United Under INEOS: Best in Class or Reactive?

A comparison with Manchester City’s 2008 takeover highlights perceived instability at Manchester United under INEOS, with repeated managerial changes, unclear long-term planning, and questions over recruitment, identity and leadership.

One of the biggest myths around the current Manchester United regime is that we are being run by a "best in class" football operation. If that were true, I'd expect to see evidence of clear strategy, coherent decision-making and consistent progress. Instead, what we've seen is instability, frequent changes in direction and repeated resets.

The comparison with City's takeover is telling.

When Abu Dhabi took over Manchester City in 2008, they inherited a club that was significantly smaller than Manchester United in almost every meaningful sense. United were the dominant commercial force in English football, had a global fanbase, greater revenues, better facilities and were coming off one of the most successful periods any club has enjoyed. If anything, United should have had a much easier foundation on which to build.

City's first four seasons after the takeover looked like this:

10th

5th

3rd

1st

There was a clear trajectory. They changed manager once, established a footballing vision, recruited accordingly and improved year after year. Whether people liked the ownership model or not, it would be difficult to argue that the football operation wasn't effective.

Now look at United under INEOS.

Within a comparable timeframe, the club has already moved through multiple managers and sporting strategies. Ten Hag was backed before being replaced. Amorim was appointed before being replaced. We are now in Year 4 and discussing another rebuild under Carrick, who might not make the international break.

The league positions alone only tell part of the story. What matters is the path taken to get there. City's rise looked planned. United's feels reactive. Every major decision appears to generate a new set of problems that then require further intervention.

The poor start to Carrick's tenure only reinforces that concern. By Year 4, the structure should be delivering stability regardless of who occupies the dugout. Instead, the conversation remains exactly the same as it was when INEOS arrived: questions over recruitment, squad construction, leadership and long-term direction.

That is why I struggle with the claim that this is a "best in class" football operation. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

A truly elite structure reduces dependence on individuals. It creates continuity, consistency and gradual improvement. City demonstrated that during the first four years of their ownership. United have largely demonstrated the opposite.

The uncomfortable reality is that Manchester United started from a far stronger commercial and sporting position than City did in 2008. Yet after several years of INEOS influence, we still can't clearly define the footballing identity, the long-term plan, or even who will be leading it in two years' time.

At some point, results and decision-making have to outweigh rhetoric. "Best in class" is something you prove through execution, not something you repeatedly tell people while changing managers and starting over every 12 months.

Written by Kurtis September 18 2026 12:03:26