Charlotte Duncker (Sky Sports): Glazers could sell Manchester United for the right price

Speaking on Sky, journalist Charlotte Duncker suggested there is a genuine possibility the Glazer family could sell Manchester United outright if a buyer meets their valuation. The comment has reignited debate over the club’s ownership, less than two years after INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe acquired a significant minority stake and assumed football control. While no formal sale process is underway, Duncker’s line implies the door is not closed. Fans are divided between cautious skepticism and hopeful anticipation, as questions persist about valuation, governance stability, and long-term investment in Old Trafford and the training ground.

In a recent Sky Sports discussion, reporter Charlotte Duncker noted that there is “potential that the Glazers could sell the entire club” and that “for the right price they definitely would.” The comment lands in the context of Manchester United’s 2024 minority investment by INEOS, led by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, which granted sporting control to INEOS while the Glazers retained majority ownership. This follows the 2022–2023 strategic review that explored full and partial investment options. Duncker’s assessment reflects ongoing market curiosity around valuation, governance, and future capital projects at Old Trafford.

🚨🗣️ @CharDuncker on potential Manchester United takeover rumours: "There is potential that the Glazers could sell the entire club. I think for the right price they definitely would." [Sky]

@UtdXclusive

Impact Analysis

Duncker’s framing—“for the right price”—is more than a platitude; it re-centers the valuation debate that has defined Manchester United’s ownership saga since 2022. First, it underscores that, despite INEOS’s sporting control, ultimate ownership remains fluid if a bidder closes the gap between perceived intrinsic value and the Glazers’ price expectations. Recent benchmarks across elite sports franchises suggest a corridor comfortably north of £5.5bn for a majority transaction, potentially higher when factoring brand equity, global fan base, and media rights upside.

Second, a full sale would be structurally complex. Any move must account for INEOS’s minority position and governance rights. Market chatter has long suggested INEOS may hold protective provisions or rights of first negotiation; while the exact terms are private, any credible buyer would need to sequence approvals, negotiate with multiple parties, and satisfy Premier League and FA Owners’ and Directors’ Tests. That introduces time and execution risk.

Third, football operations would feel immediate ripple effects. A clean ownership resolution—either via INEOS increasing its stake or a new majority buyer—could accelerate stadium redevelopment, modernize Carrington, and clarify long-term budgeting under PSR/FFP. Conversely, prolonged uncertainty can delay medium-term squad planning, commercial tie-ups, and major infrastructure commitments. In short, Duncker’s comment reopens a live question: not whether United can be sold, but at what premium and with what governance choreography.

Reaction

Social sentiment is split between eye-rolls and cautious optimism. One fan dismissed it bluntly: “This are just rumours,” capturing a fatigue many feel after years of stop-start ownership talk. Another quipped, “don’t threaten me with a good time!”—a wink to the enduring desire among sections of the fanbase for a decisive change at the top.

Some pushed back on the news value. A supporters’ account argued the line is “absolutely meaningless and could apply to any owner,” reflecting skepticism that “for the right price” says anything new. Others probed the mechanics: one commenter highlighted a supposed clause giving Sir Jim Ratcliffe first refusal on any sale, a rumor that persists despite limited public documentation of the minority deal’s finer points.

There were also meta-notes: “In other words I haven’t a clue what’s going on behind the scenes like the rest of us,” wrote another, framing the segment as informed speculation rather than a signal of imminent change. As often in big-club discourse, unrelated promotional posts and a student’s job-hunt thread appeared in the replies—evidence of how takeover chatter attracts broad attention, not all of it on-topic. Net-net, the fanbase remains intrigued, wary, and hungry for concrete movement rather than fresh hypotheticals.

Social reactions

If you trade options, check out our free tools (link in profile)

A Mountain Of Alpha (@MountainOfAlpha)

Why does no one ever mention that he also has a clause that’s states he gets first refusal on any sale. Weird.

Dan Wilde (@DWilde_1)

In other words I haven’t a clue what’s going on behind the scenes like the rest of us 🤷🏼‍♂️

Michael Eyles (@MEyles2810)

Prediction

Short term (0–6 months): A full sale remains unlikely without a bidder meeting a premium valuation that satisfies all Glazer shareholders. Expect continued consolidation of sporting operations under INEOS, incremental infrastructure planning work, and discreet conversations with potential investors. If anything emerges, it will likely be exploratory rather than binding.

Medium term (6–18 months): Two plausible paths. (1) INEOS increases its stake if pricing and governance align, reducing fragmentation and providing a cleaner runway for stadium and training-ground decisions. (2) A strategic buyer—potentially North American private capital or a state-adjacent entity—tests the Glazers’ resolve with a formal approach, contingent on navigating any INEOS rights and regulatory checks.

Long term (18+ months): A full sale hinges on macro media rights visibility, UEFA revenue reforms, and progress on PSR/FFP frameworks. If United demonstrate sporting recovery and commercial growth, the club’s price could climb further, paradoxically delaying a deal. Conversely, a clear, fully funded stadium plan might catalyze ownership consolidation to eliminate decision friction. The most probable scenario remains staged change—INEOS deepening involvement—unless a bidder pays a true control premium.

Latest today

• Barcelona eye Levante striker Etta Eyong with €30m clause for 2025 move Barcelona eye Levante striker Etta Eyong with €30m clause for 2025 move
• Rival Watch: Mastantuono sidelined, set to miss El Clásico — huge boost for Barcelona Rival Watch: Mastantuono sidelined, set to miss El Clásico — huge boost for Barcelona
• Serge Gnabry cools ‘form of my life’ talk after goal, credits confidence and team play Serge Gnabry cools ‘form of my life’ talk after goal, credits confidence and team play
• Franco Mastantuono ruled out of Argentina duty with muscle overload — long layoff looming Franco Mastantuono ruled out of Argentina duty with muscle overload — long layoff looming

Conclusion

Duncker’s remark doesn’t herald an active auction, but it matters: it confirms the Glazers’ stance is transactional, not emotional. That clarity is useful for fans, would-be bidders, and internal decision-makers. For now, United’s football side will continue under INEOS’s direction, while ownership remains a chessboard where valuation, rights, and regulation intersect.

What will move the needle? A bid that clears a premium threshold and addresses governance complexity in one stroke. Until then, expect noise, periodic “checks” from interested capital, and disciplined silence from principals. The stakes—stadium renewal, competitive parity, and long-horizon commercial growth—demand alignment at the top. Whether that alignment arrives via a fuller INEOS pathway or an external acquirer, the message is simple: United are not off the market; they’re priced like the global asset they are. The next headline won’t be about intent—it will be about someone writing a very large check.