Sir Jim Ratcliffe ‘sorry’ that comments on immigrants ‘offended some people’

Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe says he is sorry if he has “offended some people” by saying the United Kingdom has been “colonised by immigrants”.

Ratcliffe’s remarks in a Sky News interview on Wednesday have been heavily criticised by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, and the Press Association understands they will also be examined by the Football Association to see whether they brought the game into disrepute.

Ratcliffe said in a statement issued on Thursday: “I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth.

“My comments were made while answering questions about UK policy at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, where I was discussing the importance of economic growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing in the UK.

“My 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. It is critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK.”

Ratcliffe told Sky News on Wednesday: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.

“I mean, the UK is being colonised. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants.”

PA understands the FA will also look at the comments to ascertain whether they breached its regulations.

Should the FA choose to formally investigate, the probe may be focused on FA Rule E3.1, which covers general behaviour.

The rule states: “A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

Rule E3.2 states that a breach of Rule E3.1 would be considered an “aggravated breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following – ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

Ratcliffe, as a club co-owner, is subject to FA rules as a participant.

Football anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out has already condemned the comments, saying in a statement issued to PA: “Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s comments are disgraceful and deeply divisive at a time when football does so much to bring communities together.

“In addition to the inaccurate figures mentioned, it’s worth reminding him that Manchester United has a diverse fan base and plays in a city whose cultural history has been enriched by immigrants.

“This type of language and leadership has no place in English football and we believe most fans will feel the same.”

Burnham, who is part of a group of local officials working with Ratcliffe and United on the regeneration of the Old Trafford area and stadium, said: “These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood: a place where people of all races and faiths have pulled together over centuries to build our city and our institutions, including Manchester United FC.

“Calling for curbs on levels of immigration is one thing, portraying those who come here as a hostile invading force is quite another. It is inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory and should be withdrawn.

“Footballers who have arrived from all over the world to play in Greater Manchester have enhanced the life of our city region, as have the many people working in Greater Manchester’s NHS and other essential services and industries.

“We appreciate their contribution as a city region famous for the warmth of our welcome.”

In what appeared to be criticism of the Glazer family who hold a majority stake in United, Burnham added: “If any criticism is needed, it should be directed towards those who have offered little contribution to our life here and have instead spent years siphoning wealth out of one of our proudest institutions.”