Glazers brand Ratcliffe's Manchester United tenure a 'travesty' amid worst start in 40 years

The Glazer family have grown deeply frustrated with Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s running of Manchester United, with sources close to the American owners telling the Mail and ESPN that his tenure has been a ‘travesty’ — a damning verdict that arrives as United endure their worst start to a Premier League season in almost 40 years.

Ratcliffe purchased a 25 per cent stake in the club in 2024 as part of a deal worth approximately £1.2 billion, with his INEOS group taking responsibility for football operations. He also pledged an additional £245 million in investment — largely earmarked for Old Trafford infrastructure — bringing his total financial commitment to around £1.5 billion.

Despite that outlay, results on the pitch have deteriorated sharply. United are currently on an eight-match winless run across all competitions, have managed just one Premier League victory this season, and sit just two points above the relegation zone ahead of Saturday’s fixture against Chelsea.

A source with social connections to the Glazer family told the Mail: “It’s a travesty and not what they expected or were promised. They have never run the club this way.” A separate source told ESPN that the Glazers believe Ratcliffe “couldn’t have masterminded a worse situation”, and described his “downgrading in all departments” as “the opposite of what he said his strategy is.”

The deteriorating situation has also cast doubt over the club’s valuation. The Glazers previously placed a $6 billion (£4.5 billion) price tag on United when exploring a potential sale four years ago, a figure that now appears increasingly difficult to justify given the club’s on-field struggles and broader instability.

Despite their reported anger, the Glazers retain ultimate control over any future sale. Under the terms of the 2024 agreement, they hold the power to force Ratcliffe — whose stake has since grown to 28 per cent — to sell his shareholding if they agree to sell the club to a third party. Ratcliffe would have no right to block such a deal unless he matched the offer and purchased the club outright, a scenario widely considered unlikely.