Man Utd charity funding set to be 'axed' by Sir Jim Ratcliffe | OneFootball

Sir Jim Ratcliffe is reportedly set to "slash" the funding received by the Manchester United Foundation in 2025 as part of his extreme cost-cutting regime, according to a report.

The minority stakeholder has ruled with ruthless scythe since investing more than £1.2bn into the club last December. While his company INEOS only owns less than 29% of the overall shares, Ratcliffe's above-market value investment afforded him control of sporting decisions.

This influence has largely taken the form of highly criticised money-saving schemes which have been quickly undermined by far more expensive mistakes. Hundreds of non-playing staff lost their jobs in the same summer that manager Erik ten Hag kept his. The Dutch coach was then sacked in September, making way for the acquisition of Ruben Amorim - all for a total cost of more than £21m.

The Manchester United Foundation is now the latest aspect of the club to be deemed an unnecessary expense by Ratcliffe, according to Sky News. The Premier League giants invested around £1m through its charitable arm last year, but a "substantial element" of the club's support to the foundation is set to be "axed".

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has come under extreme criticism for his extreme cost-cutting measures / Michael Regan/GettyImages

While some insiders at United insist that the club will still play a "significant" charitable role, this is not the first philanthropic venture which Ratcliffe is thought to have undermined.

Just one day before news regarding the foundation broke, it was reported that United had secretly cancelled payments to a charity which supports the club's former players. Ratcliffe and the INEOS project were subsequently accused of "cowardice" by one of United's fan groups.

Ticket prices have been raised and staff Christmas parties cancelled, while the sacking of sporting director Dan Ashworth - five months after he finished five months of gardening leave - cost around £5m.

Ratcliffe defended his extreme approach earlier this month by arguing: "We have to make some difficult and unpopular decisions. If you shy away from the difficult decisions, then nothing much is going to change."