Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a god complex gone wrong. The Man United co-owner is guilty of making bad decisions time and time again across multiple sports, writes RIATH AL-SAMARRAI

If Sir Jim Ratcliffe ’s hunches around fossil fuels are anything like his instincts in football, then we can only imagine how many pointless holes he has drilled into the ground. For the time being, his ownership of Manchester United is better off buried within the deepest of them.

While the sacking of Ruben Amorim would reasonably be viewed as the right choice, it must be set against Ratcliffe’s decision to stick with the Portuguese so long after his shortcomings became overpowering.

We might choose to rewind at this juncture to October 2025, when Ratcliffe came out of hiding for an interview.

‘He has not had the best of seasons,’ said Ratcliffe at the time. ‘Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years. That's where I would be.’

But he had more to say, which saw him take aim at those who were sceptical.

‘The press, sometimes I don't understand. They want overnight success. You know, you flick a switch and it's all going to be roses tomorrow.

Jim Ratcliffe was bullish about backing United coach Ruben Amorim as recently as  October

But just three months later the axe fell on the Portuguese manager - which had been overdue

‘You can't run a club like Manchester United on knee-jerk reactions to some journalist who goes off on one every week.’

As it transpires, Ratcliffe’s knees were not as sturdy as he would have us believe. Three years? Amorim was given three months. Framed another way, it was an eerily similar duration between Erik ten Hag’s new contract and sacking and the entire tenure of Dan Ashworth.

And that begs a question of which we should trust less - Ratcliffe’s word or his judgement?

Whatever way United choose to spin this latest decision, the Amorim reign has been shambolic. He has been too wedded to one system of play, too emotionally immature for the job and far too quick to hide behind the institutional dysfunctions at United when his own errors were just as obvious. Sacking him was right.

But here’s the rub - we have known all of the above for the vast majority of Amorim’s 14 months at the club.

We have also known that his whims have been indulged to great lengths – United backed Amorim when he purged those perceived to be bad apples or poor fits for his rigid methodology. Goodness, the club somehow contrived to support him with £250million of reinforcements after the feeble efforts of last season.

We can make a virtue of sticking by a manager (or head coach). But we can also query the pig-headedness that compounds bad decisions with worse. That is what Ratcliffe has been guilty of time and again; a god complex gone wrong.

A sense of conviction is a fine thing, but so is humility, and perhaps it is necessary for Ratcliffe to ask himself a few questions around about now.

The petrochemicals billionaire has established a hierarchy at the club which has overseen some poor decision-making

In the wake of Man United's defeat to Tottenham in the Europa League final, Ratcliffe allowed Amorim to invest in £250m-worth of players rather than sacking him

One: Does he really have the skillset to afford himself a vote in this line of work?

Two: Of the fortunes he has spent on director-level advisors, up to and beyond his infatuation with the fluff peddled by Sir David Brailsford, how much good have they brought to the club? Do they ever challenge his views or do they just nod and smile?

Three: Would Amorim have been afforded so much time had the decision to give Ten Hag a new contract not aged in such an embarrassing way?

By this stage in Ratcliffe’s part-ownership of United, it is hard to identify what he has done right, beyond having a surname that isn’t Glazer.

We can broaden that assessment to his endeavours across sport, which largely have two traits in common - a headstrong bullishness from their paymaster and returns that are miles beneath the lavish levels of investment.

I have followed Ratcliffe’s excursions in a number of guises since he began diversifying around seven years ago. There has been a breathtaking arrogance about aspects of his work, which goes right back to when he was first hatching a plan for Eliud Kipchoge to run a marathon in under two hours.

I was there in 2019 when he expressed his hope for London to stage the attempt. Where it jarred was his expectation that the capital would shut down a network of busy roads on three straight weekends to allow for optimal conditions. Asked with some cynicism if that was likely, he sounded like a man used to getting his own way: ‘There are other places where they will do that. They have to think about it.’

A persuasive handful of Ratcliffe's other sporting partnerships - including with Sir Ben Ainslie - have since soured

The mayor of London gave that some thought - it ended up in Vienna.

That mission eventually ended with success. But Ratcliffe’s cycling team has wilted dramatically since he showed up, and the pairing with the All Blacks reached an ugly conclusion last year. Same goes for the sailing adventure with Sir Ben Ainslie.

I recall visiting their team base in Barcelona and being struck by how many copies of Ratcliffe’s own book were on display in the reception.

As ever, he felt folk needed his wisdom. In a sporting context, he could have got away with using a single sheet of A4 paper.