Does Sir Jim Ratcliffe get a fair press?

Our sporting press like nothing better than to criticise.

Two weeks ago, in rugby’s Six Nations tournament, England were predicted to lose to France and head coach Steve Borthwick was under the cosh.

England then proved the critics wrong.

Underlying this critique is the patronising assumption that England have some divine right to excel.

I would argue that, on the contrary, we out-perform some countries like Australia in the Olympics – and Germany in most sports except football.

Our national teams in cricket, rugby and soccer are not of the highest calibre, but we have some superb individual sportsmen and women.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a successful businessman but, like many of that ilk, believes that the commercial principles that forged his success automatically apply to football.

They do not. Take shareholders. A shareholder in Manchester United may not be looking for value and appreciation, but regard it as a token of his support. If his best player is sold he is more likely to be resentful than to take comfort in the profit margin.

I would also argue that Manchester United were in decline even before Sir Jim shook things up.

Sir Alex Ferguson achieved 28 trophies but the world was different then: could he now terrorise a dressing room with his brute force when players like Rashford are earning £359,00 per week? Alongside him he had that excellent administrator David Gill, creating a complimentary but highly successful team. Other factors in their pre Ratcliffe decline were the rise of Manchester City, poor recruitment of managers and players , noisy legend in the media and an ageing stadium. Finally all great cycles end as did Manchester Utd after Sir Matt Busby departed

 

I am not sure if anyone could have arrested this decline.