadiums is entrenched in US sport but cannot be allowed in the UK. First, where does the money come from?
A report on Manchester Council’s budget process recently revealed that they could see a £71.9m budget gap in 2026-27, which coincidentally could be right at Old Trafford if Ratcliffe gets his way Around the time construction began on Ford Field.
No doubt there will be debate over which public body will provide funding to United, not least because Old Trafford is not technically in Manchester, but the point remains: at a time when councils across the UK are bankrupt (Often, interestingly, because they are involved in ill-advised and financially unsound construction projects) This means that basic services are catastrophically affected, and who can justify investing public money into beautifying a football club’s stadium or buying a new one? What’s reasonable?
Ratcliffe believes a new or revamped Old Trafford stadium is key to United’s progress (Simon Peach/PA Images via Getty Images)
Ratcliffe was not wrong to refer to Southern (he was referring to London) prejudice when talking about England’s national stadiums.
He is also right that the north of England has historically been neglected by the British government.
But even if Ratcliffe has a point, it’s hard for us to take it seriously because we know he’s dishonest 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 his club’s stadium to be rebuilt, at least partly paid for by the people.
Manchester United doesn’t need money. Their revenue last financial year was £648 million, an increase of 11% on the previous financial year. They were ranked fourth in the most recent Deloitte Wealth League ranking of the world’s richest clubs. As you can imagine, they could easily get funding simply by relying on the increased revenue from a new or renovated stadium. They even had an elite example recently in Tottenham Hotspur, who managed to build their new stadium without public funding. These expenditures won’t even hurt their bottom line and sustainability calculations, as infrastructure costs are exempt.
At the most basic level, it’s hard to take seriously a man who is worth £29.7bn, according to the latest Sunday Times rich list, which suggests his latest acquisition needs a new home and you should be paying for it. It will also increase the value of his investment.
Ratcliffe’s is just an early suggestion, and there’s no sign that any public agency will actually accept it. But even so, the idea of using public money to help renovate or rebuild Old Trafford should be put to rest at the earliest opportunity.
(Oli Scarfe/AFP via Getty Images)
