Manchester United fans have been warned both prospective new owners will bring moral baggage to the table should either conclude a deal for the club.
Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani and Sir Jim Ratcliffe are the clear frontrunners as they attempt to close a deal as the process continues to drag on. Last November, the Glazers announced they would be seeking further investment opportunities in United. This included the possibility of a full sale.
Since then, progress has been slow to minimal as the American owners weigh up their options. In the meantime, both bids have been scrutinised by supporters.
On the one hand, Sheikh Jassim's bid has been hit with accusations of 'Sportswashing' because of his Qatari roots. Meanwhile, INEOS' environmental track record and potential for keeping the Glazers at the club has put Ratcliffe under the microscope too.
ALSO READ: United protest has just sent a reminder to Ratcliffe
Foreign policy, malign finance and Middle East expert at The Autocracy and Global Sports Initiative, Sarath Ganji told MEN Sport both frontrunners for United's takeover come with their own personal risks.
"Professional sports teams are important stakeholders in their communities," he explained. "According to an EY (Ernst & Young) study, during the 2019/20 season Premier League clubs generated £2.1bn for the North West UK economy and £1.1bn for Greater Manchester specifically. Two seasons later, the Manchester United Foundation reported engaging over 20,000 participants as part of its youth outreach programs. Those figures underscore why anyone trying to buy Man United deserves considerable scrutiny: the new owner’s money and decisions will impact the team, which will in turn impact the community.
"Part of that scrutiny comes down to identifying and weighing risks; different owners invite different kinds of risks. So, the question is: what are the more obvious risks that Sheikh Jassim and Sir Ratcliffe invite? And to what extent might those risks leave fans - and wider Manchester - out in the cold when an embattled owner needs quick capital in a pinch?
"With Sheikh Jassim, Qatar sits in a competitive neighbourhood, and the country is no stranger to geopolitical upheaval. Only recently did it resolve a years-long Saudi-led blockade that, among other sectors, impacted the country’s sports investments in Europe."
On Ratcliffe, he added: "Worldwide, regulators have increasingly prioritised the climate crisis, with national governments adopting measures to reign in top carbon emitters and international organisations advancing 'universal jurisdiction' to hold flagrant emitters accountability. Should those trends someday crash down on INEOS’s continued viability, would the financial rug suddenly be pulled out from underneath the football clubs it’s invested in? That would be my worry as a Man United fan.
"(These risks) are not automatic disqualifiers to Sheikh Jassim or Sir Jim Ratcliffe becoming Man United’s new owner. Drawing redlines like that prioritises morality over viability, and in a world of imperfect options, that formula just doesn’t hold up. That puts fans in the unfortunate position of having to decide which investor’s money is less risky."
When looking specifically at Sheikh Jassim, Ganji believes there is no reason to believe links between the Qatari government and the United bidder are on the same scale as at 'state owned' PSG and Manchester City. Both clubs are owned by Middle East countries and have been tagged with 'sportswashing' criticism due to the sovereign wealth funds linked to the respective governments who help fund the club. Instead, Ganji explained the Qatari banker should be compared more to the likes of Malaga and Sheffield United, who both have Middle East investors at their clubs.
He added: "Generally, sports is an underregulated sector, and football’s relegation-promotion system makes the sport’s economy especially precarious. So, on the supply-side, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have an easier time investing in European football than in other industries, and on the demand-side, European football is hungry for deep-pocketed investors to bring stability to their books.
"SWFs are sure to continue eying investments in European - and global - sports properties. To the extent their investments are one indicator of sportswashing, then yes, the practice is trending up and will continue to. But keep in mind there are Middle East investors on the European scene who have no formal connections to these SWFs.
"Spain’s Malaga has been owned by a Qatari royal since 2010, while Sheffield United has, since 2013, been owned by a sports company founded by a Saudi royal. As far as I know, neither club has had to confront serious and sustained charges of sportswashing. In that sense, Sheikh Jassim’s private foray into English football does not add to any sportswashing trend.
"PSG and Manchester City have been lightning rods for sportswashing criticism because of the vast, state-run financial networks on which their success has been built. In the case of PSG, it’s not just about the SWF that owns them—it’s the state-linked companies that sponsor their kits and facilities, the state-link company that broadcasts their matches, and the state-linked academy that supplements their prospect system. The economies of scale that come with that network yield both financial and geopolitical advantages for the Qatari state.
"Sheikh Jassim’s Nine Two Foundation doesn’t seem to be a part of that system, nor does he hold a governmental title on par with Manchester City’s owner, who is an Emirati minister. That should give Man United fans some relief that a Jassim-owned team may not end up a pliable tool of Qatari foreign policy.
"Of course, that may also mean his ownership won’t bring the kind of turn-arounds seen at Newcastle (owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund) and Manchester City. Only time will tell what his connection to Qatar’s financial network really is and ends up becoming."
