It’s nearly 20 years since the American tycoon Malcolm Glazer bought his first stake in Manchester United – now his family’s controversial tenure at the club could finally be coming to an end.
Chants of “Love United, hate Glazers” are regularly heard at Old Trafford and news that the owners are exploring a salewill delight many United supporters.
Here, Sky News tells the story of the Glazers’ ownership of the Premier League club and explains why the family have been so unpopular with fans – even attracting criticism from one of their own star players, Cristiano Ronaldo, who left the club with immediate effect earlier today.
Image: Malcolm Glazer took control of Man United in 2005. Pic: AP
Glazers buy Man Utd – and saddle club with debt
Malcolm Glazer owned the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, an American football team that were then the Super Bowl champions, when he began his investment in United in March 2003.
At the time, United had dominated the Premier League and were one of the most successful clubs in the world, winning an array of silverware under Sir Alex Ferguson.
Glazer took full control of United in June 2005, but the deal was hugely unpopular with fans because it was financed primarily through loans secured against the club’s assets.
Within a year of the leveraged buyout, Glazer had two strokes and his six children – Avram, Joel, Bryan, Kevin, Darcie and Edward – ran United, all of them sitting on the board of directors.
Image: Avram Glazer, left, and Joel Glazer are executive co-chairmen of Manchester United
The Glazers’ £790m takeover loaded United with debt that is now around £500m. The club were debt-free before the takeover.
Advertisement
Fans have been enraged by the more than £1bn it has cost the Glazers to service the debt, while cashing in themselves by receiving dividends from the club.
Image: Man United fans protest over Malcolm Glazer’s proposed takeover in 2004
Fan protests and FC United formed
The Glazer family’s first visit to Old Trafford ended in ugly and violent scenes in June 2005 as police clashed with supporters who had effectively barricaded United’s new owners inside the stadium.
Joel, Avram and Bryan Glazer reportedly had to be smuggled down the players’ tunnel and out of the ground in two police tactical aid vans for their own safety.
Image: Police clear a barricade to allow a van, supposedly carrying Joel Glazer, to leave Old Trafford in 2005
The Glazers’ controversial takeover prompted a group of disaffected Man United supporters to form a new football club.
FC United began their first season in 2005-06 and now compete in the Northern Premier League Premier Division, the seventh tier of the English football league system.
Success on the pitch
Under the continued management of Sir Alex, United initially remained successful under the Glazers’ ownership, winning five Premier League titles in seven seasons between 2007 and 2013.
With star players Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney, United enjoyed a prolific three-year spell from 2007 to 2009, winning three Premier League titles, a Champions League trophy and the League Cup.
But fans’ anger at the Glazers remained.
Image: Man United fans wave green and gold scarves in protest at the Glazers in 2010
Green and gold scarf campaign
In 2010, United fans began donning yellow and green scarves to protest against the Glazers’ ownership.
United are known for their famous red shirts, but the club was originally founded, in 1878, under the name Newton Heath Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Football Club, which played in a bold yellow and green strip.
At the height of the protests, former United player David Beckham put on a green and gold scarf that was thrown on to the pitch during his return to Old Trafford with AC Milan in 2010.
That night, Joel and Avram Glazer were inside the stadium but Beckham later distanced himself from the protest, saying the ownership of United was “not my business”.
Red Knights takeover bid
A group of wealthy supporters were expected to make a bid of about £1bn for United in 2010, despite United insisting the Glazer family owners would “not entertain any offers”.
The Red Knights group, which included former Football League chairman Keith Harris and Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neil, said that one of its priorities was to reduce debt levels at the club.
The proposed bid was put on hold after the group said media speculation of “inflated valuation aspirations” had hampered its plans.
Post-Ferguson problems
Since Sir Alex called time on his illustrious managerial career nearly 10 years ago, United’s form has gone downhill.
Despite appointing high-profile managers such as Jose Mourinho and Louis van Gaal, the club has failed to win the Premier League since 2013 – while spending more than £1bn on players in that time.
United have also not won a trophy since their Europa League triumph in 2017.
To make matters worse, arch rivals Manchester City and Liverpool have enjoyed huge success as they regularly compete for Premier League and Champions League titles.
Image: Pic: AP
Malcolm Glazer death
Malcolm Glazer died in 2014 at the age of 85, having never visited Old Trafford during his ownership of the club.
Although he was a controversial figure in Manchester, tributes poured in from the US, where the businessman was hugely respected for turning Tampa Bay from a laughing stock into a Super Bowl-winning franchise.
After Glazer’s death, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said: “Malcolm Glazer was the guiding force behind the building of a Super Bowl-champion organisation.
European Super League anger
The Glazers attracted more fury from United fans after taking a leading role in attempts to form a European Super League last year.
United, along with Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, caused outrage with their plans to join the breakaway competition, in which the founding members would be exempt from relegation.
The six English clubs had planned to set up the league with Spanish sides Atletico Madrid, Barcelona and Real Madrid and Italy’s AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus, in a group that some nicknamed the “dirty dozen”.
Image: Fans stormed the Old Trafford pitch in May 2021
The proposal led to protests from football fans across England, with several hundred storming the Old Trafford pitch before United were due to play Liverpool, meaning the game had to be postponed.
After the clubs backed down Joel Glazer, who had been announced as a vice-chairman of the European Super League, “apologised unreservedly” to fans, saying: “We got it wrong.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:45
Sky News questions Avram Glazer over Man Utd
After the scandal, United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward announced he would be leaving the club, having been an unpopular figure with fans after a series of expensive signings with precious little success.
Neville brands Glazers ‘scavengers’
Former Man United captain Gary Neville – who was a player at the club in 2005 when the Glazers took over – has been a vocal critic of the owners in recent months.
After the European Super League fiasco, Neville branded the Glazers “scavengers” who “need booting out of this football club and booting out of this country”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:23
Gary Neville on the Glazers
“We have got to come together,” he told Sky Sports.
“It might be too late, there’ll be people at Manchester United, fans 15 years ago who will say it’s too late.
“It’s never too late, we have got to stop this. It is absolutely critical we do.”
Neville has claimed Old Trafford is “rusting”, with £1bn needed to rebuild the stadium, and the club is in a “mess”.
“When a business is failing and it’s not performing, it is the owners of that business [who are to blame],” Neville said after United were beaten 4-0 by Brentford this season.
“It is really simple. It is failing miserably.
“They took about £24m out of the club two months ago and they have now got a decrepit, rotting stadium, which is second-rate when it used to be the best in the world 15-20 years ago.
“You have got a football project where they haven’t got a clue.”
Neville said there has been a “toxic culture and atmosphere created at the club over a 10-year period” after the departures of Sir Alex and former United chief executive David Gill.
“It is a mess and it cannot carry on,” he added.
Ronaldo criticism
The latest high-profile criticism of the Glazers came from one of Manchester United’s very own star players.
The Portugal star, who returned to United last year after 12 years away, claimed the Glazers “don’t care about the club” and said it was a “marketing club”.
“They will get money from the marketing – the sport, it’s, they don’t really care, in my opinion,” he said.
Ronaldo also claimed United had not progressed as a club since the departure of Sir Alex in 2013.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
Ronaldo defends explosive interview
“Nothing changed. Surprisingly,” he said.
“Not only the pool, the jacuzzi, even the gym… Even some points, the technology, the kitchen, the chefs, which is, I appreciate, lovely persons.
“They stopped in a time, which surprised me a lot. I thought I will see different things… different, as I mentioned before, technology, infrastructure.
“But, unfortunately, we see many things that I used to see when I was 20, 21, 23. So, it surprised me a lot.”
Since the interview last week, the club’s lawyers had reportedly been looking at ways to bring Ronaldo’s time at the club to an end and on Tuesday it was announced that he was leaving “by mutual agreement, with immediate effect”.
Talk of sale and interest from Britain’s richest man
Bloomberg reported in August that the Glazer family were considering selling a minority stake in United and preliminary discussions had been held about bringing in a new investor.
It also emerged that one of Britain’s richest men, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a boyhood United fan and a proven investor in sport through his Ineos company, had expressed an interest in buying the club.
Image: Sir Jim Ratcliffe expressed an interest in buying Manchester United
In October, he revealed he had met the Glazer family and was told they were not interested in selling Manchester United.
“I met Joel and Avram, and they are the nicest people,” Sir Jim said.
“They are proper gentlemen, and they don’t want to sell it. It is owned by the six children of the father and they don’t want to sell.”
The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.
Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.
The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.
Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.
It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.
In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.
“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”
Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.
His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.
While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.
The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.
Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.
The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.
Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.
More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.
Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.
Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.
In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.
The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.
Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.
“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.
“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.
“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.
“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.
In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.
The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.
HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.
“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.
“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”
The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.
Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.
The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.
Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.
Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.
The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.
Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.
Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.
In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.
A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.
Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.
A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.
As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.
The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.
In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.
Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.
For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.
More on Tariffs
Related Topics:
The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.
That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:13
How US ports are coping with tariffs
The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.
The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.
That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
IMF downgrades UK growth forecast
Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.
That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.
You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.
“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.
That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.
Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.