Sheikh Jassim’s Manchester United takeover bid, the Qatar issue and what it means for Ratcliffe

The sale of Manchester United took a significant step forward late on Friday when the Glazer family received a bid from the son of the former prime minister of Qatar.

Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani, the chairman of Qatari bank QIB, submitted a bid to complete a full takeover. He is going head-to-head with Ineos billionaire Jim Ratcliffe for ownership of the club, although it’s possible there are other unknown bidders in addition to them.

It is unknown how much Sheikh Jassim, who says he is a lifelong Manchester United supporter, has offered and much of the conversation in the coming days and weeks will be about whether the bid is, as he claims, truly independent of the Qatari state.

Raine Group, the investment banking firm in charge of the sale on behalf of current owners the Glazer family, had set a soft deadline of 10pm UK time (5pm ET) for official interest to be formalised in writing. But at this stage the bid is an indicative one, meaning a more precise valuation will be made if United invite them in to look at the club’s numbers. Sheikh Jassim has provided proof of funds as part of this soft deadline, but no deposit.

A statement from the Qatari banker read: “Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani today confirmed his submission of a bid for 100 per cent of Manchester United Football Club. The bid plans to return the Club to its former glories both on and off the pitch, and – above all – will seek to place the fans at the heart of Manchester United Football Club once more.

“The bid will be completely debt free via Sheikh Jassim’s Nine Two Foundation, which will look to invest in the football teams, the training centre, the stadium and wider infrastructure, the fan experience and the communities the Club supports.

“The vision of the bid is for Manchester United Football Club to be renowned for footballing excellence, and regarded as the greatest football club in the world.

“More details of the bid will be released, when appropriate, if and when the bid process develops.”

Now the Glazers will decide if any of the proposals appeal to them and whether to proceed with the process. There is no particular time limit for them to do that.

So who is the sheikh, what happens now and what does this all mean for the club and Ratcliffe? Stick with us — there’s a lot to explain.

Analysis by Adam Crafton, Laurie Whitwell, Matt Slater and Dan Sheldon.

Who is Sheikh Jassim and what is this bid about?

Sheikh Jassim’s bid was submitted for consideration just a couple of hours before the soft deadline.

On Friday night, sources close to the bid who spoke on the condition of anonymity insisted Sheikh Jassim is a Manchester United supporter and said his vehicle to buy the club is named the Nine Two Foundation because of the club’s famous Class of ‘92 generation featuring David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, the Neville brothers and Paul Scholes. The same sources were unable to specify when Sheikh Jassim attended a match at Old Trafford but said he has previously visited Manchester United’s home ground.

The link to the Class of ‘92 opens obvious questions as to whether David Beckham, a paid ambassador of the Qatari state, is involved in the bid but sources both close to the bid and to Beckham insisted on Friday night that was not the case, with the bid also insisting that no other member of the Class of ’92 has been approached.

At this stage, a valuation of the bid has not been disclosed but reports have oscillated between £4-6bn since United were put up for sale in November. At this stage, the Qatari investor is yet to have his bid accepted and is also not required to put any money down as a deposit just yet.

The club made some information available to prospective investors but it was limited and the Qatari will now, if invited, receive broader access to United’s finances and undergo due diligence. The bid, at this stage, has not been accepted or declined.

As for the man himself, not too much is known of him yet but the press release on his behalf last night said that he was educated in the UK at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst and graduated as an officer cadet.

What is he claiming he will deliver if successful?

According to Sheikh Jassim, United will become free of debt, one of the major causes of unrest among fans under the Glazers. The American family’s leveraged buyout plunged United into the red and the total owed currently stands at £580m. This has impinged on transfer spending, even though United are still one of the biggest spenders in world football.

He is also vowing to invest in the local area and improve the stadium and training facilities. Old Trafford has not seen major renovation since 2005, while Carrington has fallen behind the best in class. United have enlisted master planners for the stadium, with a cost for rebuilds — depending on the scale of work — estimated at £1bn to £2bn.

Is this really separate from the Qatari state?

If you loved the Newcastle soap opera, then you’ll be rushing back for more with this one.

The bid insisted on Friday night that all the money for this multi-billion cash purchase of arguably the most popular sports team on the planet is coming from the pocket of one private individual through his foundation.

However, The Athletic has previously reported that the Qatari Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, decided in the latter stages of the World Cup (perceived as a giant success on domestic soil) that Qatar should grow its ambitions in sport further.

The Qatar Sport Investment fund (QSI) already owns Paris Saint-Germain but the Emir decreed that Qatar needs boots on the ground in the biggest domestic league, the Premier League. This mission was initially sent down to the QSI chief (and PSG president) Nasser Al-Khelaifi, who was tasked with initially exploring minority stakes in Tottenham, as well as an interest in Manchester United.

The problem, however, is that Qatar is not yet ready to give up on PSG and UEFA regulations complicate matters because two clubs majority-owned by the same entity cannot compete in the same European club competitions. As such, QSI could not have acquired Manchester United and continued to enter both PSG and Manchester United into the Champions League at the same time.

It should be said that Ratcliffe may face similar issues if he were to take control of Manchester United, since he already owns Ligue 1 club Nice, which has qualified for the Europa League and Champions League in recent seasons and is currently competing in the Europa Conference League.

The Qatari experiment then stretched further, with QIA (the Qatar Investment Authority, of which Al-Khelaifi is also a board member) reported to be exploring moves for United but perhaps satisfying separation between QSI and QIA may have been a more robust challenge than creating an entirely new vehicle under Sheikh Jassim.

On Friday evening, the bid insisted that its funding will not come from the government of Qatar and that money from the club will not be returned to the state of Qatar, but rather profits will be invested into Manchester United as part of a strategic long-term investment plan. The bid also say they are confident that their lawyers have sufficiently understood the rule book and that there is no overlap between QSI, QIA and Sheikh Jassim’s vehicle and that in terms of the legal definition of control, they believe they will comply with both Premier League and UEFA regulations.

Sceptics of the takeover may point out that Sheikh Jassim, while portrayed as a private individual in Qatar, is also the son of a former Qatari prime minister and the chair of Qatar Islamic Bank (QIB), of which the Qatar Investment Authority (the sovereign wealth fund of the state of Qatar) retains a 17.17 per cent stake. The bid will be seeking to persuade UEFA, the Premier League and the more curious parts of the media that he is not benefiting from any state investment.

Are there concerns over human rights?

Well, it depends if you accept the proposition that Sheikh Jassim and his fund are entirely separate from the Qatari state. If you do, then the most interesting connection would be that he is the son of the former Qatari prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani.

Sheikh Hamad served as Qatar’s prime minister between 2007 and 2013. In June 2021, the High Court of Justice in London issued a claim that alleged Sheikh Hamad’s private office was at the heart of laundering money for terrorism through overpriced construction contracts, the purchase of property at inflated prices and overpayments to Syrian migrant workers. Vehement denials were issued by every Qatari defendant, including Sheikh Hamad, identified in the claim.

If you are less convinced by the claims of separation from the state of Qatar, then it is a case of recalling the controversies that surrounded the 2022 World Cup hosted in the country.

The tournament was dogged by allegations of abuses of the migrant workers who built the infrastructure and stadiums for the tournament.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino told the European Parliament in 2022 that only three migrant workers died in the building of the eight World Cup stadiums in Qatar, based on numbers supplied by the host nation.

Yet Nicholas McGeehan of human-rights organisation FairSquare previously called that figure a “wilful attempt to mislead” as the stadiums only account for about one per cent of World Cup-related construction in Qatar.

Human Rights Watch said the correct number will never be known because “Qatari authorities have failed to investigate the causes of deaths of thousands of migrant workers, many of which are attributed to ‘natural causes’.”

Nepal’s labour ministry alone says 2,100 of its citizens died in Qatar of all causes since 2010 — the year the 2022 World Cup was initially awarded to the country.

Hassan Al-Thawadi, the Qatari official responsible for delivery of the World Cup, caused further confusion when he said the number of migrant workers who have died on World Cup-related projects is “between 400 and 500”.

“The estimate is around 400,” Al-Thawadi told TV news show Piers Morgan Uncensored. “Between 400 and 500. I don’t have the precise number, that is something that is being discussed.”

The Qatar World Cup’s chief executive Nasser Al Khater also responded to a question about the death of a migrant worker during the World Cup by telling reporters that “death is a natural part of life,” as well as saying journalists shouldn’t “bang on” about the topic.

Separately, the Qatari state has been criticised for its victimization of the LGBT community, where homosexuality is outlawed, and for its treatment of women.

On Friday, Rainbow Devils (the officially recognised LGBT Manchester United supporters group) released a statement on social media. They said: “Rainbow Devils believe any bidder seeking to buy Manchester United must commit to making football a sport for everyone, including LGBTQ+ supporters, players and staff. We therefore have deep concern over some of the bids that are being made. We are watching the current process closely with this in mind.”

What don’t we know?

The bid amount is not being shared yet. Those involved in the bid indicated they would not overpay for the club even though it is a rare chance to own one of the world’s biggest clubs. On the flipside, the Glazers are determined to get the highest price possible and insiders claim they are prepared to keep control of United if their valuation is not met.

The timeline for possible purchase is also yet to be established.

What about Ratcliffe?

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS were the only potential bidder to publicly confirm their interest in buying the club ahead of Friday and they then submitted their bid before the deadline, claiming they would put the ‘Manchester back into Manchester United’.

“We have formally put ourselves into the process,” a spokesman for Ratcliffe confirmed to The Times last month. A key part of Ratcliffe’s bid is that anything borrowed to buy the club will be borne by Ineos rather than United, meaning there will be no new debt on their balance sheet.

Ratcliffe, a lifelong United fan, also made a late attempt to buy Chelsea last year. In addition to Nice, INEOS also owns FC Lausanne in Switzerland and Racing Club Abidjan of the Ivory Coast.

Ratcliffe is a petrochemicals billionaire and one of Britain’s richest people.

His INEOS company has annual revenues of $65billion (£54bn) and Ratcliffe’s own net worth is £6.1bn, according to the 2022 Sunday Times Rich List.

The 70-year-old hails from Oldham, Greater Manchester and told the Financial Times in October: “I’m a lifelong Manchester United fan. I was there in that most remarkable match in 1999 in Barcelona. That is deeply etched in my mind”.

Ratcliffe appears to be a hands-on owner.

“Jim is involved in all decisions,” one former Nice employee recently told The Athletic.

His younger brother Bob is too, running INEOS’ football operations.

We have a couple of reads about United’s potential new owners so feel free to make a cup of tea, find a comfy spot and get stuck in.

How has he done with his other clubs?What kind of owner would he make?

What now? What’s the timeframe?

Friday, February 17 was only a ‘soft’ deadline.

As it is the Glazers running this show, there would be nothing to stop them from extending the deadline should the offers fail to meet their aspirations.

Raine was targeting a price of £6billion to £7billion ($7.2bn to $8.4bn), and there remains scepticism in the industry about that fee being achieved.

If there are proposals that appeal, however, the bidders will be granted full access to United accounts so proper due diligence can be carried out. There is no time limit on this step, although some feel everything ought to be wrapped up before the football season is over.

Aren’t Newcastle owned by a sovereign wealth fund?

Two Premier League clubs are linked to sovereign wealth funds. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (the PIF), owns 80 per cent of Newcastle United. Manchester City are part of the City Football Group, which is majority owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the board of Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund and half-brother of the president of the UAE.

In Manchester United’s case, if the QIA — the country’s sovereign wealth fund — were to push forward in their attempts to purchase a stake in Manchester United, establishing — and proving — a separation between them and QSI, who own PSG, would be central to adhering to UEFA’s club ownership regulations. That QSI is a direct subsidiary of QIA and that Nasser El Khelaifi sits on the board of QIA while being chairman of QSI illustrates how difficult that may prove. Though Newcastle had no such problems despite the PIF being chaired by Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman.

Are owners allowed to own multiple clubs?

Yes. And no.

Of the 20 current Premier League teams, 10 are part of a multi-club model. Across Europe, other leagues are already wise to the trick. A combined 20 clubs from Italy’s Serie A, Ligue 1 in France and La Liga are part of multi-club models, with the former, replete with its own American investment, leading the way.

Even the German Bundesliga, famously resistant to outside investment and home of the 50+1 ownership model, has three clubs with links to others — Augsburg, Kaiserslautern and RB Leipzig.

Clubs view the strategy as a tool that can help to circumvent post-Brexit Governing Body Endorsement rules, while also being a useful way to develop academy players who would otherwise not be able to play first-team football.

However, under UEFA regulations, if two clubs majority-owned by the same entity qualify for competitions such as the Champions League, only one of the teams is allowed to enter.

That is the result of a landmark case from 2000 involving ENIC — the company businessman Joe Lewis purchased Tottenham Hotspur through. It was ruled that ENIC’s minority shareholding in Greek club AEK Athens and its majority stake in Slavia Prague meant that both couldn’t play in the same European competition.

That would mean any investment related to PSG’s owners into the Premier League would have to come with “non-decisive influence” or a reduction in influence in Paris for both to be eligible to participate in Europe.

The Premier League board has the power to suspend a club “if either directly or indirectly a person acquires a significant interest in that club while such person either directly or indirectly holds any holding in any class of shares of another club.”

The Premier League considers “significant” to be anything more than a 10 per cent shareholding.

So this doesn’t affect Qatar’s ownership of PSG?

QSI sources, who wished not to be named when relaying private conversations, previously insisted to The Athletic they have no intention in the short-to-medium term to step away from PSG. They have pointed to the fact club president Al-Khelaifi is attempting to oversee a cultural overhaul at the club and Sheikh Jassim’s eagerness to prove that this bid has nothing to do with QSI means change at PSG is very unlikely.

In his address to staff in January, Al-Khelaifi spoke of plans for the next decade. He has shaken up his board and a new training ground will open this summer, which is a desperately needed improvement on the Camp des Loges, which has been criticised by several former head coaches for its paucity of top-class innovations and facilities.

There are intentions to sell small stakes in PSG during this calendar year, with up to 15 per cent likely to be sold in total, possibly across two investors. Al-Khelaifi told CNN during the 2022 World Cup that his fund is open to selling “minority shares, strategic shares”.

The club are keen to bring in more know-how in their investment base, especially in building a global business. Ambitions to grow in the US are seen as crucial in the lead-up to the 2026 World Cup, which will be hosted by the US, Mexico and Canada.

Didn’t Qatar want Tottenham too?

In the first week of January, Al-Khelaifi met in London with the Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy for exploratory conversations, as first reported by CBS. On the agenda was a possible minority investment into Tottenham by Qatar, with percentages of up to 15 per cent initially on the table. Al-Khelaifi spent two weeks in London overall.

Tottenham chairman Levy believes Tottenham are worth at least the same as Chelsea, considering the club’s state-of-the-art stadium, training ground, London location and frequent qualification for the Champions League in recent years, meaning that a valuation of around £2.5bn ($3.1bn) — as Chelsea sold for — has been mooted.

Tottenham acknowledge that Levy and Al-Khelaifi frequently meet when they are in the same city, but categorically denied that the pair have spoken about the equity of the London club.

Have I seen Sheikh Jassim’s father in the news for anything else?

Possibly. Last year, The Sunday Times revealed King Charles III — then Prince Charles — accepted three lots of cash, totaling €3million (£2.7m; $3.2m), between 2011 and 2015. On one occasion, it was reported the money was delivered in Fortnum & Mason carrier bags.

The funds were deposited into King Charles III’s charitable fund and there is no suggestion the payments were illegal. Sheikh Hamad’s lawyers declined to comment when approached by The Sunday Times.

Sheikh Hamad served as Qatar’s prime minister between 2007 and 2013, overseeing the oil-rich Gulf state’s investments in Harrods and London’s Olympic Village.

Remind me how we got here in the first place?

The Raine Group, an investment banking firm, is acting as United’s exclusive financial advisor, which means it has a brief to get the best deal for the Glazers. The person leading these talks on their behalf is Joe Ravitch, co-founder and partner of Raine.

Ravitch, a New Yorker, had the same role in the Chelsea sale this past summer and informed people believe the blueprint in place then will be followed again.

Despite being a distressed asset due to the UK government sanctioning outgoing owner Roman Abramovich, Chelsea sold for £2.5billion because several bidders joined the auction. That figure was above expectations and as the dust settles, members of hierarchies at rival clubs have let it be known they feel Todd Boehly and his consortium overpaid.

Nevertheless, that market appetite to own a Premier League club is said to have encouraged the Glazers, and Ravitch is described as confident a much larger sum can be achieved at United.

Raine is aiming for a full sale in the first quarter of 2023 at a price between £6billion and £7billion. Pushed for an update in Doha, Avram Glazer said: “That’s the update, it’s the process and the process is proceeding.”

Whether that money and timetable can be achieved, only time will tell — and there are people in the City of London who believe such a valuation far surpasses reality.

Why are the Glazers selling now?

After riding through so many storms, from the green and gold protests of 2010 and the parallel campaign by the Red Knights, to the risky IPO launch on the New York Stock Exchange in 2012, to Mancunian billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s proposals in the summer, the lingering question is: why have the Glazers decided to sell now?

More specifically, why have Joel and Avram become open to the idea? Because the other four Glazer siblings have wanted to cash in for a long time. One source, who remains anonymous to protect their position, says that rather than go through the tortuous process to take United public 10 years ago, Edward, Kevin, Bryan and Darcie Glazer would have preferred to sell up entirely then.

Undisputed is that Joel and Avram tried to buy out their siblings last summer. That is what those talks with Apollo, a private equity firm, were really about, rather than finding funding for a stadium rebuild. Joel and Avram would have needed to raise an enormous sum of money, however.

The other four siblings hold between them 71,701,268 of the Class B shares that are worth 10 times the voting rights of the Class A shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The share price on August 17, when news broke of the Apollo talks, was $13.67, meaning the cumulative portion for Edward, Kevin, Bryan and Darcie was worth $980million. Darcie also has 603,806 Class A shares, equating to another $8.3million.

The theory is that Joel and Avram felt letting their brothers and sister go would free them to run United in a more unified, streamlined manner. Having four voices on the board whose focus has been on realising the value of their stakes, rather than the betterment of the club — be it infrastructure redevelopment or squad spending — clogged progression.

That would be a generous reading for Joel and Avram, given they have not shown any determination to implement genuine, lasting improvements at personal cost.

So why now? Only the Glazers know though the inability to buy out their siblings, the significant cost of improving Old Trafford and the club’s rising debt are all seen as factors.

What sort of profit would the Glazer family make if United are sold?

The Glazers bought the club for £790m in 2005, using £270m of their own money and leveraging the rest as debt on the club. In the years since they have combined made £450m from the IPO, share sales, and dividends, while still retaining 69 per cent ownership of the club.

Were they to achieve their targeted £6bn price, their share would equate to £4.14bn. The jump from £270m to £4.59bn means they will have made their money 17 times over.

Why are United worth so much more than Chelsea?

Eyeballs, it is all about eyeballs. Measuring clubs’ fanbases is a notoriously unscientific exercise — you basically claim as many as you can plausibly get away with — but whichever method you use, Manchester United have more fans than Chelsea. By some measures, they have more than anyone. So, that is more merchandise, more tickets, more memberships, more noodle partners.

How do you buy a Premier League football club?

Anybody wishing to buy a Premier League club must first take the ‘Owners’ and Directors’ Test’ (OADT). In the Premier League’s own words: “The Owners’ and Directors’ Test outlines requirements that would prohibit an individual from becoming an owner or director of a club”.

Essentially, the test is a list of requirements any prospective owner, part-owner or club director must meet, in order to keep crooks or other untrustworthy people out of the game. The most important element of the Owners and Directors test is a checklist of “disqualifying events” that would rule out a potential owner or director.

The vast majority of these are pretty obvious: Are you allowed to be a director under UK company law? Do you have control or influence over another English club? Do you have an unspent conviction for an offence of dishonesty? Are you on the sex offenders’ register? Have you or a company you are involved with gone bust? Are you and your money allowed to enter the country? And so on.

Anyone found guilty of a betting-related offence or who has been banned by a sporting body will also struggle to pass and, in 2018, a section was added to exclude agents from owning clubs or serving as directors.

As most of us love a good crime drama, the most interesting element of the test is probably the section on criminal convictions and the test’s intention is to be both broad and specific.

So, if you have committed “any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest”, regardless of the actual sentence imposed, you are at risk of being rejected.

But the OADT is not — as the Premier League’s former executive chairman Richard Scudamore was so fond of saying — a “cut of your jib test”. His point was always that if you are allowed to own a British company, you are probably allowed to own an English football club. The Premier League is not running a country club.

What do United fans want?

Two-thirds of Manchester United fans want to see Ratcliffe take charge, according to a recent fan survey published by The Athletic.

Of those linked with buying United — including Twitter chief Elon Musk and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos — Ratcliffe claimed 66.2 per cent of the vote, with Qatar investors second on 16.9 per cent.

One respondent wrote: “It has to be Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the lesser of all evils.”

Pressed on whether a takeover from a sovereign wealth fund would be palatable, only half of fans who responded said no, with 27 per cent saying they would be open to that, and 23 responding ‘maybe’.

What was overwhelmingly clear in our survey was desire for the Glazers to go. Only 1.8 per cent of those surveyed said they either did not mind the current owners staying on, or thought minority investment would be acceptable.

Do the fans get any say in the outcome?

No.

Will the Glazers definitely sell?

Of course not. Only if they get enough money to make it worth their while. And there are plenty of people in the sports business industry who feel that this process might end with the Glazers staying put.

(Top image: Sean Reilly)