Who Really Owns Manchester United?

Twenty years ago, the Glazer family acquired one of the largest clubs in world football through a leveraged takeover. Three years ago, with pressure mounting from fans urging the Glazers to sell the club due to decades of mismanagement, the club offloaded a portion of its stake to Sir Jim Ratcliffe through his petrochemicals company, INEOS.

Ever since the protests of March 2025, the debate has been revived: Who truly owns and controls one of England's most storied clubs? In addition to the above, does UK company law consider the interests of football's communities, or only those of its shareholders?

Under the Companies Act 2006, a director's duties are owed to the company itself rather than directly to shareholders or supporters. Per Section 172, directors must promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members, while also considering the interests of its employees, the company itself, and its reputation.

Applying this in practice means that the Glazers, as the primary controlling shareholders, owe no legal duty to the supporters, even if the fans view themselves as the true custodians of the club. This is further exemplified in the UK Corporate Governance Code, which emphasises the importance of transparency and engagement with stakeholders.

However, compliance is voluntary and often superficial in privately held or controlled companies.

The corporate structure at Manchester United exemplifies this imbalance, where the dual-classshare system implemented enables the Glazers to have veto powers, despite holding a minority in the economic value. While SJR holds a 27.7% stake in the club, it tends to be more symbolically significant and ultimately wouldn't dislodge the Glazers, despite the Glazers handing over the command of football operations to INEOS. Therefore, this system, which separates ownership and influence, raises concerning questions about accountability.

Is it possible for a football club to be both a private enterprise and a public institution? When examining the systems implemented elsewhere, Germany's "50 + 1 rule" ensures that members, who are effectively the fans of the club, retain majority control, thereby preventing external investors from dictating the club's direction. Such safeguards do not exist in English company law.

These issues have led to calls for reform within English football. In 2021, the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance, chaired by Tracey Crouch MP, recommended the creation of an Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), which oversees financial stability, ownership, and fan representation. This has gained government backing, which would benefit supporters by giving them a formal say in "heritage" decisions, such as club name, colours, and stadium. While these proposals indicate progress, they still fall short of redefining the core principles of company law, which prioritise shareholders above all others.

Manchester United's ownership saga highlights the limitations of applying a shareholder-centric model to an institution with deep social and cultural roots. Therefore, until the law formally recognises club supporters as stakeholders with enforceable rights, football governance will remain dictated by capital, not community. The Glazers and Ratcliffe may own the shares, but in spirit, millions still claim ownership of the badge.