Opinion: Would Sheikh Jassim Have Been a Better Manchester United Owner?

 Opinion: Would Sheikh Jassim Have Been a  Better Manchester United Owner?

Qatari business man Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani (left) and a corner kick flag bearing Manchester United logo (right). Photo Credit- Stake/X

The recent partial takeover by Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS group has done little to ease the concerns of fans, many of whom believe that a full sale to the Qatari bankers, led by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, would have been the best option for Manchester United to go forward.

Manchester United, one of the most historic football clubs in the world, continues to be plagued by ownership turmoil and structural inefficiencies. The club, despite its immense commercial success, has struggled to reclaim its dominance on the pitch due to poor leadership, lack of clear direction, and financial mismanagement under the Glazer family. This critique is set to explore why the Qatari bid would have been a superior alternative to the current INEOS-Glazers partnership, analyzing financial backing, sporting vision, managerial structure, and long-term sustainability.



The Full Sale vs Partial Investment Issue

One of the key reasons why the Qatari bid was preferable was the commitment to a full takeover. Sheikh Jassim and his investment group were prepared to buy 100% of Manchester United, clearing all debts and injecting fresh capital into the club. This would have effectively ended the Glazers’ controversial and often toxic ownership, which has been marked by financial extractions and minimal investment into the club’s sporting infrastructure.

On the contrary, the INEOS deal is only a partial takeover, with Sir Jim Ratcliffe acquiring a 25% stake initially, while the Glazers remain in control of the majority of shares. This hybrid arrangement means that decision-making will still be influenced by a family that has already proven incapable of steering the club in the right direction. The Glazers’ continued involvement raises concerns about whether true change can happen at Old Trafford.

READ ALSO

Is Manchester United’s 2024/25 Squad the Worst in History?



Opinion: Did Erik ten Hag Destroy Manchester United?

Who is to Blame for United’s Struggles: Players, Coach or Executives?

Financial Power and Debt Clearance

The Qatari ownership would have immediately wiped out Manchester United’s staggering debt, which currently stands at around £1 billion due to years of leveraged buyouts and high-interest payments. The club’s financial situation under the Glazers has been crippling, with more than £1.5 billion extracted in dividends, loan interest, and financial costs since 2005.



Sheikh Jassim’s proposal included a 100% debt-free approach, meaning that all funds generated by the club would be reinvested into football operations, stadium renovations, and training facilities. This approach can be compared to what other Middle Eastern-funded cubs like Manchester City and Newcastle United have done, leading to massive improvements in squad quality and infrastructure.

By contrast, INEOS is not clearing the debt. While Sir Jim Ratcliffe has promised better financial management, the fact remains that the club’s cash reserves will still be drained by debt servicing costs. This leaves less room for squad investment and infrastructure improvements, putting United at a further disadvantage compared to rivals.

Sporting Vision and Ambition

One of the biggest concerns with the INEOS takeover is its lack of clarity regarding sporting direction. While Ratcliffe has experience running a football club through his ownership of OGC Nice, his tenure there has not been particularly impressive. The French club has struggled to challenge for major titles, and there are questions about whether his management philosophy is compatible with a club of Manchester United’s stature.

The Qatari bid, in contrast, promised a fully modernized football project. Sheikh Jassim’s group was reportedly committed to appointing top-tier football executives, investing in cutting-edge scouting networks, and ensuring United returned to the elite level of European football. Their model was expected to resemble Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi-led transformation, which turned City from a mid-table club into a global powerhouse.

While Ratcliffe and INEOS may bring some innovation to improve the club, their budget limitations and split decision-making with the Glazers make it unlikely that United will see a dramatic shift in fortunes anytime soon.

Infrastructure Development

Manchester United’s stadium, Old Trafford, has been in desperate need of renovation for years. The Glazers’ lack of investment in infrastructure has led to the stadium falling behind rivals like the Etihad, the Emirates, and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Similarly, United’s training ground, Carrington, is no longer considered world-class compared to facilities at City or Liverpool.

The Qatari bid included a massive commitment to redevelop Old Trafford and build state-of-the-art facilities to match the best in the world. This investment would have not only improved player development but also enhanced the matchday experience for fans.

Under INEOS, there has been no confirmed budget for stadium redevelopment, and with debt still on the books, the likelihood of a complete overhaul remains slim. This lack of investment risks keeping United behind its competitors in terms of facilities.

The Glazers’ Continued Involvement

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of the INEOS takeover is that the Glazers are still in charge. Fans have protested against the American owners for over a decade, citing their financial mismanagement and lack of footballing knowledge. The INEOS deal does nothing to fully remove them from power, meaning that the same old boardroom inefficiencies could persist.

Sheikh Jassim’s bid, on the other hand, was a complete buyout, meaning the club would have been free from Glazer influence once and for all. This alone was a key reason why fans preferred the Qatari ownership—because it symbolized a complete fresh start.

Ethical Considerations and Fan Sentiment

One of the arguments against Sheikh Jassim ownership was the human rights concerns associated with Middle Eastern investors. Critics feared that a Qatari-backed takeover would be an example of “sportswashing,” similar to accusations leveled at Manchester City and Newcastle.

However, from a pure footballing perspective, Manchester United’s fanbase overwhelmingly supported the Qatari bid over INEOS. Multiple polls among United supporters indicated that the majority wanted Sheikh Jassim because of his promise to clear debt, invest in football, and remove the Glazers completely.

The INEOS deal, on the other hand, has left many fans disillusioned. There is no immediate solution to the ownership crisis, and there is growing skepticism over whether Ratcliffe’s group has the resources to truly compete with the likes of City, Liverpool, and Arsenal.

Conclusion

W hen comparing the two ownership options, it is evident that the Qatari bid would have been the superior choice for Manchester United. A complete takeover, full debt clearance, unlimited financial backing, world-class infrastructure investment, and a clear sporting vision made it the most logical path forward..

In mynstead, the INEOS-Glazers arrangement is a compromise that keeps United stuck in limbo. While Ratcliffe may improve some aspects of the club, his partial stake does not resolve the fundamental problems that have plagued United for years. The club remains burdened by debt, infrastructure concerns persist, and most critically, the Glazers still hold power.

For United to truly return to the top, a clean break from the past was needed. Sheikh Jassim and the Qatari investment group represented that opportunity. Unfortunately for United fans, that opportunity has been lost, leaving them with yet another uncertain future under split ownership.

Related post