Compared to Manchester City’s 2008 takeover, United under Ineos has been markedly unstable, with repeated management changes, unclear long-term planning and problems with recruitment, identity and leadership.
One of the biggest myths surrounding the current Manchester United regime is that we are being run by a “first class” football operation. If this is true, I’d like to see evidence of a clear strategy, coherent decision-making, and continued progress. Instead, what we see is instability, frequent changes of direction and repeated resets.
The comparison with Manchester City’s takeover is telling.
When Abu Dhabi took over Manchester City in 2008, they inherited a club that was much smaller than Manchester United in almost every sense. Manchester United is the dominant commercial force in English football, with a global fan base, bigger revenues, better facilities and is going through one of the most successful periods of any club. If anything, United should have an easier foundation to build on.
The first four seasons after Manchester City took over were like this:
No. 10
fifth place
third place
first place
There is a clear trajectory. They changed head coaches once, established a football vision, recruited accordingly, and improved year after year. Whether one likes this ownership model or not, it’s hard to argue that football operations don’t work.
Now let’s take a look at United Airlines, which is owned by Ineos.
Over a period of time, the club has changed several head coaches and sporting strategies. Ten Witches were supported before being replaced. Amorim was appointed before being replaced. We are now in year four and are discussing another rebuild under Carrick, who may not play international duty.
League standings alone tell only part of the story. What matters is the path taken to get there. The rise of the city seems planned. Manchester United felt passive. Every major decision seems to create a new set of problems that then require further intervention.
A poor start to Carrick’s tenure has only heightened those concerns. By year four, the structure should provide stability no matter who occupies the dugout. Instead, the conversation was exactly the same as when Ineos arrived: questions about recruiting, team building, leadership and long-term direction.
That’s why I’m confused by talk of “first-class” football action. The evidence simply does not support this.
A truly meritocratic structure reduces dependence on individuals. It creates continuity, consistency and incremental improvement. City have proven that in their first four years of ownership. Manchester United largely prove the opposite.
The uncomfortable reality is that United are in a much stronger position, both commercially and sportingly, than Manchester City was in 2008. However, after several years of Ineos influence, we still have no clear definition of football identity, long-term plans or even who will lead it two years from now.
At some point, results and decisions must trump words. “Best in class” is something you prove through execution, not something you tell people over and over again when you change managers and start over every 12 months.
Discuss rumors and transfers on our page
.