“Wembley of the North” straight from American owner playbook
In a BBC interview, Sir Jim Ratcliffe pitched the idea of a new “Wembley of the North”. The minority Man Utd owner certainly caught the imagination. The proposal made for many headlines. However, some of the details are surprising. For all the patriotism of invoking Wembley, some details of the plan will seem familiar to fans who follow US sports.
Who is Sir Jim Ratcliffe?
Born in Lancashire on 18th October 1952, Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a British billionaire. He is the CEO of the petrochemicals firm INEOS.
Ratcliffe has been a long-term investor in sports projects including cycling, sailing and Formula 1 racing. In football, he already owns a stake in both Swiss club Lausanne and French club Nice.
In 2022, Ratcliffe bid for Chelsea as part of the process that saw the club change owners. He lost out and Todd Boehly was successful in buying the London club. That didn’t Ratcliffe him from investing in the Premier League, however. He’s agreed a deal to buy 27.7% of Manchester United from the Glazer family. This deal was ratified by the Premier League on 20th February.
Wembley of the North
Media outlets reported on Ratcliffe’s stadium plans even before the Premier League approved that deal:
With the deal approved, Ratcliffe confirmed these plans in a BBC interview.
His vision is for a new Man Utd stadium which would host England international matches as well as other sporting and music events. Of course, it would also be Manchester United’s new stadium. Old Trafford has aged whilst clubs like Arsenal and Tottenham have built spectacular new grounds. His plans will surely go down well with Man Utd fans who have been calling for something like this.
Problems
There are, however, a few problems with this Wembley of the North plan.
Do we need two Wembleys?
There’s long been an assumption that major national infrastructure must be in the capital. But England’s geography means this often poses challenges. This especially made the headlines in 2022 with travel chaos thanks to railway strikes and major roadworks around the FA Cup Semi-Final between Man City and Liverpool.
However, England don’t really need two national stadia. Competitions are expanding and England do play more games than in the past. However, it’s still only a handful of home games a year. There are Cup Finals and FA Cup Semi-Finals too but this is not enough matches to justify a £2bn outlay.
The new Wembley opened in 2006. It would have been great if it had been built in the North – Sheffield or Leeds would be good candidates as well as Manchester. But the right time for that discussion and decision was when the national stadium was being rebuilt. I don’t think England need two.
Government Funding
The most eye-catching part of the plan was about funding the stadium. Ratcliffe said he expects to speak to the UK government about using some public money in the project.
This proposal will go down like a cup of cold sick with non-Manchester United fans. Manchester United are one of the richest clubs on the planet. They would be playing 19 home league games, four home games in the Champions League or Europa League, and domestic Cup games. England might play 3 games at most and maybe one Cup Semi-Final would be played there. It doesn’t seem to make much sense for the taxpayer to get involved in the £2bn project.
An American play?
What struck me the most about the plan is how American it seemed. Ratcliffe is using a much-repeated play from American sports. Owners there often ask for – and receive – public money to refurbish or build new stadia.
Of course, the dynamic that is present in the US is that major sports have comparatively few teams for the number of large cities. Therefore clubs can threaten to – and can actually – relocate if funding isn’t made available by state governments.
In the 21st Century alone there have been 9 such relocations:
- 2002: 🏀 Charlotte Hornets to New Orleans
- 2005: ⚾ Montreal Expos to Washington
- 2006: ⚽ San Jose Earthquakes to Houston
- 2008: 🏀 Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City
- 2011: 🏒 Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg
- 2016: 🏈 St Louis Rams to Los Angeles
- 2017: 🏈 San Diego Chargers to Los Angeles
- 2020: 🏈 Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas
- TBD: ⚾ Oakland Athletics to Las Vegas
Sports team owners in the US and Canada often receive public money to build stadia. This relocation dynamic helps – the new city might offer funds, or the old city pays to keep the team there.
This factor is completely missing for Manchester United, however. There is simply no way Sir Jim Ratcliffe could relocate such a storied and iconic team. For all that opposition fans often joke about where Man Utd fans come from, they belong in Manchester.
I don’t think a second national stadium makes much sense as an investment project for the UK government. But whether it’s the government, the club, or Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s oil billions paying for it, I think Man Utd will pursue an improved stadium. The Theatre of Dreams will probably give way to the Wembley of the North, one way or another.