Jim Ratcliffe’s recent comments on migrants in Britain shone a spotlight on billionaires in football looking down on the game’s lifeblood…
THERE’S LONG been a trope that football fans and players are thuggish, mindless and violent in both their language and deeds. That’s obviously the case at times but is not the sole purview of the masses. Last week, two of the respected suit-wearing administrators of the game inflicted dangerous and anti-social views on an unsuspecting nation.
Last week, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the minority shareholder of Manchester United publicly apologised for claiming that the UK was ‘colonised by migrants’ during an interview with Sky News’ Ed Conway. Ratcliffe, who was the richest man in the UK in 2018 with an estimated fortune of £21bn, is now in charge of sporting matters at the club.
His apology was largely of a ‘sorry if you’re offended’ nature rather than a roll back of his entrenched views. He added ‘”It is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth.” He’d know a lot about that since his own well-managed immigration supported the economic growth of Monaco where he moved to in September 2020. A move that cost the Exchequer £4bn in lost taxes.
Of course, when he says ‘migrants’ he’s not necessarily referring to all migrants. Look at his staff. Manchester United’s last five goal scorers, Benjamin Sesko, Bryan Mbuemo, Bruno Fernandes, Casemiro and Matheus Cunha, don’t have a UK passport between them. The scorer of arguably the most important goal in United’s history is Norwegian. No, Jim means ‘poor’ migrants. He has a thing about poorer people. Since he took over at United, he has laid off 450 jobs and abandoned the policy of free meals for club staff.
It’s a sad reflection of the modern game that only the hyper rich can afford to take over clubs and they’re unlikely to have any footballing knowledge or, more importantly, much of a moral compass.
Yes, this is a football column and not a political one, though I’d argue that this is more of a humanity issue. I get that all the same. Those of us who see the game as a vehicle for moving social change as well as a basic enjoyment and support of our teams are often told to ‘keep politics out of it.’
Marcus Rashford was repeatedly told that about his school dinners programme which improved thousands of lives. People tend to urge others to keep out the politics when their arguments are uncomfortable.
Can the game change views? Well, incidents of Islamophobia on Merseyside decreased significantly when Mo Salah and Sadio Mane joined the Reds. Surely that can only be a good thing.
Ratcliffe’s views were largely slammed by various groups and even resulted in a contrary press release from his own club, but he found an ally in the former Crystal Palace Simon Jordan, who doubled down on the wider points on his radio show.
Just as Ratcliffe has obviously painstakingly gained his own data on migrant numbers – no doubt while driving around the poorer areas of Manchester – Jordan has single-handedly counted the nine million non-workers he claims are on benefits. Both claims and numbers are false, having been subsequently denied by BBC Verify, who did actual research.
Ill-advised, incorrect and inflammatory, these are people who have walked into the top tier roles and can say and do as they please. Their money is enough to give them a microphone no matter how far removed they are from reality.
It’s important to say that their views are currently populist whether I like it or not. A mere glimpse at the comments under both interviews on social media show that they are shared by many people in football stands around the country. Even at Anfield. Even at Anfield by people with Scouse accents.
I find this last bit to be utterly bizarre as many of them recognise a heritage far away from the city. As Liverpool is a port, Scousers don’t have to go too far back through the generations to find a connection far away. God knows, this one does.
It’s not just on social issues that the game’s billionaires spout their awful views and idiocy. Their constant need to change competitions and rules are seldom to the game’s benefit and more about money they don’t necessarily need.
Step forward former Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli who said of Atalanta’s qualification to the 2019-2020 Champions League qualification:
“I have great respect for everything that Atalanta are doing, but without international history and thanks to just one great season, they had direct access into the primary European club competition. Is that right or not?”
Yes, La Dea may have qualified purely on football prowess and ability, but is that enough to let them onto the pitch with the big boys? Maybe even replace one of the big boys for the simple crime of not being good enough for a season? I mean, they’re not even that rich! Such upstarts!
Here’s former Milan President Silvio Berlusconi talking in 1991 about how bigger clubs shouldn’t be knocked out of tournaments:
“The European Cup has become a historical anachronism. It is economic nonsense that a club such as Milan might be eliminated in the first round. It is not modern thinking.”
He set his mind that way after witnessing a 1987 European Cup game between Real Madrid and Diego Maradona’s Napoli, who were drawn to play each other in the first round. The game was played behind closed doors, so no one was really paid. He couldn’t understand that. But what he really couldn’t get his head around was the fact that either the champions of Italy or the champions of Spain would be knocked out at the earliest stage, therefore losing one of Europe’s largest TV market shares for the majority of the competition. Added to that if Napoli lost (which they did) gone would also be the world’s most famous footballer – and the tournament would have to do without the losers, plus accompanying marketing collateral.
Of course, he got his way. You can’t go out of the Champions League in one go if you’re a rich club. A league now holds you up. You don’t even have to be a Champion.
Rich men, some who think that migrants are doing to this country what their forefathers did to Africa, changed the game for their own ends. Because they can.
Manchester United have since stressed that the game is for everyone inclusive of race, gender and sexuality. Good.
There’s only one strand of society I’d like to see removed from the game.
