Man Utd takeover: State control, the army of e-Reds, and Sheikh Jassim are all gone.
With Sir Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS acquiring a 25% ownership in the team, the nauseating and exhausting process that has been the Manchester United acquisition appears to be coming to a close. It guarantees that United does not end up in state possession and, more significantly, it is the first step toward the complete abolition of the Glazer family.
But Sheikh Jassim is simply an ordinary businessman who supports United and wants them to reach their former heights of success? As plausible as the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia existing independently of the government
You would think that this is the worst thing that could happen to the supporters of the club and that the club is officially dead if you participated in the self-flagellation that is reading X (the artist previously known as Twitter).
Nothing could be farther from the truth; rather, it is more evidence that “content creators” like Mark Goldbridge, in the know (ITK) accounts, and bought blue ticks do not truly speak for their fan bases; rather, they propagate false information in order to acquire attention, influence, and money.
All of them would have been in favor of Ratcliffe or anybody else removing the Glazers from any kind of control eighteen months ago, but since Qatar entered the picture, it was all them or nothing. However, if the Qataris had been that interested in the club, they would have been as inventive as Ratcliffe, whose seemingly outrageous offer is not as impressive as it seems, according to those close to the parties.
What makes the news that the club won’t be under state control the finest the team has heard in a decade or more, and why are these “fans” mistaken?
There are several causes, one of which is closely related to the ongoing conflicts throughout the globe, particularly those involving Israel/Palestine and Ukraine.
As demonstrated by Roman Abramovich’s forced sale of Chelsea as a result of sanctions imposed on him and Russian oligarchs and businessmen connected to Vladimir Putin and his regime, a club controlled by these individuals and states is subject to the constantly shifting geopolitical environment.
The football business was oblivious to the hidden agendas at work when Abramovich and Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City, which is why the Saudi ownership of Newcastle should never have been permitted. That seemed like a point where there was a line in the sand, but a Manchester United takeover would have gone much beyond that.
Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich are not buyable outright because of their ownership structures (50+1 in Germany, members/socios in Spain). It is possible to purchase the World Cup indefinitely, but in 2034 it will most likely go to Saudi Arabia and Qatar through corruption. With the possible exception of a FIFA takeover akin to the Saudi golf theft, United is the biggest, the undisputed.
Even while no state should own a club, the worst possible situation would be an authoritarian government that violates human rights. It results in the club being used as a bulwark against such behavior and places supporters in a difficult situation where their club and their ethics and morals are at odds.
Fans of Newcastle and City, as well as those of United, have undoubtedly mobilized to defend the activities of their rulers online and to brush off any mention of their numerous transgressions. This is especially true for those who are active on social media. Their catchphrase would be “cry more” in response to any mention of abuse, fatalities, or other incidents involving Qatari migrants.
