The news that Manchester United’s controversial owners, the Glazer family, could finally be selling the club has been met with delight from many of their supporters.
After saddling the club with huge debt and overseeing United’s worst trophy drought in 40 years, Sky News exclusively revealed the American owners are considering selling up after a 17-year reign dominated by fan protests.
But with a price tag reported to be anywhere between £5bn and £9bn, who could buy the club? Sky News looks at the possible contenders.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe
One of Britain’s richest men and – according to Forbes – with a net worth of $13bn (£10.9bn), Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a boyhood United fan and a proven investor in sport.
Sir Jim, the chairman and chief executive of chemical company Ineos, already owns French football club Nice and Swiss side FC Lausanne-Sport, as well as cycling team Ineos Grenadiers.
More on Manchester United
Related Topics:
He was unsuccessful in a last-minute £4.25bn bid to buy Chelsea in May, as American businessman Todd Boehly successfully acquired the London club
A source told Sky Sports News in August that Sir Jim was serious about purchasing United, and ex-players would be involved along with Grenadiers general manager Sir Dave Brailsford, a former performance director at British Cycling.
Advertisement
In October, Sir Jim revealed he had met Glazer brothers Joel and Avram but was told then they were not interested in selling the club.
Image: Lord O’Neill was a leading figure in the Red Knights. Pic: Richard Gardner/Shutterstock
A group of wealthy United supporters known as the Red Knights were expected to make a bid of about £1.25bn for the club in 2010.
The group included former Football League chairman Keith Harris, then Goldman Sachs chief economist Lord O’Neill, and the hedge fund manager Sir Paul Marshall.
The proposed bid was put on hold after the group said media speculation of “inflated valuation aspirations” had hampered its plans.
Image: Avram Glazer (L) and Joel Glazer are considering selling Manchester United
They called for the Glazers to commit to reducing their combined stake in United to a maximum of 49.9% to “encourage a broader group of investors to consider ownership in the club in the future”.
Dubai’s sovereign wealth fund has been named in reports as a potential bidder for Manchester United.
It is yet to follow the likes of Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia in adding a Premier League club to its portfolio.
United’s local rivals Manchester City have enjoyed huge success on the pitch since being owned by Abu Dhabi’s City Football Group, while Newcastle United were bought by Saudi Arabia’s giant Public Investment Fund last year.
Image: Newcastle United fans celebrate the Saudi-led takeover of the club
However any investment from Dubai would raise ethical questions over the involvement of the United Arab Emirates, where homosexuality is illegal and, according to Amnesty, the government continues to commit serious human rights violations.
US private equity firm
There were reports in August that New York-based private equity firm Apollo were in talks about acquiring a minority stake in United.
Fans’ groups and Gary Neville were among those to voice their opposition, with the former United captain writing on Twitter: “The US model of sports ownership is all about significant return on investment… the ownership model in England needs to change and US money is a bigger danger to that than any other international money. We need a regulator asap!”
Former United players
Image: Gary Neville and David Beckham have invested in football clubs since retiring from playing
A host of former United players have experience of football club ownership and their involvement in a bid for United could prove popular with fans.
Members of United’s famous 1999 treble-winning squad Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Nicky Butt, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Ryan Giggs are co-owners of League Two club Salford City, along with Singaporean business magnate Peter Lim.
Beckham also co-owns US side Inter Miami.
Michael Knighton
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
Glazer family ‘has run out of road’
The former Manchester United director, who saw a £20m bid for United collapse in 1989, had recently been forming his own consortium to buy the club and claimed to have raised more than £3bn.
However Mr Knighton put his own ambitions to buy United on hold to back Sir Jim Ratcliffe to become the new owner and it is unclear if he would renew his interest.
Mukesh Ambani
One of India’s richest men with a reported net worth of $90.9bn (£76bn), Mukesh Ambani bought IPL cricket team Mumbai Indians in 2008 and has led them to several titles during his tenure.
The founder of Reliance Industries, the multinational conglomerate, was recently reported to be considering a takeover bid for Liverpool – after owners Fenway Sports Group said they were open to offers for the club – but his representative denied this, according to Indian media.
Elon Musk
Image: Pic: AP
The world’s richest person claimed he was “buying Manchester United” in a post on Twitter earlier this year, only to later clarify that he was joking.
With a net worth, according to Forbes, of $182.6bn (£153bn), Musk certainly has the funds to buy the club and has shown he is willing to go ahead with controversial takeovers through his $44bn purchase of Twitter.
However the Tesla and SpaceX boss’s turbulent start to his ownership of the social media platform may put off United and their fans.
COVID-19 fraud and error cost the taxpayer nearly £11bn, a government watchdog has found.
Pandemic support programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, support grants and Eat Out to Help Out led to £10.9bn in fraud and error, COVID Counter-Fraud Commissioner Tom Hayhoe’s final report has concluded.
Lack of government data to target economic support made it “easy” for fraudsters to claim under more than one scheme and secure dual funding, the report said.
Weak accountability, bad quality data and poor contracting were identified as the primary causes of the loss.
The government has said the sum is enough to fund daily free school meals for the UK’s 2.7 million eligible children for eight years.
An earlier report from Mr Hayhoe for the Treasury in June found that failed personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts during the pandemic cost the British taxpayer £1.4 billion, with £762 million spent on unused protective equipment unlikely ever to be recovered.
Factors behind the lost money had included government over-ordering of PPE, and delays in checking it.
More on Covid-19
Related Topics:
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
More from Money
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Image: Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:18
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
Image: File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”