State ownership of Manchester United would set a dangerous precedent

The betrayal of Manchester United occurred decades ago yet the prospect of Britain’s most famous club becoming a front for sportswashing is a particularly depressing thought.

Online perception of a potential takeover by a Gulf state is misleading. Many of those on Twitter who welcome interest from Qatar or Saudi Arabia are primarily invested in transfers and titles. Their aspiration is for United to emulate Paris Saint-Germain, a Qatari commodity with an attack dreamt up on a Fifa video game.

Should the Glazers’ occupation be ended by Qatari or Saudi investors, it is hard to imagine scores of supporters gathering on Sir Matt Busby Way with tea towels tied around their heads. United’s matchgoers have long been one of the most principled and they value morals.

ALSO READ: United player ratings as Rashford and Casemiro good

When Joel Glazer tried to pull up the drawbridge with the Super League venture, United fans stormed the castle and their home fixture with Liverpool was postponed. There were impassioned protests against Rupert Murdoch’s failed takeover in 1998 and Joel, Avram and Bryan Glazer required a police escort to escape Old Trafford in 2005.

Manchester City and Newcastle were success-starved clubs at the time of their state takeovers. The City ticker banner on the Stretford End came down within three years of City’s rebirth under Abu Dhabi rule and Newcastle occupy a Champions League qualifying place 16 months into their Saudi era.

It is dangerous to normalise state ownership of football clubs. Amanda Staveley, the driving force behind Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund's acquisition of Newcastle, last year said she was "really sad" Roman Abramovich would have to relinquish control of Chelsea while