Dan Ashworth “opposed” redundancies in Manchester United’s football department offering a new reason why the former sporting director was dismissed by Sir Jim Ratcliffe after just five months in the role at Old Trafford, according to Duncan Castles.
INEOS have implemented a series of brutal cost-cutting measures in their first year at the helm at United after Ratcliffe’s minority stake ownership bid was ratified in February 2024.
One of the key areas United’s new co-owner focused on was installing a ‘best-in-class’ executive structure at Old Trafford, led by chief executive Omar Berrada, poached from rivals Manchester City, and Ashworth as sporting director.
Jason Wilcox was also acquired as a technical director from Southampton while Christopher Vivell was hired as an interim recruitment director, though the 38-year-old German was officially appointed to the role on a permanent basis this week.
However, in a shocking twist which offered a first tangible glimpse into INEOS’ chaotic leadership, Ratcliffe chose to sack Ashworth in December, despite a protracted and costly pursuit to capture the director from Newcastle.
Reports suggested the British billionaire was unimpressed with Ashworth’s assessment of Erik ten Hag – dismissed by United in October, despite being his contract being extended in the summer – and the executive’s approach to replacing the Dutchman.
Ruben Amorim, captured from Sporting CP to lead INEOS’ revolution at Old Trafford, was a bold selection by the club; made even bolder by the choice to insist the 40-year-old coach joined mid-season, rather than in the summer, as Amorim had communicated he’d prefer.
Ashworth is believed to have favoured a move for Brentford manager Thomas Frank, whose flexible approach, communication skills, and experience within the Premier League offered a safer option than Amorim.
But Ratcliffe did not want safe; he wanted bold, as did chief executive Berrada, who led negotiations in Lisbon with the Portuguese coach. And it was this contrast in approach which many have suggested was the principal reason behind Ashworth’s dismissal, with the 53-year-old leaving the club less than a month after Amorim arrived in Manchester.
However, speaking on The Transfers Podcast, Castles reveals Ashworth was firmly against redundancies in the football department as the executive believed it would negatively affect the first-team.
The executive believed it would be “bad” for the club to have the football departments reduced in capacity, Castles recaps.
The fact United have announced a further 200 redundancies are possible from the club’s staff body, including those within sports departments, such as the scouting team, suggests Ashworth’s reluctance to back this cull was another significant reason why INEOS pulled the trigger on his position in December.
INEOS believe United’s workforce is bloated and in desperate need of an overhaul. It’s an approach implemented wherever the Petrochemical company have taken over an underperforming business; and it was naïve to expect anything different at an unperforming football club.
If Ashworth had clashed with Ratcliffe over the reason why Ten Hag was kept on and backed in the summer; if he’d failed to see eye-to-eye with the club’s owner over the replacement for the Dutchman; and if the sporting director had rebuffed a key principle of INEOS’ approach to streamlining their businesses, it’s little wonder why the 53-year-old executive was handed his marching orders.
Whether this was the correct move remains to be seen.
Based on INEOS’ chaotic and disjointed first year in charge in England, the removal of a steady pair of hands with a wealth of executive experience in Premier League football feels an unwise one, even if it was bold. But fortune does not always favour the bold.
Follow us on Bluesky: @peoplesperson.bsky.social
Darragh Fox
Darragh is a writer for The Peoples Person who spent three years as a history graduate slowly realising football was by far the most interesting thing to write about.
