The public should not have to pay to rebuild Old Trafford for a billionaire

“I think if it is a national stadium and a catalyst for the regeneration of that part of south Manchester… there needs to be a conversation with the government.”

While much of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s round of media interviews on Wednesday, after his takeover of 27.7 percent of Manchester United was finally confirmed, might have excited United fans, there were more than a few elements that caused surprise .

Between the lines about ‘dethroning Manchester City and Liverpool’ and fun stories about dealing with Sir Alex Ferguson, his comments about the women’s team sounded like an afterthought, merely indicating that ‘if it’s a team that’s a Manchester United badge is on their shirt, then it’s Manchester United and they have to be focused on winning and being successful.” But to give the benefit of the doubt, this is just the early days and big plans may be on the horizon.

His response to the question about Mason Greenwood and making a “new decision” about the forward’s future also raised alarm bells, but it is probably only fair to judge him on this as the nature of the “new decision” is made clear.

Also notable were his comments about Old Trafford and the possible renovation of United’s home stadium or the possible construction of a new stadium.

Ratcliffe suggested that when the time comes to rebuild or replace Old Trafford, he would look for some sort of public funding, and also suggested that this would be part of a possible regeneration of that part of Manchester.

Ratcliffe said: “People in the north pay their taxes and there is an argument that you could think of a more ambitious project in the north, which would be appropriate for England, for the Champions League final or the FA Cup final and if catalyst would be to revitalize south Manchester, which has quite an important history in Britain.”

The easy (and not unreasonable) problem is that Ratcliffe was appealing to the British taxpayer when he himself was not. Asked about his stay in the tax haven of Monaco, he replied: “I paid my taxes in Britain for 65 years. And when I reached retirement age, I went downstairs to enjoy the sun. A happy coincidence that the only possible place ‘to enjoy the sun’ is also the place where the income tax rate is zero percent.

But while that is true, it distracts from the main problem, which is trying to guilt-trip taxpayers into subsidizing a new stadium for Manchester United.

Fans of American sports will be familiar with the tactic: a sports team owner pressures the local government to provide millions of dollars in financing or tax subsidies for a new stadium, earnestly promising that it would cost nothing at all because it would be a deliver a range of economic benefits to the local community.

However, several studies in America have exposed this claim as, at best, wildly exaggerated and, more realistically, complete nonsense.

There are many examples of this, but one of them is the Atlanta Braves: in 2013, Cobb County authorities pledged $300 million (£237 million) to build Truist Park, the team’s future new home (which replaced Turner Field , itself only built in 1996). ), which was accompanied by a range of other surrounding retail and residential developments. The suggestion was that the whole thing would be a sound public investment. In 2022, a report by JC Bradbury, an economist from Kennesaw State University, found that while there were increases in things like sales taxes, this did not cover the money initially invested by authorities.

Bradbury wrote that “the evidence does not support the widely held claim that the $300 million the county invested to finance the stadium was a sound financial investment” and that “the stadium is experiencing significant annual deficits that are likely to last the remaining 25 years of the financing will continue. the efforts of the province.’

That example is cited because there has at least been enough time to assess the benefit or otherwise – but it is only increasing. The Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, which recently hosted the Super Bowl, cost $1.9 billion, of which $750 million came from public financing. A recent NBC report states that approximately $33 billion in public funds has been spent over the past fifty years to build new stadiums or renovate old ones.

Ratcliffe doesn’t have the same clout as those American owners, as the threat they hang over the authorities is invariably that they will move their team to a city more suitable to provide them with a shiny new home. Even to hint at the vague possibility that he might consider such a thing would be the easiest way to forcibly incinerate any goodwill toward him anywhere.

Government subsidies for stadiums are a mess that is deeply ingrained in American sport but should not be allowed in Britain. For starters, where would the money come from?

A report from Manchester Council’s budget process recently revealed that they could face a budget deficit of £71.9 million in 2026-2027, which is likely to be around the time work on Old Trafford could start, if Ratcliffe gets his way.

There will no doubt be an argument about which government agency would provide United with the funding, not least because Old Trafford is not technically in Manchester, but the point remains: at a time when councils in Britain are going bankrupt (often, amusingly enough, because they became involved in unwise and economically unhealthy construction projects), which means that basic services are catastrophically affected, how can anyone justify spending public money on refurbishing a football club’s stadium or buying a new stadium?

Ratcliffe believes a new or revamped Old Trafford is key to United’s progress (Simon Peach/PA Images via Getty Images)

Ratcliffe is not wrong when he talks about the southern (by which he means London) bias when it comes to national sporting venues in England.

He is also right to say that the north of England has historically been neglected and ignored by the British government.

But even though Ratcliffe has a point, it’s hard to take it seriously because we know he’s being disingenuous at best. He is not asking for a separate ‘Wembley of the North’ to be built for the benefit of the people: he is asking that the redevelopment of his own club’s stadium be paid for (at least in part) by the people.

United don’t need the money. They brought in £648m last financial year, an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year. They were fourth in the recent Deloitte Money League rankings of the richest clubs in the world. You’d imagine they could easily secure financing just based on the increased revenue that would come from a new or renovated stadium. They even have a recent elitist example with Tottenham, who managed to build their new stadium without public money. The expenses wouldn’t even hurt their profit and sustainability calculations as infrastructure costs are exempt.

And at the most basic level, it’s hard to take seriously a man worth £29.7 billion personally, according to the Sunday Times’ latest rich list, which suggests his latest addition needs a new home and that you have to pay for it, which would also mean increasing the value of his investment.

Ratcliffe’s suggestions were only early suggestions, and there is no indication that any government body would actually be open to them. Yet the idea that public money should be used to help renovate or rebuild Old Trafford must be stopped as early as possible.

(OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images)