Manchester United co-owner and billionaire industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe has apologised for his “choice of language” after stating in a national interview that the United Kingdom is being “colonised” by immigrants — comments that triggered intense criticism from political leaders, fan groups and advocacy organisations who argued his remarks were both inaccurate and damaging.
Controversial Remarks Ignite Widespread Criticism
Ratcliffe sparked uproar during an interview when he linked immigration and welfare dependency to what he described as an alarming expansion of the UK population, incorrectly suggesting the country had been “colonised” by newcomers. His population figures were challenged by official data, which shows the UK population was around 67 million in 2020 rather than the 58 million he cited.
Leaders across the political spectrum condemned Ratcliffe’s choice of words. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer labelled the description “offensive and wrong,” emphasising Britain’s identity as a “proud, tolerant and diverse country” and urging a prompt apology. Justice ministers and other senior voices also described Ratcliffe’s comments as misleading, inflammatory and echoing narratives associated with far-right rhetoric.
Hypocrisy Accusations and Fan Backlash
Critics seized on Ratcliffe’s personal circumstances, highlighting his decision to relocate to Monaco in 2020 to reduce his tax burden — a move some called hypocritical given his comments on national policy and immigration. Several public figures argued it was inappropriate for someone living abroad to preach on deeply sensitive domestic issues.
The outrage was not confined to politicians. Supporters of Manchester United and anti-racism groups condemned the remarks as divisive and out of step with the club’s global and multicultural identity. Fan organisations underscored the importance of embracing diversity and urged leadership that unites rather than polarises supporters.
Ratcliffe’s Response and Ongoing Debate
In response to the backlash, Ratcliffe issued a statement expressing regret that his choice of words caused offence, while stopping short of fully withdrawing his broader points about immigration policy and economic strain. He insisted discussions about controlled and well-managed migration remain important for national prosperity.
The episode has reignited debate in the UK over immigration, public discourse and the responsibilities of influential figures when speaking on national matters. As calls for a fuller, clearer apology continue, the controversy highlights tensions around immigration issues and public leadership.
