Monaco-based billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United and chairman of Ineos, has faced widespread condemnation and accusations of hypocrisy following his controversial remarks that the UK was being "colonised" by immigrants. His comments, made during a Sky News interview, quickly ignited a firestorm of criticism from political leaders, trade unionists, football figures, and fans, who labeled them "disgraceful," "offensive," and "deeply divisive."

In his interview, Ratcliffe claimed that "you can't have an economy with 9 million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in," adding, "The UK is being colonised by immigrants, really, isn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people." These population figures were immediately challenged by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which stated the UK population was 67 million in 2020 and was last close to 58 million in 2000, indicating his statistics were two decades out of date. He also described Reform UK leader Nigel Farage as "an intelligent man" with "good intentions."

The backlash was swift and severe. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called Ratcliffe’s claim "offensive and wrong," urging him to "apologise immediately." A No 10 spokesperson echoed this, stating Ratcliffe's "offensive remarks are wrong and play into the hands of those who want to divide our country." Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, delivered a stinging rebuke, accusing Ratcliffe of making "inaccurate, insulting, inflammatory" comments that "go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood." Burnham emphasized the city's diverse fabric, built by people of "all races, faiths and none," including the very institution of Manchester United. He distinguished between calling for immigration curbs and "portraying those who come here as a hostile invading force," insisting the comments be withdrawn.

Further political condemnation came from Justice Minister Jake Richards, who found it "offensive, that this man who moved to Monaco to save £4bn in tax is now lecturing us about immigration." Richards deemed the "colonised" language "completely absurd" and "offensive to so many people." Trade union leaders were equally blunt. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, posted on social media, "'Immigrants’ who pay their taxes in this country. Unlike Jim Ratcliffe. Who’s the real patriot?" Andy Prendergast, GMB’s national secretary, linked Ratcliffe's comments to "mass dismissals of loyal staff and chaos on the pitch" during his Manchester United tenure, suggesting his right to comment on UK affairs should have ended when he moved to Monaco to avoid taxes.

The football community, particularly Manchester United supporters, also voiced strong disapproval. Fans called the club co-owner "a total embarrassment" and "out of touch," with some labeling him an "incompetent clown" over his handling of football operations. The supporters’ group The 1958 criticized Ratcliffe’s decision to comment on UK issues while living in Monaco to avoid tax. The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club (MUMSC) condemned the use of "language frequently used in far-right narratives," stating, "Manchester United is a global club built on diversity – on players, staff and supporters from every background, faith and ethnicity. The strength of our club, and of our country, lies in that diversity." The Manchester United Supporters Trust urged club leadership to make "inclusion easier, not harder." The anti-racism football campaign group Kick It Out called the comments "disgraceful and deeply divisive," reminding Ratcliffe of Manchester's diverse fanbase and history enriched by immigrants, asserting such language "has no place in English football." Trafford Council leader Tom Ross also demanded the comments be withdrawn, highlighting Trafford's proud history as a welcoming and diverse borough.

A significant point of contention has been Ratcliffe’s perceived hypocrisy. Britain’s seventh-richest man, with an estimated worth of £17bn, relocated his tax residency to Monaco in 2020, reportedly saving the UK Treasury between £440m and £4bn in lost tax revenue. Despite this, his sprawling and heavily indebted Ineos empire, which includes chemicals and car manufacturing, has extensively sought and received hundreds of millions of pounds in government financial support from both UK and EU bodies. This support has been crucial during an extended downturn for the petrochemical industry.

Examples of Ineos receiving state aid are numerous. Less than two months before his controversial comments, Ratcliffe secured £120m in UK government support for the Grangemouth petrochemical site, which had already received up to £70m in UK state aid in the preceding four years. The government also backed a £75m loan guarantee for the site. Ineos has also secured support from the French government for its Lavera site. Furthermore, Ratcliffe is reportedly seeking hundreds of millions of pounds in public funds from the UK government to build a "world’s greatest stadium" for Manchester United. Even Ineos’s €3.5bn Project One petrochemical complex in Antwerp, chosen over a UK site post-Brexit, received a €700m covered tranche from the UK’s Export Finance, and Ratcliffe is now demanding compensation from the Belgian state for permit delays.

The financial health of Ineos is precarious, with its two largest companies, Ineos Group Holdings and Ineos Quattro Holdings, reporting over £18bn in borrowings combined at the end of last year, an increase of nearly £3bn. Fitch Ratings warned of a debt pile expected to climb to almost €12bn for Ineos Group Holdings alone. Ratcliffe has been a vocal critic of Europe’s "extreme carbon taxes" and high energy costs, blaming them for the "deindustrialisation of Europe" and warning the impact may be "unsurvivable" for the chemical industry. An Ineos spokesperson defended their receipt of state aid, stating such projects are "eligible for standard, transparent government support schemes that are open to all companies and designed to keep critical industry competitive."

Following the intense criticism, Sir Jim Ratcliffe issued an apology, stating he was "sorry if his choice of language offended anyone" and specifically, "I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe." He clarified his intention was "to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in skills, industry and jobs so that long-term prosperity is shared by everyone," and that it is "critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK." However, the Football Association is understood to be examining whether his controversial comments have brought the game into disrepute. Whether his apology is sufficient to restore goodwill, particularly with the UK government from whom his businesses seek substantial aid, remains uncertain.