Reported by Simon Daniel Yusuph l Journalist at Weng Global
Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club has called for a change in the club’s ownership, saying it has lost confidence in co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the Glazer family following fresh comments by Ratcliffe about immigration and the direction of the United Kingdom.
The supporters’ group made the demand on Saturday, September 19, 2026, after Ratcliffe spoke about immigration, taxation and welfare during a BBC interview, in which he argued that Britain was “on the slide” and linked the country’s difficulties to issues including immigration and high taxes. The remarks have renewed criticism from sections of Manchester United’s fanbase.
The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club (MUMSC) said it had previously criticised Ratcliffe over comments he made earlier in 2026 concerning immigration. The group said it had hoped that controversy would lead to greater consideration of the impact of such statements.
According to the Associated Press, MUMSC has now called for Ratcliffe to leave Manchester United following his latest remarks.
Supporters’ group withdraws confidence in ownership
In its latest statement, MUMSC said it had lost confidence in the club’s current ownership structure and called for both Ratcliffe and the Glazer family to leave.
The group linked its position not only to Ratcliffe’s comments but also to wider concerns about the direction of Manchester United, including issues surrounding supporters, ticket prices, the condition of Old Trafford and the club’s sporting performance.
MUMSC said Manchester United’s identity is closely connected to its diverse community of players, employees and supporters from different countries, cultures, ethnicities and religions.
The supporters’ group argued that this diversity forms an important part of the club’s identity and said leadership should reflect that reality.
The latest statement follows an earlier dispute between Ratcliffe and sections of Manchester United’s support over his comments on immigration.
Ratcliffe faces renewed criticism over immigration remarks
Ratcliffe, the founder and chairman of INEOS, has repeatedly attracted criticism for his views on immigration and other British political and economic issues.
In February 2026, he said Britain had been “colonised by immigrants”, prompting criticism from football supporters and anti-discrimination organisations. He later apologised for the choice of language, saying he was sorry if his comments had caused offence.
Manchester United subsequently emphasised the club’s diverse fanbase and its connection to a city whose population has been shaped by immigration.
The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club was among the groups that criticised Ratcliffe at the time, saying the club was built around people from different backgrounds and faiths.
Ratcliffe’s latest BBC interview has brought the issue back into focus.
According to reports from the BBC and other media organisations, Ratcliffe again expressed concern about immigration and welfare while arguing that Britain had lost some of its former economic strength.
The renewed comments have prompted MUMSC to revisit its earlier criticism and escalate its position by calling for a change in ownership.
Ratcliffe’s role at Manchester United
The ownership dispute needs to be understood within the structure of Manchester United’s current ownership.
Ratcliffe does not own the club outright. Manchester United’s corporate filings show that his INEOS investment gave him 27.7% of the club’s voting rights when the transaction was completed in February 2024. The Glazer family retained majority voting control.
Manchester United’s 2025 annual filing also records the transfer of the investment from Trawlers Limited, Ratcliffe’s investment vehicle, to INEOS Limited. INEOS is co-owned by Ratcliffe, Andrew Currie and John Reece.
The arrangement gave INEOS significant influence over football operations while leaving the Glazer family with overall voting control.
That distinction is relevant to the supporters’ demand because a call for Ratcliffe to leave does not necessarily amount to a demand for the entire club to be sold. MUMSC, however, has explicitly called for both Ratcliffe and the Glazer family to leave the club.
Concerns extend beyond Ratcliffe’s comments
The supporters’ criticism is not limited to the controversy surrounding immigration.
MUMSC also cited concerns about Manchester United’s broader direction under the current ownership structure.
Among the issues raised by supporters are ticket prices, the state of Old Trafford and the club’s performances on the pitch.
The group’s position comes during another difficult period for Manchester United. The club has experienced continued scrutiny over sporting results and management decisions, while Ratcliffe and the INEOS leadership have undertaken significant restructuring since their arrival.
Manchester United’s financial and corporate records confirm that the INEOS investment was accompanied by changes to the club’s football operations and board representation. Two individuals designated by Ratcliffe, John Reece and Rob Nevin, joined the Manchester United board in February 2024.
The changes were part of Ratcliffe’s broader involvement in the running of the football side.
Fan dissatisfaction has been growing
The latest statement from MUMSC comes amid wider supporter dissatisfaction.
Other Manchester United fan groups have also criticised aspects of the ownership structure and decisions taken since INEOS became involved in football operations.
Earlier this month, hundreds of supporters protested against the Glazer family and Ratcliffe during demonstrations linked to concerns about the treatment of fans and club policies.
Those protests illustrate the broader challenge facing Manchester United’s leadership: maintaining confidence among supporters while implementing financial, operational and sporting changes.
For many fans, ownership is not simply a financial question. It is also connected to the club’s identity, traditions, relationship with supporters and long-term sporting ambitions.
Manchester United’s diversity at the centre of dispute
The disagreement between Ratcliffe and MUMSC has also placed the issue of diversity at the centre of the debate.
Manchester United has a global fanbase that extends far beyond England and the United Kingdom. The club has supporters across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Its playing squads, coaching staff and wider workforce have also historically included people from numerous nationalities and cultural backgrounds.
MUMSC has therefore argued that statements about immigration made by a senior figure at the club can have consequences beyond political debate in Britain.
The supporters’ group previously stressed that Manchester United’s identity is associated with different communities and faiths. That position has now become part of its argument for changes in the club’s leadership.
The criticism has been reported by several international media organisations, including the Associated Press, The Guardian and The Independent.
Ratcliffe’s earlier apology
Ratcliffe’s latest comments are particularly significant because they follow his earlier apology.
In February, Ratcliffe acknowledged criticism over his description of immigration and apologised for the language he used.
At the time, the controversy generated reactions from Manchester United supporters, football organisations and political figures.
The Guardian reported that Manchester United’s Muslim supporters had criticised Ratcliffe’s earlier remarks while emphasising the importance of diversity at the club.
The latest MUMSC statement suggests that the group does not regard the earlier apology as having resolved its concerns.
Instead, the supporters now say the latest comments demonstrate that their concerns remain.
The sporting situation adds pressure
The ownership dispute is unfolding against a backdrop of sporting difficulties at Manchester United.
The club has faced scrutiny over its results and football strategy, with manager Michael Carrick also dealing with questions about the team’s performances.
Reuters reported on September 18 that Carrick had dismissed speculation about his future while Manchester United prepared for a Premier League match against Fulham. The report said United had lost three of their first six matches and had also suffered a League Cup elimination after surrendering a two-goal advantage against Brighton.
These sporting problems have contributed to a wider discussion among supporters about whether the current leadership structure is delivering the improvement that was expected after INEOS increased its involvement.
MUMSC’s statement therefore arrives at a time when questions about ownership, football operations and the club’s relationship with supporters are already prominent.
What the supporters are demanding
MUMSC’s position is clear: it wants both the Glazer family and Ratcliffe to leave Manchester United.
However, the supporters’ demand does not itself change the club’s legal ownership structure.
Manchester United remains controlled through Manchester United plc, with the Glazer family retaining majority voting rights according to the club’s latest publicly available ownership information. INEOS, meanwhile, retains its significant minority position.
Any change in ownership would therefore require decisions by the relevant shareholders and completion of the necessary corporate and regulatory processes.
There is currently no indication from the club’s official corporate disclosures that an ownership sale has been announced.
What happens next
The immediate issue is whether Manchester United or Ratcliffe will respond publicly to the latest statement from the Muslim Supporters Club.
The dispute could also add to existing pressure on the club’s leadership as Manchester United attempts to improve its performances and manage its relationship with supporters.
For MUMSC, however, the issue goes beyond results. The group has connected its demand for change to what it regards as the club’s values, treatment of supporters and leadership direction.
Ratcliffe remains a significant shareholder and influential figure in Manchester United’s football operations, while the Glazer family continues to hold majority voting control.
The latest dispute therefore does not represent an immediate change in ownership. Instead, it marks another escalation in the continuing disagreement between sections of Manchester United’s support and the people who control and operate the club.
For readers, the key developments to watch are any response from Ratcliffe or Manchester United, further statements from supporters’ groups, and whether the controversy leads to additional discussions about the club’s ownership and governance.
Weng Global – Stories beyond borders
Sources
- Associated Press — Report on the Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club’s call for Sir Jim Ratcliffe to leave the club, September 19, 2026.
- The Guardian — Coverage of Ratcliffe’s latest comments and the reaction from Manchester United’s Muslim Supporters Club.
- The Independent — Report on MUMSC’s demand for Ratcliffe to step down.
- Manchester United — Official investor information and ownership records.
- Manchester United plc — Corporate filings detailing the INEOS investment and voting rights.
- Reuters — Report on Manchester United’s recent sporting situation and manager Michael Carrick.
