US Trends

what did jim ratcliffe say about immigration

Jim Ratcliffe said in a Sky News interview that the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” and argued that the country could not sustain “nine million people on benefits” alongside a large influx of migrants, comments he later apologised for as a poor “choice of language.”

What Did Jim Ratcliffe Actually Say About Immigration?

In an interview at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, Ratcliffe linked the UK’s economic problems to immigration and welfare.

Key points of what he said:

  • He claimed “you cannot sustain an economy with nine million people on benefits and a big inflow of immigrants.”
  • He said the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” and asked, “Hasn’t the UK essentially been colonised by immigrants?”
  • He framed it as a cost issue, saying this situation was “too expensive” for the country.
  • He argued that, to “deal with” immigration and people “opting to take benefits rather than working,” politicians would need to do “unpopular” things and show “courage.”

These remarks mixed strong language (“colonised”) with inaccurate immigration and population statistics, which was one reason they drew such intense criticism.

Public and Political Backlash

The phrase “colonised by immigrants” triggered a major backlash across politics, football, and fan communities.

Reactions included:

  • Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the comments “offensive and wrong,” stressing that Britain is a “proud, tolerant and diverse nation” and urging Ratcliffe to retract them.
  • Other ministers, including Rachel Reeves, described the remarks as “disgusting” and said Ratcliffe should apologise.
  • Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham said the comments “go against everything Manchester has stood for,” noting how players and people from around the world have enriched the region.
  • Manchester United issued a statement underlining the club’s “inclusive and welcoming” values, distancing itself from the tone of his remarks.
  • Fan and community groups, including a Sikh supporters’ group, called the comments offensive and contrary to the club’s diverse fanbase.

Football authorities also stepped in: the Football Association began looking at whether his remarks might breach football rules, given his status as a prominent club owner.

Support and Defence from Some Figures

Not everyone condemned Ratcliffe; some right‑wing and anti‑immigration voices defended his underlying message while often acknowledging the wording was provocative.

Examples:

  • Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said that if you “remove the term colonise,” Ratcliffe’s comments were “accurate and correct.”
  • Farage argued that “mass immigration has changed the character of many areas” of the UK and said Ratcliffe was right to highlight those effects.
  • Supportive commentary in some media and online spaces framed Ratcliffe as “saying what many people think,” even if his stats and language were criticised as inflammatory.

So you get a split picture: strong condemnation from government, football bodies and many fans versus support from parts of the anti‑immigration political space.

His Follow‑Up and Apology

Amid the backlash, Ratcliffe released a statement expressing regret for how he had phrased his comments.

In that statement he:

  • Said he was “sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern.”
  • Claimed his “intention” was to raise the issue of “controlled and well‑managed immigration that supports economic growth,” not to insult immigrants.
  • Emphasised that governments should manage migration alongside investment in “skills, industry and jobs” so that prosperity is “shared by everyone.”
  • Argued that it is “critical” to keep an “open debate” on immigration and the UK’s economic challenges.

He did not fully withdraw the substance of his argument about immigration and welfare but accepted that the word “colonised” and parts of his framing were offensive and badly chosen.

Why It’s a Trending Topic Now

This story is trending because it sits at the intersection of politics, football culture, and ongoing UK debates about migration.

A few reasons it has blown up:

  • Ratcliffe is not just any businessman; he is the billionaire co‑owner of Manchester United, one of the world’s most visible football clubs.
  • His comments came at a time when UK migration levels and small‑boats crossings are already heavily politicised, making the “colonised” framing especially charged.
  • Football, with its diverse global players and fanbases, is particularly sensitive to language that appears hostile to immigrants.
  • The incident has sparked wider arguments on talk shows, social media, and forums about free speech, “saying the unsayable,” racism, and the economic impact of immigration.

In many forum discussions, people are essentially arguing over two questions:

  1. Did Ratcliffe make a fair point but in clumsy language?
  2. Or did he cross a line into xenophobic and misleading rhetoric?

Quick HTML Fact Table

Below is an HTML table summarising the core facts:

html

<table>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Aspect</th>
      <th>Details</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Who</td>
      <td>Sir Jim Ratcliffe, billionaire businessman and co-owner of Manchester United. [web:3][web:5]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Where/When</td>
      <td>Sky News interview at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, February 2026. [web:1][web:3][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Key Quote</td>
      <td>Claimed the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” and that you “cannot sustain an economy” with many on benefits plus high immigration. [web:1][web:3][web:5]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Main Criticism</td>
      <td>Language branded offensive, inflammatory and based on inaccurate statistics by politicians, campaigners and football bodies. [web:1][web:3][web:5][web:7][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supporters’ View</td>
      <td>Figures like Nigel Farage said his underlying point on mass immigration was correct, though the word “colonise” was contentious. [web:1][web:7]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Ratcliffe’s Response</td>
      <td>Apologised for his “choice of language,” said he wanted a debate on controlled, growth-supporting immigration. [web:1][web:7][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Institutional Reaction</td>
      <td>FA reviewing possible rule breach; Manchester United stressed its inclusive, welcoming values. [web:1][web:3][web:5]</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

TL;DR: He said the UK had been “colonised by immigrants” and tied economic strain to migrants and benefit claimants, sparking heavy criticism, an FA review, political condemnation, and a partial apology focused on his wording rather than his broader argument.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.