Following up a media interview with an apology is never a great position for a spokesperson.
The situation gets even worse when the apology is widely criticised.
Yes, there’s only one place for this week’s media training blog – that Sir Jim Ratcliffe interview.
The businessman and part-owner of Manchester United sparked controversy after saying the UK had been “colonised” by immigrants.
The comments were made during an interview with Ed Conway, from Sky News, which had primarily focused on challenges faced by the chemical sector.
Around 10 minutes into the interview, the conversation moved onto wider issues, and the INEOS boss was asked about the UK government and its economic strategy.
He initially said the UK has “lots of problems” and compared it to some of the issues he has seen at Manchester United and the need to make “difficult” decisions.
He then elaborated, saying: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.
“The UK has been colonised.”
When the journalist probed the “colonised” comment, the Monaco-based business leader added: “The UK has been colonised by immigrants really, hasn’t it?
“I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020. Now it is 70 million. That’s 12 million people.”
The fallout was fast and furious, with complaints both about the language used and inaccurate statistics.
The government wasted no time in criticising them.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, probably relieved someone else was taking some of the media heat, posted on X that the comments were “offensive and wrong” and called for the billionaire to apologise.
And justice minister Jack Richards condemned the remarks during the broadcast media round the following morning.
Speaking to Times Radio, he said the language used was“ offensive to so many people”.
And he branded Sir Jim “hypocritical”.
He said: “Let’s just be very clear that Jim Ratcliffe’s comments yesterday both were offensive in terms of the language used, he got his facts wrong, and there’s also something that I find quite offensive, that this man who moved to Monaco to save £4bn in tax is now lecturing us about immigration. There’s something that I find slightly hypocritical about that.”
Andy Burhnam, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, said in a statement: “These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood: a place where people of all races, faiths and none have pulled together over centuries to build our city and our institutions, including Manchester United FC.”
And the criticism went beyond politics.
The 1958 Group of Manchester United supporters called the comments "very ill-advised", and criticised Sir Jim for "commenting on the issues of our country while living in Monaco to avoid paying tax".
The Manchester United Supporters Trust posted on X that: "No fan should feel excluded from following or supporting the club because of their race, religion, nationality or background. Comments from the club's senior leadership should make inclusion easier, not harder.”
And there has been some other stinging criticism on social media.
Piers Morgan accused Sir Jim of “blatant lies/ignorance about UK population numbers” and labelled him a “stinking race-baiting hypocrite”.
David Yelland, presenter of the When It Hits the Fan PR podcast, said the businessman “now looks like a racist”.
Here’s a few examples of how mainstream media have reported the story:
If you only saw the coverage, you would probably think the entire interview had focused on immigration.
But that was not the case.
A key media training lesson others can learn from this interview disaster is that the comments came at the end of a long interview, much longer than most broadcast ones.
By the time the question was asked, the businessman had spent 10 minutes discussing in detail the challenges faced by the chemical industry, the changes it needs and why industrial costs are too high.
Yet those forthright comments have not been picked up.
Sir Jim got drawn into discussing wider topics, and his comments on those subjects distracted from everything that had gone before.
This is something we always explore during our media training courses. As an interview comes to a close, one of our expert journalist tutors is likely to ask an ‘and finally’ or ‘while you are here’ type question that takes them away from the subject you want to discuss.
The key is to avoid saying something that could become the focus of the interview and grab all the attention.
In this example, the comments go much further than creating a distraction from the key message.
Their controversial, divisive nature and loaded language caused a huge PR and reputational headache for Manchester United.
United has a diverse fan base. Fans come from all over the world.
It also has players from 14 different countries in its first team squad. How do these groups feel?
What about its many global commercial partners?
It also puts new manager Michael Carrick in a horribly uncomfortable position. He will now inevitably face questions about these comments during his next press conference.
Sir Jim will no doubt feel he’s entitled to express an opinion.
But he must grasp that those views will always be connected to his role at Manchester United. And be amplified.
The two things will not be separated by the media.
Good media training teaches delegates, particularly senior leaders, that when you offer a personal opinion, either proactively or in response to a question, journalists will still see you as a representative of your organisation.
The “it’s my personal view, not that of my business”, line doesn’t work.
So, if your personal opinion isn’t shared by the organisation you represent, you need to think twice about sharing it and potentially causing embarrassment.
For comms teams, it is a reminder that senior leaders voicing their political views should be included in corporate crisis comms plans, particularly when they don't align with brand values or those of stakeholders.
Such was the scale of the backlash to the comments that an apology felt inevitable.
And it came the day after the interview.
But it is not an apology we could highlight as a good example during one of our crisis communication training courses.
He said: “I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth.
“My comments were made while answering questions about UK policy at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, where I was discussing the importance of economic growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing in the UK.
"My intention was to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in skills, industry and jobs so that long-term prosperity is shared by everyone. It is critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK."
Well, it’s a non-apology. He’s not apologised for what he said. He has apologised that his language offended some people.
There’s a difference.
It is a heavily qualified apology that feels reluctant, half-hearted and gives the impression he doesn’t really feel he has done anything wrong. It lacks sincerity and contrition.
The apology also makes no mention of using statistics that have been proven to be wrong.
And it is worth highlighting that only a small part of the so-called apology (20 words) was spent saying sorry. The majority of it attempted to explain and justify why he raised the issue.
Around 24 hours after its part-owner’s divisive remarks - a long time in crisis communication - Manchester United released an unusual club statement.
While not directly referencing the comments, criticising Sir Jim or acknowledging the fallout, the club clearly felt compelled to distance itself from the views of its part owner.
It said it “prides itself on being an inclusive and welcoming club” and listed some of its diversity and inclusion commitments.
And it added: “Manchester United reflects the unity and resilience of all the communities we are so privileged to represent.
“We will continue to represent our people, our city and our fans with purpose and pride.”
The statement is clearly a delicate and tricky balancing act. It's a sort of polite rebuke rather than giving its boss a red card. And it was probably quite the PR headache to write and get approved.
From a crisis media management perspective, it had to say something.
The question now is whether it has done enough or will need to go further.
The story is likely to rumble on.
Reports are coming out about players being “alarmed” by the immigration comments. Sir Jim could face an FA charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
And, as we highlighted earlier, manager Carrick will be asked about it when he speaks to the media ahead of the next match.
I’m pretty sure there is more to come from this huge reputational own goal.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with more than 40 years of experience.
We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.
Find out more about our media training and crisis communication training courses.