INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe are facing mounting criticism at Manchester United, with their city rivals recently dominating headlines over serious financial breaches.

Manchester City were found guilty of numerous breaches of Premier League financial regulations by an independent commission in September.

The investigation uncovered arrangements designed to artificially inflate revenues and reduce costs by more than £900 million between 2009 and 2018.

City have appealed the findings, with their punishment yet to be determined.

Meanwhile, United’s ownership has faced scrutiny of its own.

Ratcliffe acquired an initial 25% stake in February 2024, assuming control of football operations while the Glazer family retained majority ownership.

However, hundreds of redundancies, rising ticket prices and disappointing results have left supporters increasingly frustrated.

The Glazers’ controversial 2005 leveraged takeover also continues to attract criticism, with United carrying approximately £689 million in borrowings.

Reports have even suggested the Glazers are unhappy with Ratcliffe over his handling of widespread redundancies.

Sunday’s dramatic 4-4 draw against Aston Villa brought further protests, with supporters releasing green-and-gold balloons and chanting against both ownership groups.

A banner declared: “We don’t want a new stadium, we want the owners out.”

Now, another significant legal development has emerged involving INEOS’ wider operations.

INEOS officially taken to court

According to an official announcement from Belgium’s Council for Permit Disputes on 5 November, three questions concerning INEOS’ Project ONE have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The dispute concerns environmental permits for an ethane cracker at the Port of Antwerp.

Official court documents reveal 615 objections were submitted during a 2021 consultation, followed by another 286 in 2023, totalling 901 objections alongside petitions.

Environmental organisations have challenged permits granted to the project, arguing its environmental assessment fails to adequately consider indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU court must now clarify whether emissions from the supply chain and subsequent plastic waste incineration fall within European environmental assessment requirements.

Proceedings in Belgium have been suspended pending the court’s response.