Lovely read! So many factors to consider, but Man Utd have become the perfect case study in how to destroy your brand reputation as quickly as possible. For so long, they were the standard-bearers for the Premier League and have slipped pretty far down the road of dysfunction.
Thanks for the kind words! agree 100%. Once the internal reality stops matching the marketing, the disconnect itself becomes the brand. It's a dangerous tipping point.
Really great article! Love the way you looked at how important the Indonesian, Nigerian and Indian markets are to United’s global presence. As a United fan myself, there’s no Man United without these global fanbases. Makes Ratcliffe’s comments look even more ludicrous.
Absolutely! Having watched the brand evolve since the early 2000s, their global reach always felt like the gold standard. It’s genuinely concerning to see that foundation put at risk. You have to wonder why anyone would gamble with such a hard-earned reputation on the world stage.
Another great piece! It has been amazing how Manchester United has been a marketing juggernaut for the past 20 or so years! Even as they have played on the field for the past decade, they are still considered one of the biggest clubs in the world in any sport. That all goes to the marketing side of things. Sir Jim Ratcliffe was not only ignorant and discriminatory (by the way, I was offended as a person of color) but also just dumb in maintaining a brand perspective.
Thank you for the kind words! I agree that beyond the social implications—and the direct harm these words cause the communities they target—these declarations represent a massive strategic failure. Manchester United’s status as a “marketing juggernaut” (loved that concept) relies entirely on its inclusive, global identity.
When a stakeholder’s rhetoric alienates a diverse fanbase, they aren't just being insensitive; they are actively eroding the club’s culturalequity. It’s a sobering reminder that brand-building takes decades, but brand damage can happen in an instant.
That's an interesting point, but I actually think the divide is less about geography and more about perspective! From a pure sports business and marketing standpoint, top clubs operate as global brands whether they are in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. However, from a fan's perspective—no matter where they live—the emotional connection and heritage of the club will always come first.
A really lovely read from start to finish. As a United fan I I appreciated this deep dive into the club's business strategy and global presence. Great work!
Even though I believe that Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s declarations can be seen as unfortunate, controversial and damaging to the brand, the sense of belonging, in my opinion, is too deep to break. Also, the illusion of having found a hero/savior in Michael Carrick weighs heavily on the fans' minds.
You have a great example in FC Barcelona, a club undergoing serious investigations, highly indebted, poorly managed, and creating assets out of thin air to register players, whose board has been brought before a judge several times in the past three months (today being the latest). Still, FC Barcelona fans (in love with "tiki-taka", the Messis, Xavis, Iniestas and Lamines) are not worried about those situations at all. They want to win and have the mental ability to put players, coaches and owners in completely different boxes of guilt and accountability without changing their views on the club or the brand.
I don’t think the Manchester United case with its global fan base is any different
Thanks for the kind words! Bringing up Barcelona is such a great point. It perfectly shows how local culture can translate globally and resonate with fans who have never even been to the city.
You're right that it's incredibly hard to destroy that kind of legacy—sports marketing just operates on a completely different level. Still, it's definitely worth keeping an eye on. For a different club's brand, Jim's words could have been lethal.
This is a very sharp analysis, Carla. You have highlighted a critical systems failure: when leadership rhetoric contradicts brand architecture, the friction doesn't just damage reputation, it actively repels the very demographics that sustain the revenue model.
From an African perspective, it looks like clubs are treating their global connections as something to take from, not as a fair partnership where both sides benefit.
The question you pose about the "brand moat" is the right one. I would argue that in 2026, the moat is not history. It is trust. And trust is far harder to rebuild than a squad.
I'm curious if other readers see this as a short-term PR problem or a structural risk to the club's global license to operate?
Great question! It’s definitely something to consider. While it could just be a short-term issue, the landscape is shifting so massively that we really have to treat it as a cautionary tale.
Regarding the “fair partnership,” the connection fans have in regions like Africa and South America is incredibly genuine, and figuring out how to “brand” that connection is a huge challenge. There is naturally some pushback against the commercialization of football, but others get that the game is evolving.
I think the real challenge for these regions is to bring a fresh perspective to branding—finding innovative ways to connect globally without letting the relationship feel purely transactional.
Insightful read. Especially when it comes to the marketing and branding techniques deployed. I think the launch of the premier league in 1992 predated the evolution of the cable TV market for football games which increased during the 1990s
Thanks for the comment! I’d argue that the foundational shift in European football’s media infrastructure began with Mediaset in the late 80s. Berlusconi’s model of private, commercial broadcasting was the primary catalyst for the creation of the Champions League (and subsequently, the Premier League) as UEFA realized they had to modernize the “product” to keep up with private media demands.
AC Milan proved that a club could be a vertical asset for a media empire. United’s genius was taking that blueprint (which Milan kept exclusive and localized) and adapting it for a mass global audience through a clearly defined ICP.
Lovely read! So many factors to consider, but Man Utd have become the perfect case study in how to destroy your brand reputation as quickly as possible. For so long, they were the standard-bearers for the Premier League and have slipped pretty far down the road of dysfunction.
Thanks for the kind words! agree 100%. Once the internal reality stops matching the marketing, the disconnect itself becomes the brand. It's a dangerous tipping point.
Really great article! Love the way you looked at how important the Indonesian, Nigerian and Indian markets are to United’s global presence. As a United fan myself, there’s no Man United without these global fanbases. Makes Ratcliffe’s comments look even more ludicrous.
Absolutely! Having watched the brand evolve since the early 2000s, their global reach always felt like the gold standard. It’s genuinely concerning to see that foundation put at risk. You have to wonder why anyone would gamble with such a hard-earned reputation on the world stage.
Another great piece! It has been amazing how Manchester United has been a marketing juggernaut for the past 20 or so years! Even as they have played on the field for the past decade, they are still considered one of the biggest clubs in the world in any sport. That all goes to the marketing side of things. Sir Jim Ratcliffe was not only ignorant and discriminatory (by the way, I was offended as a person of color) but also just dumb in maintaining a brand perspective.
Thank you for the kind words! I agree that beyond the social implications—and the direct harm these words cause the communities they target—these declarations represent a massive strategic failure. Manchester United’s status as a “marketing juggernaut” (loved that concept) relies entirely on its inclusive, global identity.
When a stakeholder’s rhetoric alienates a diverse fanbase, they aren't just being insensitive; they are actively eroding the club’s culturalequity. It’s a sobering reminder that brand-building takes decades, but brand damage can happen in an instant.
I feel like the US view of the brand is so different than back home in UK. Am I correct?
That's an interesting point, but I actually think the divide is less about geography and more about perspective! From a pure sports business and marketing standpoint, top clubs operate as global brands whether they are in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. However, from a fan's perspective—no matter where they live—the emotional connection and heritage of the club will always come first.
Great read!
Thank you!
A really lovely read from start to finish. As a United fan I I appreciated this deep dive into the club's business strategy and global presence. Great work!
Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Another great piece, Carla.
Even though I believe that Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s declarations can be seen as unfortunate, controversial and damaging to the brand, the sense of belonging, in my opinion, is too deep to break. Also, the illusion of having found a hero/savior in Michael Carrick weighs heavily on the fans' minds.
You have a great example in FC Barcelona, a club undergoing serious investigations, highly indebted, poorly managed, and creating assets out of thin air to register players, whose board has been brought before a judge several times in the past three months (today being the latest). Still, FC Barcelona fans (in love with "tiki-taka", the Messis, Xavis, Iniestas and Lamines) are not worried about those situations at all. They want to win and have the mental ability to put players, coaches and owners in completely different boxes of guilt and accountability without changing their views on the club or the brand.
I don’t think the Manchester United case with its global fan base is any different
Thanks for the kind words! Bringing up Barcelona is such a great point. It perfectly shows how local culture can translate globally and resonate with fans who have never even been to the city.
You're right that it's incredibly hard to destroy that kind of legacy—sports marketing just operates on a completely different level. Still, it's definitely worth keeping an eye on. For a different club's brand, Jim's words could have been lethal.
This is a very sharp analysis, Carla. You have highlighted a critical systems failure: when leadership rhetoric contradicts brand architecture, the friction doesn't just damage reputation, it actively repels the very demographics that sustain the revenue model.
From an African perspective, it looks like clubs are treating their global connections as something to take from, not as a fair partnership where both sides benefit.
The question you pose about the "brand moat" is the right one. I would argue that in 2026, the moat is not history. It is trust. And trust is far harder to rebuild than a squad.
I'm curious if other readers see this as a short-term PR problem or a structural risk to the club's global license to operate?
Great question! It’s definitely something to consider. While it could just be a short-term issue, the landscape is shifting so massively that we really have to treat it as a cautionary tale.
Regarding the “fair partnership,” the connection fans have in regions like Africa and South America is incredibly genuine, and figuring out how to “brand” that connection is a huge challenge. There is naturally some pushback against the commercialization of football, but others get that the game is evolving.
I think the real challenge for these regions is to bring a fresh perspective to branding—finding innovative ways to connect globally without letting the relationship feel purely transactional.
Great read. Point on!!
Thanks for commenting!
Insightful read. Especially when it comes to the marketing and branding techniques deployed. I think the launch of the premier league in 1992 predated the evolution of the cable TV market for football games which increased during the 1990s
Thanks for the comment! I’d argue that the foundational shift in European football’s media infrastructure began with Mediaset in the late 80s. Berlusconi’s model of private, commercial broadcasting was the primary catalyst for the creation of the Champions League (and subsequently, the Premier League) as UEFA realized they had to modernize the “product” to keep up with private media demands.
AC Milan proved that a club could be a vertical asset for a media empire. United’s genius was taking that blueprint (which Milan kept exclusive and localized) and adapting it for a mass global audience through a clearly defined ICP.
Thanks for your informative reply.