Thursday marks the one-year anniversary of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s 27.7% purchase of a minority stake in Manchester United — a deal that gave Britain’s richest person control of football operations at the Premier League‘s most successful club — but it has been a turbulent 12 months for the club since his arrival. Erik ten Hag ended last season by winning the FA Cup and was rewarded with a new contract as manager only to be fired four months later, while over 250 job cuts — and the prospect of more — have left morale at rock bottom within Old Trafford.
Ratcliffe’s Ineos Group has made changes behind the scenes, hiring and firing senior staff, but on the pitch, new head coach Ruben Amorim has endured a nightmarish start that has even prompted the former Sporting CP coach to say that relegation is a possibility for the 20-time title winners. United are also struggling to comply with the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR), which threatens a summer of low spending in the transfer market.
So with the first year under Ineos proving to be tough for United, Mark Ogden and Rob Dawson have assessed the group’s impact so far — and whether the club can look forward to a brighter future.
(Editor’s note: The grades are assessing the gap between expectations when Ineos arrived in town a year ago, complete with big ideas and ambitious plans, and the reality of where Man United find themselves right now.)
On-pitch success: Is the team winning games? Trophies? Competitive in general?
Ogden: A quick look at the Premier League table gives you an instant answer. United are on course for their worst-ever Premier League season — by some distance — and the team, under both Ruben Amorim and his predecessor Erik ten Hag, has set all kinds of unwanted records in terms of results. Amorim has already broken records dating back over a century in relation to his team’s woeful record at Old Trafford.
In isolation, United have had some good results under Ineos, including last season’s FA Cup final win against champions Manchester City. They have also won at City in the league season, drawn at Liverpool and beat Arsenal on penalties in the FA Cup after a third-round draw at the Emirates. But United haven’t built on those results, and there have been no signs of prolonged progress under either manager.
Many seasoned United watchers reckon things haven’t been this bad since the early 1970s, when the club was relegated. It’s hard to argue that those old-timers are wrong.
Dawson: It’s been an unmitigated disaster. The FA Cup was won in May, but Ineos can’t take much credit for it because it wasn’t able to make meaningful on-pitch decisions before the summer. It’s what has happened since that’s raised eyebrows.
Ineos dithered over the decision to keep Erik ten Hag. And then, having chosen to stick with him, gave him influence over more than £200 million in new signings that included two of his former players: defenders Matthijs de Ligt and Noussair Mazraoui. It was investment made to suit Ten Hag’s 4-3-3 system, but a matter of months later, he was gone and replaced with Ruben Amorim, who insists upon a completely different tactical setup with three at the back. At best, it’s muddled thinking; at worst, it’s mismanagement.
United won’t get relegated because four teams — Southampton, Leicester City, Ipswich Town and Wolverhampton Wanderers — are in demonstrably worse shape. Defeat to Tottenham Hotspur on Feb. 16 left Amorim’s team 15th in the table, just two points above West Ham. United have never finished in the bottom half in the Premier League era.
The situation Amorim has inherited is so dire that you can’t begin to judge him. If it turns out the Portuguese coach isn’t up to the job, Ineos will be faced with making another managerial change and building a squad that needs a different profile of player. United are in a hole, and they haven’t got the time or the money to be chasing their tail.
GRADES:
– Ogden: D
– Dawson: F
Club finances
Ogden: United are doing nothing to put a positive spin on the bleak financial reality at the club. They announced losses of £113m in the most recent annual accounts last September and have repeatedly stated that they have no financial headroom in terms of PSR. Within those accounts, United also revealed outstanding transfer payments of £319m — a common issue at clubs throughout football due to fees being paid over the course of a player’s contract — and an overall debt of £714m.
This is why, people at the club would argue, Ineos has overseen drastic job cuts at all levels in the past 12 months, with more likely to come. It is also why United were encouraging offers for homegrown players Alejandro Garnacho and Kobbie Mainoo during the January window, as any fee for those would be classed as pure profit on the balance sheet.
The big question about Ineos, though, is whether it is simply dealing with a problem that the Glazer family (the majority owners) ignored for years and is attempting to put United on a sound financial footing, or if it’s clearing the decks and reducing staffing levels to reduce its own costs and make United a less expensive club to run. The message from Ineos has been that all financial decisions, including the most painful ones, have been taken with the ultimate objective of making the team better and successful again. However, for a club that was ranked fourth in Deloitte’s 2025 Football Money League in terms of revenue generated — United banked €770.6m, behind only Real Madrid, Man City and Paris Saint-Germain — it’s hard to see how Ineos is making the numbers stack up.
Dawson: This is Ineos’ big problem. United have lost more than £300m over the past three years and their costs remain high. In a recent letter to fans, they warned there was a danger they could fall foul of PSR, which could lead to big fines or points deductions. Only United know how close they are to their PSR limit, because the numbers submitted to the league are different from those disclosed in statements to the New York Stock Exchange. But as one source told ESPN, the club is facing “a challenging long-term financial picture.”
Ratcliffe has invested around £240m since his arrival — part of which is being used to redevelop Carrington, the club’s training facility — but it’s a drop in the ocean. There’s a feeling within Ineos that supporters do not fully understand just how bad things are and that there is a scenario — as unthinkable as it sounds — in which United could go bust if drastic cost-cutting measures aren’t implemented.
GRADES:
– Ogden: F
– Dawson: C (it’s not all Ineos’ fault)
Let’s look at the squad: Is it getting better or worse?
Ogden: United ended the 2024 summer window with a £101m net spend having traded players in and out after winning the FA Cup, but the squad is still nowhere near having the depth or quality expected at a club of its stature. United have two unproven, and frankly not good enough, young forwards in Rasmus Højlund and Joshua Zirkzee whose transfer fees cost a combined £100m. Defensively, there is a lack of quality at full-back, no central defender who can bring the ball forward and no world-class midfielder.
Very few United players would get in teams above them in the Premier League table — an indictment of the club’s woeful recent recruitment — but Ineos has now had two full windows to improve the squad and has failed to do so. The squad is no better than when Ineos arrived; if anything, it’s worse.
Dawson: More than £200m has been spent on signing new players since the takeover, and you could argue the squad is no better. In fact, plenty of fans would agree it’s worse. The jury is still out on summer signings De Ligt, Mazraoui, Manuel Ugarte, Leny Yoro and Zirkzee. The same can be said for Patrick Dorgu, January’s one significant arrival. In terms of outgoings, United have Marcus Rashford (Aston Villa), Antony (Real Betis), Jadon Sancho (Chelsea) and Tyrell Malacia (PSV Eindhoven) — with a combined market value of more than £200m — playing for other clubs on loan.
United have struggled to score goals since Ten Hag’s time in charge, but in January both Rashford and Antony were allowed to leave without replacements coming in. United have scored 28 goals in 25 league games this season with only Ipswich, Southampton, Leicester and Everton scoring fewer.
The injury list is getting longer, too, after Amad Diallo, Mainoo and Ugarte all picked up problems last week. Still, the state of the squad was summed up at Spurs when Amorim was able to name only one substitute over the age of 19. That was Victor Lindelöf, who hasn’t played in the league for more than two months and is set to leave on a free transfer at the end of the season.
GRADES:
– Ogden: D
– Dawson: D
Moves made with senior management
Ogden: The jury is out on this one because virtually all of the senior executives pre-Ineos were cleared out by the new regime.
The Glazers oversaw a decade of drift and decline by promoting from within, resulting in the likes of Ed Woodward (executive vice chairman), Richard Arnold (CEO), John Murtough (football director) and Darren Fletcher (technical director) assuming consequential roles and not meeting expectations. Ineos has since hired Omar Berrada (CEO), Jason Wilcox (technical director) and Dan Ashworth (sporting director), but former Newcastle United and Brighton & Hove Albion sporting director Ashworth was fired after less than five months in the job. Ashworth failed to impress Ineos boss Ratcliffe, but he was expected to perform a role that was different from his previous experience working with more autonomy at Newcastle, so Ratcliffe and Ineos cannot escape blame for that failed appointment.
Sir Dave Brailsford, the Ineos director of sport, has an influential role behind the scenes at United, and they now have a coherent leadership structure tasked with plotting a course forward.
0:57
Ogden questions what the ‘cult of Jim’ are adding to Man United
On “The Football Reporters” podcast, Mark Ogden wonders what Dave Brailsford can bring to Manchester United with a background in cycling.
Dawson: It’s probably the one area where Ineos has made some kind of progress. Ratcliffe identified very early that the club’s structure wasn’t set up for success, and he has tried to fix it.
Berrada is a clever appointment as CEO after helping Manchester City to become the dominant force in English football. He has an astute business mind, knows football and has contacts across Europe — really the perfect candidate to lead a rebuild.
Ashworth also seemed like a smart hire as director of football given his longtime friendship with Brailsford, but it quickly turned into an embarrassment. Ratcliffe should have made sure his team and Ashworth were completely aligned on key issues — such as possible managerial candidates — before spending so much time and money appointing him from Newcastle. Having to sack Ashworth so quickly suggests Ratcliffe didn’t do his homework, which doesn’t bode well for the rest of his decision-making.
GRADES:
– Ogden: D
– Dawson: C
Fan relations
Ogden: The optics of the Ineos era so far have been really bad. Beyond issues with cost-cutting and infrastructure that have caused embarrassment, fans have felt the tangible effects of the new regime.
Ticket prices have gone up, despite the woeful football and results, a decision that Ratcliffe justified by saying it shouldn’t cost more to watch Fulham than Manchester United — a remark that went down badly with fans. They directed derogatory chants toward Ratcliffe during the recent game at Fulham, so in a year, he has achieved the remarkable feat of becoming as unpopular as the Glazers.
Dawson: The message from Ineos at every turn has been that each decision — popular or not — has been taken to benefit the men’s first team. In short, it’s prepared to do anything and everything to make the club more competitive on the pitch.
It probably felt like an easy PR win considering how things had been under the Glazers, with former executive vice chairman Ed Woodward never able to forget his infamous quote: “Playing performance doesn’t really have a meaningful impact on what we can do on the commercial side of the business.” But by being so clear about its reasoning, Ineos has opened a debate about what a football club is.
It’s true that many supporters only want to see United win the Premier League and Champions League, not caring how they get there. But there are other fans who believe a football club should stand for more: that ticket prices should always be affordable, particularly for children and teenagers; that there should be a thriving women’s team; that there should be a charitable foundation to improve lives in Manchester; that former players who had careers during a time of more modest salaries should be supported.
Fans already feel like they are being forced to pay the price for poor decision-making by the Glazers, and many believe it’s being continued by Ratcliffe. There has already been scattered discontent aimed at Ratcliffe and Ineos, and there’s a larger protest planned ahead of the Arsenal game on March 9. There’s real concern among season-ticket holders that they will be hit with a major price hike ahead of next season.
GRADES:
– Ogden: F
– Dawson: D
How does the future look?
Ogden: Right now, the future doesn’t look great at all, but perhaps Ineos is making the tough, unpopular decisions to clear the way for progress. Sometimes you have to rip off the bandage, and Ineos is certainly doing that.
We shouldn’t forget that Liverpool’s owners, Fenway Sports Group, had plenty of early missteps at Anfield including clashes with fans over ticket prices, clumsy handling of managerial changes and recruitment mistakes including Mario Balotelli and Christian Benteke. Nobody remembers those mistakes now, largely because Jürgen Klopp was an inspired managerial appointment and the club’s recruitment team worked in tandem with him to turn Liverpool into world-beaters again.
1:43
Dawson: Players uncomfortable benefitting from Man United redundancies
On “The Football Reporters” podcast, Rob Dawson says morale amongst Manchester United staff is as low as he’s ever seen it.
United desperately need clear leadership and a strategic plan to move forward, and they had neither under the Glazers, so Ineos might just be in the first, chaotic stages of getting it right. But that’s the positive outlook. The flip side is that the new decision-makers aren’t as smart as some of them believe themselves to be, and football is a much tougher business to crack than anything they have worked in before.
Much will depend on the summer. If Ineos clears out the deadwood and makes smart signings, then Amorim could be the coach to put United back on top. Amorim needs Ineos to deliver if he is to deliver for them.
Dawson: It’s easy to be very pessimistic about the future. Clubs need money to be competitive, and United are openly saying there isn’t any. On top of that, Ratcliffe and Ineos want to build a new stadium at a possible cost of £2 billion, though there has been little concrete information about how they plan to pay for it. The danger is that if the club foots the bill, there will be an even smaller budget to reshape the squad. Amorim has already said that funds for next summer will depend on whether United can get players out.
In the short term, the biggest worry is Amorim. It’s not yet clear whether he’s the right man for the job. He has been dealt a tough hand, and he has been fighting fire after fire since his arrival in November. If it turns out he was the wrong appointment, it will be a huge setback for Ratcliffe and Ineos.
The hope is that Amorim’s appointment works out, high earners like Rashford and Casemiro leave in the summer, some money is freed up to reinvest and, next season, United begin to take small steps forward. It’s not certain by any means, and most fans are in the position of wanting to see it to believe it.
This post was originally published on this site