Man Utd Muslim Supporters Say Ratcliffe 'Must Go' After Immigration Comments
The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club (MUMSC) has issued a statement of no confidence in the club's ownership, calling on Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the Glazer family to leave after Ratcliffe linked immigration and benefit claimants to Britain's problems.
- Who: Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club (MUMSC), Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe, and the Glazer family
- What: A statement of no confidence in United's current ownership structure
- When: Issued on Saturday; Ratcliffe's interview with the BBC was given on Saturday
- The trigger: Ratcliffe's latest comments on immigration levels and the UK being "on the slide"
- Demand: "The Glazers and Sir Jim Ratcliffe must go"
- Context: United sat 13th in the Premier League after four points from their first four games, and were knocked out of the Carabao Cup on Wednesday by Brighton
What was said
"We condemned those comments then."
"He [Ratcliffe] subsequently apologised for his choice of language. We hoped a lesson had been learned. Clearly, it has not."
"This week, Sir Jim has again placed immigration and people receiving benefits at the centre of his explanation for Britain's problems, arguing that nobody is 'tough enough' to deal with either."
"We find these latest comments deeply disappointing and completely unacceptable."
"Manchester United would not be Manchester United without them. That diversity isn't a weakness of Manchester United. It is part of Manchester United."
"After years of decline, broken promises and repeated failure, Manchester United Muslim Supporters' Club has lost confidence in the current ownership structure of Manchester United Football Club."
"Enough is enough. It is time for change. The Glazers and Sir Jim Ratcliffe must go."
The language is unusually direct for a supporters' group, and it matters because it is not confined to one issue. MUMSC treats Ratcliffe's remarks as a breach of trust rather than a single gaffe, pointing to his earlier apology over saying the UK had been "colonised by immigrants" and concluding that the lesson was not learned.
Just as significant is that the group's anger now reaches beyond the boardroom and onto the pitch and the balance sheet. Higher ticket prices, a stadium allowed to deteriorate and a team falling further behind are all named as grievances, which turns a moral objection into a broader verdict on the post-2024 restructuring.
The numbers
- 27.7% — Ratcliffe's stake in Manchester United, acquired in 2024
- 450 — redundancies overseen by Ratcliffe since his arrival
- 2 — managers sacked during his restructure
- 4 — points from United's first four Premier League games this season
- 13th — United's Premier League position entering the weekend
- 3-2 — Brighton's scoreline at Old Trafford on Wednesday, knocking United out of the Carabao Cup
Why the Glazers are named alongside Ratcliffe
The sharpest wrinkle here is that MUMSC does not treat Ratcliffe as an interloper to be removed so the Glazers can reclaim control. It calls for both to go. The statement recalls that members hoped Ratcliffe's arrival "would finally signal meaningful change" after the Glazer family had "presided over Manchester United's decline" — a hope the group now openly says was misplaced.
That framing is awkward for the ownership. Previously, BBC Sport cited a source familiar with the Glazer family as understanding the majority shareholders were "horrified" by Ratcliffe's initial remarks and saw them as showing "disregard for their ownership". Those comments created a public split. This statement closes it, at least in the eyes of an organised fan group, by declaring the entire structure unfit.
For the players and staff, the practical effect is noise around an already difficult season. United's start — four points from four league matches — is the backdrop against which any ownership dispute will be judged, and being knocked out of the Carabao Cup at home by Brighton sharpens the sense of drift. United have not been "tough enough" on the pitch either, and that is the uncomfortable parallel the club will want to avoid drawing.
Talking points
- Should supporters' groups separate moral objections from on-pitch results, or is the ownership verdict valid only once the league position is bad enough?
- The Glazers were previously reported as "horrified" by Ratcliffe's language — does this statement force them to act, or simply expose that they cannot?
- After 450 redundancies and two managerial changes, is it fair to blame the ownership structure rather than the football operation?
- Does calling for an owner to leave over personal political comments set a precedent fans will apply to other club owners?
What happens next
United's next Premier League fixture is the immediate test, with the club sitting 13th and needing points to quieten a growing off-field argument. The ownership's response — or silence — to a formal no-confidence statement from an organised supporters' group will set the tone for the coming weeks, and the Glazers face a decision on whether to distance themselves further from Ratcliffe or close ranks behind him.
Frequently asked questions
Who is calling for Sir Jim Ratcliffe to leave Manchester United?
The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club, which issued a statement of no confidence in the club's current ownership structure on Saturday. It also called for the Glazer family to go.
What did Ratcliffe say about immigration that caused the backlash?
In an interview with the BBC on Saturday, he spoke out against immigration levels, said the country was "on the slide", and argued the UK's decline stemmed from a combination of high taxes and high immigration, saying nobody was "tough enough" to deal with immigration or benefit claimants.
Has Ratcliffe apologised for the comments?
He previously apologised for "offending some people" with his language after saying the UK had been "colonised by immigrants". MUMSC said it hoped a lesson had been learned, but concluded it clearly had not.
Related Articles
Filed under: Club News | LA Premier League Home
