Man Utd takeover: Good riddance to Sheikh Jassim, state ownership and the army of e-Reds

The nauseous and tiring process that has been the Manchester United takeover is set to seemingly finally end with Sir Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS taking a 25% stake in the club. It marks the first step in the full removal of the Glazers and, more importantly, ensures United do not fall into the hands of state ownership.

But, but, but Sheikh Jassim is just a private businessman who loves United and wants to restore them to their previous glory? As believable as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund being separate to the state itself.

If you were to engage in the self-flagellation that is reading X (the artist formerly known as Twitter), you’d be led to believe this is the worst possible outcome for fans and the apparent death of the club.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it just serves as further proof that paid blue ticks, in the know (ITK) accounts and ‘content creators’ such as Mark Goldbridge do not represent the true voice of the fanbase and simply spread misinformation for clout, engagement and financial gain.

Eighteen months ago, every single one of them would have been on board with Ratcliffe or anyone else taking any control away from the Glazers, but once Qatar came on the scene, it was them or no one else. But if the Qataris wanted the club so badly, they would have been creative like Ratcliffe, whose apparently mind-blowing bid is not as grand as told according to those close to the parties involved.

So, why are these ‘fans’ wrong and why is no state ownership the best news the club has had in over a decade, if not longer?

There’s myriad reasons, one of which ties in directly with the current wars in the world, chiefly Israel/Palestine and Ukraine.

As we’ve already seen with Roman Abramovich’s forced sale of Chelsea following sanctions placed on him and Russian oligarchs/businessmen with links to Vladimir Putin and his regime, once a club is under control of these people, and states themselves, they are at the whim of the ever-changing landscape of geopolitics.

When Abramovich and later Abu Dhabi purchased Manchester City, there was a naivety in the football industry to the ulterior motives at play, which is why the Saudi takeover of Newcastle should never have been allowed. That felt like a line-in-the-sand moment, but a Man Utd takeover would have been far beyond any supposed line.

Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich cannot be bought outright due to their ownership models (members/socios in Spain, 50+1 in Germany). The World Cup can be corruptly given to Qatar and, almost certainly, Saudi Arabia in 2034, but you can’t buy the World Cup forever. Outside of a FIFA takeover a la the Saudi heist of golf, United is as big as you can go, the golden goose, the single biggest club available to buy, and the one that would mean a full bow-down to state influence in the sport.

While no state should own a club, an autocratic regime, repressive, human-rights abusing one is the worst of the absolute worst. It leads to the club being used as a shield against such actions and puts fans in a terrible position between their club and their morals/ethics.

As seen with Newcastle and City, fans have been mobilised to defend the actions of their overlords online, and to bat away any mention of their many misdeeds, which would no doubt happen with United, particularly those living online. ‘Cry more’ would become the slogan of such fans to mentions of Qatari migrant mistreatment, deaths and more.

A Qatari ownership would have also further alienated an ailing fanbase, already tired of the club’s constant lies, deceit and lack of any moral fibre, which was showcased in plain sight during the disgraceful Mason Greenwood situation.

How could any morally conscious fan, let alone female or LGBTQ+ fan, get behind a regime that makes the Glazers look like innocent schoolboys? Maybe we could all take the Jordan Henderson ‘see no evil’ approach?

Some certainly would have, citing those other state ownerships in the Premier League, and pointing to the fact United would be guaranteed success? But would they be?

While City have questions galore and 115 FFP allegations hanging over their head, they are extremely well run, as are Newcastle to date. Qatar have already shown how they operate with PSG, which has been an unmitigated disaster in a sporting sense, with a sole Champions League final to show for billions invested.

Lionel Messi could not get away quicker and Kylian Mbappe would be in Madrid if he had his way. The suggestion that the Frenchman would depart Qatar-owned PSG for Qatar-owned United is laughable.

Why would it be a different outcome at United? The last decade has shown that money is nothing without a ‘best in class’ strategy and structure in place, and that has been non-existent at PSG, who have flitted away cash just as United have under the Glazers.

It’s important to note that money has been invested into PSG, while United’s spend has been entirely revenue-driven; it’s another reason why United don’t need the influx of state investment.

Is guaranteed success even fun? Football is about the risk, the peril, the highs and lows and glory coming at the end of hard road. If that was just a given, it would lose meaning and purpose, to be replaced by the nagging feeling that it all came via blood money. An asterisk would be placed next to success by rival fans, as well as many United fans. Winning doesn’t have to come at all costs, nor does ‘Glazers Out’.

A lot of United fans have already seen their clubs win everything; it would never compare. It’s another contrast between the club and success-starved Newcastle and City.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe may turn out not to be the perfect owner, only time will tell, but does such a thing exist? He’s certainly a lot better than United becoming a foreign policy tool for Qatar, turning Manchester, and the Premier League as a whole, into a proxy Gulf neighbourhood battle, and football losing the last remnants of its soul. For that, we should all be thankful.

Goodbye Sheikh Jassim, we barely knew you. Please take the e-Reds with you.

READ NEXT: Sir Jim Ratcliffe must reveal Man Utd plan once he gets grubby with the Glazers