Former Manchester United captain Gary Neville has publicly questioned Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the club’s co-owner, over a decision to slash funding for the Association of Former Manchester United Players, a charity established to support ex-players from eras when football salaries were far less lucrative. The move, part of Ratcliffe’s broader cost-cutting measures since acquiring a minority stake in the club, has sparked debate among fans and pundits alike, with Neville leading the charge in criticizing the decision.
The Association, founded in 1985, has historically received £40,000 annually from Manchester United to assist former players such as Bryan Robson, Denis Irwin, and Brian Kidd—legends who contributed to the club’s storied legacy but did not benefit from the modern game’s financial rewards. However, as part of Ratcliffe’s financial overhaul following his acquisition of a 25% stake in the club last year, this funding has been abruptly discontinued, leaving the organization scrambling to adapt.
In a candid exchange aired on The Overlap, Neville pressed Ratcliffe on the rationale behind the cut. “£40,000 was taken from the former players’ association,” Neville remarked. “Now, that’s not the players that played under Sir Alex [Ferguson] or even the last 10 years. They’re players from the 1960s and 70s. I just look at that and think it’s £40,000 from players who are giving a lot back to the local community. Why not look at that £40,000 and put Harry [Maguire] and Bruno [Fernandes] in a dinner to raise the money?”
Ratcliffe, visibly taken aback, responded, “Nobody suggested that… I would’ve supported that.” The billionaire, whose INEOS group has been tasked with managing United’s football operations, admitted that the idea of alternative fundraising had not been proposed internally, exposing a potential lack of creative solutions within his leadership team.
The decision to axe the funding comes amid a series of unpopular moves by Ratcliffe since his arrival at Old Trafford. From hiking matchday ticket prices to making hundreds of staff redundant, the INEOS chief has faced growing scrutiny for prioritizing financial stability over the club’s historical values. Neville, a vocal critic of the Glazer family’s ownership, has now turned his attention to Ratcliffe, suggesting that such cuts undermine the club’s connection to its past.
“This isn’t just about money—it’s about respect,” Neville argued. “These are players who built Manchester United into what it is today. £40,000 is a drop in the ocean for a club of this size, and there are smarter ways to handle it than just pulling the plug.”
Ratcliffe, however, defended his broader strategy, claiming that drastic measures were necessary to avert a financial crisis. In a separate interview with the BBC, he stated, “Manchester United would have run out of cash by the end of this year—by the end of 2025—after having me put $300m in and if we buy no new players in the summer.” He acknowledged the discomfort caused by his decisions but insisted they were essential to stabilize the club, which he claims was mismanaged under the Glazers’ majority ownership.
The funding cut has drawn mixed reactions from the United faithful. While some supporters sympathize with Ratcliffe’s need to address the club’s mounting debts—reportedly over £800m—others see it as a betrayal of the club’s heritage. Posts on X reflect this divide, with one user lamenting, “We are being run by clowns,” while another noted, “He understands some of the cuts have been awful to do, but it’s business and it’s a necessity with the way the majority owners have run the club.”
As Manchester United languishes in 14th place in the Premier League amid a turbulent season, Ratcliffe’s vision for the club is under increasing pressure. His pledge to invest $300m into infrastructure has yet to yield visible progress, and decisions like this latest cut risk further alienating a fanbase desperate for a return to former glories. Neville’s suggestion of a fundraising dinner featuring current stars like Maguire and Fernandes offers a potential olive branch—but whether Ratcliffe takes it remains to be seen.