Are Manchester United up for sale? Why did the Saudi General Entertainment Authority chairman get involved? What do the Glazers and Sir Jim Ratcliffe think?
You wait ages for a bus, then two come along in the space of a couple of years but the first lays everyone off and keeps making silly comments about free lunches, while the second might not actually exist.
The Manchester United takeover machine has left the station again. But have the Glazers finally resolved to cut ties after being hit with a leveraged buyout-shaped guilty conscience two decades in the making? Has Sir Jim Ratcliffe decided he is too old to be willingly dealing with this nonsense? Or is there a mystery third option involving a sort of consortium which ‘can generate billions for the club’ and idolise Ousmane Dembele?
It feels like a good time for a little Q&A session to try and shed some light on precisely what is going on.
Are Manchester United for sale?
Certainly not ostensibly. Ratcliffe’s INEOS only completed the purchase of a 27.7% stake in the club in February 2024 for £1.25billion, increasing that stake to 28.9% in December 2024 when the last payment of a further £238m financial injection to boost the club’s infrastructure was made.
That grants INEOS Limited – owned by Ratcliffe, Andy Currie and Manchester United board director John Reece – 28.9% of outstanding shares and voting rights, plus control over footballing operations, which has been exercised flagrantly and is unlikely to be relinquished soon or easily.
Ratcliffe recently pledged to honour the entirety of Ruben Amorim’s three-year contract; those were not the words, nor have these been the actions, of a man who wishes to sell.
Members of the Glazer family still control 48.9% of total outstanding shares altogether, with 67.9% of voting rights split between the six American siblings.
The Glazers and INEOS are, as the club’s official website puts it, the only ‘two entities [who] hold greater than 10% of the voting rights in Manchester United plc’.
While the changes to that ownership structure have not delivered the success INEOS will have craved or the Glazers perhaps expected, it is vanishingly unlikely either party will want to release their shares and offers are hardly being encouraged either way.
Why all the takeover noise then?
It boils down to a couple of quotes chucked into the void of an international break.
Turki Al-Sheikh, the chairman of the General Entertainment Authority, a government department charged with developing the entertainment sector in Saudi Arabia, sparked the furore by posting on X:
‘The best news I heard today is that Manchester United is now in an advanced stage of completing a deal to sell to a new investor. I hope he’s better than the previous owners.’
He later clarified that he was ‘not the investor, nor are they from my nation’, and the reported deal ‘might not necessarily happen’ anyway.
Then a few days later a familiar name cropped up again in the news cycle: Thomas Zilliacus was back to take any seat at the top table he could find.
Having spent an uncomfortable amount of 2023 arguing with a fellow Manchester United bidder who Ratcliffe later suggested “nobody’s ever seen” and might not actually even “exist”, Zilliacus capitalised on the unexpected commotion to bring his ideas into the equation again.
The Finnish former Nokia head and XXI Century Capital founder teased “joining forces with the right parties with the sole aim of bringing Manchester United back to where it should be as the number one club in the world”.
He felt “the opportunity is still there” to invest, aimed another fan-friendly dig at the Glazers for “not doing what should be done”, said he would “have nothing against working with people like Jim Ratcliffe or any investor, whoever that may be”.
Zilliacus also confessed his love for players like Ballon d’Or winner Ousmane Dembele while saying he would “never have brought a player like Neymar to Manchester United” in a definite blast at Ed Woodward.
It was then claimed on Monday that a ‘United Arab Emirates-based consortium’ was ‘meeting Manchester United officials in London’.
Manchester United have thus far dismissed the rumours privately to sources when asked; it does seem to be that there actually is a lot of smoke without fire here.
So the Glazers aren’t selling Manchester United?
It is impossible to know their intentions but there has been no indication that the Glazers are willing to sell any more of their shares.
There is, however, some interesting fine print contained within the INEOS purchase of a minority stake which remains relevant.
As part of that deal was a ‘drag-along rights’ clause which was scheduled to become active 18 months after the initial investment, lasting until February 2027. The mechanism came into effect in August.
In short, it makes the full sale of a company theoretically easier by preventing a minority shareholder from blocking any deal those who hold the majority want to go through. In this case it means that if the Glazers found someone willing to buy 100% of the shares in Manchester United, Ratcliffe would be forced to sell his stake in the deal.
If that deal is made before February 2027, the share price must be above the $33 Ratcliffe paid. After that, it can be lower.
INEOS also had first refusal on any shares the Glazers wanted to sell, although that expired without needing to be activated in August.
There is a belief within the club that the Glazers are more than happy with the ownership situation, providing as it does a useful lightning rod for criticism in INEOS and Ratcliffe while allowing them to maintain overarching control of an incredibly lucrative investment.
Are there any other potential bidders and what would Manchester United sell for?
There is one bidder conspicuous by his absence in the current speculation: Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani.
His takeover bid failed in 2023 when he attempted to buy 100% of shares in Manchester United for £4.79bn but repeatedly failed to provide proof of funds.
Chris Wheeler of the Daily Mail has suggested that while Jassim ‘has kept an eye on developments and is aware of the clause, there is ‘zero interest’ in acting upon it’.
A few reasons are cited: Qatar’s desire to focus on other projects such as securing the 2036 Olympics; the success PSG have had making buying another club ‘less attractive because someone else has already been there and done it in Europe’; and the media doubt his interest drew – Jassim was said to have sent ‘legal letters’ to Manchester United and Ratcliffe at the time.
The belief is that Jassim has ‘moved on’ but the Middle East would not be short of prospective buyers if given enough encouragement.
If Manchester United were sold now at the $33-per-share minimum that Ratcliffe is legally entitled to, that would give the club a current valuation of £4.3bn – making them the most expensive football club ever sold.
Finance expert Kieran Maguire believes it would cost even more, telling SPORTbible recently: “Manchester United are a premium brand, a complete buyout would be at least £5bn but then a significant spend would be required on and off the pitch.
“Current stock market value is about £3bn which is 15 per cent lower than at the end of June, despite all the rumours circulating [around] the club, which suggests the market is sceptical about whether a full blown bid is likely.”
If this absolute mess is worth at least £5bn, you can certainly see why there is more of a greater appetite to sort the myriad issues rather than sell up.
