Manchester United said Thursday that the club takes pride in being “inclusive and welcoming” following co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that the UK has been “colonized by immigrants.”

Ratcliffe said he was sorry if he had “offended some people” for his remarks in a Sky News interview on Wednesday, which were heavily criticised by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham.

Sources have told ESPN that the English Football Association (FA) is aware of Ratcliffe’s comments and is looking into the matter.

“Manchester United prides itself on being an inclusive and welcoming club,” the Premier League club said in a statement.

“Our diverse group of players, staff and global community of supporters, reflect the history and heritage of Manchester; a city that anyone can call home.

“Since launching All Red All Equal in 2016, we have embedded equality, diversity and inclusion into everything we do.

“We remain deeply committed to the principles and spirit of that campaign. They are reflected in our policies but also in our culture and are reinforced by our holding of the Premier League’s Advanced Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Standard.”

Earlier on Thursday. Ratcliffe said in his own statement: “I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth.

“My comments were made while answering questions about UK policy at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, where I was discussing the importance of economic growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing in the UK.

“My intention was to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in skills, industry and jobs so that long-term prosperity is shared by everyone. It is critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK.”

His attempt to row back cut little ice with the Manchester United Muslim Supporters’ Club (MUMSC), who issued a dissatisfied response.

“We have noted Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s apology for his ‘choice of language,’ the group said. “However, we do not believe this sufficiently addresses the seriousness of what was said.

“The term ‘colonised’ was repeated and used to describe modern Britain. That language carries significant weight and cannot be dismissed as simply poor phrasing.”

“Expressing regret for causing offence is not the same as acknowledging the wider impact of words used. Leadership requires accountability as well as openness to debate.”

Ratcliffe told Sky News on Wednesday: “You can’t have an economy with 9 million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.

“I mean, the UK is being colonized. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonized by immigrants.”

Should the FA choose to formally investigate the comments, the probe may be focused on FA Rule E3.1, which covers general activity.

The rule states: “A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

Rule E3.2 states that a breach of Rule E3.1 would be considered an “aggravated breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following — ethnic origin, color, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

Ratcliffe, as a club co-owner, is subject to FA rules as a participant.

– UK PM Starmer demands apology from ‘offensive’ Ratcliffe
– Sir Jim Ratcliffe: ‘Very unpopular’ Man United changes paying off

Burnham, who is part of a group of local officials working with Ratcliffe and United on the regeneration of the Old Trafford area and stadium, said: “These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood: a place where people of all races and faiths have pulled together over centuries to build our city and our institutions, including Manchester United FC.

“Calling for curbs on levels of immigration is one thing, portraying those who come here as a hostile invading force is quite another. It is inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory and should be withdrawn.

“Footballers who have arrived from all over the world to play in Greater Manchester have enhanced the life of our city region, as have the many people working in Greater Manchester’s NHS and other essential services and industries.

“We appreciate their contribution as a city region famous for the warmth of our welcome.”

In what appeared to be criticism of the Glazer family who hold a majority stake in United, Burnham added: “If any criticism is needed, it should be directed towards those who have offered little contribution to our life here and have instead spent years siphoning wealth out of one of our proudest institutions.”

ESPN’s Rob Dawson and PA contributed to this report.

Team USA has won its opening game in the 2026 Olympic men’s ice hockey tournament, upending Latvia by a final score of 5-1.

The contest was not without some drama, as the first period included two successful coach’s challenges from Latvia that wiped U.S. goals off the board.

After that, however, the ice seemed to tilt the Americans’ way, and goals from Tage Thompson, Auston Matthews and a pair from Brock Nelson were the difference.

Here’s what we learned in the opener, along with an overall team grade and big questions to ponder prior to Team USA’s matchup against Denmark on Saturday.

Takeaway 1: Who did it better, the Hugheses or the Tkachuks?

There are certain players every team must rely on if it’s going to win. Team USA is no different, and that’s what makes the Hughes and Tkachuk brothers rather crucial.

Let’s start with the Hughes brothers. Quinn might be the most important player on the roster. He’s a top-pairing defenseman who can be trusted in every situation. That was on display against Latvia, as he finished with a team-high 21:29 in ice time and registered two assists. Jack opened the game on the fourth line and also finished with a pair of assists.

What about the Tkachuks? Physicality was a theme Thursday, and the Tkachuks are at the heart of why it was a factor. But there’s so much more to their respective games than being bruising power forwards. It’s why they were on the top line alongside Jack Eichel, which created a combination that used size, speed and skill to present numerous issues throughout the game for Latvia. Brady scored the game’s opening goal, and Matthew added a pair of assists.

Takeaway 2: Does coach Mike Sullivan have a decision to make about his lines?

We’ll expand on Brock Nelson’s individual exploits here shortly, but his contributions showed how the U.S. got quite a bit from its fourth line. Nelson anchored the line featuring Jack Hughes and J.T. Miller and had two goals (and could have had more).

The younger Hughes brother had a pair of assists, but Miller’s contributions are a bit more complicated. Miller set up Quinn Hughes for a first-period goal that was one of the two that were disallowed. He was also at the net front for what became a second disallowed goal that was called back for goaltender interference. Miller had the most ice time of the trio, with a little more than 12 minutes, while his linemates each finished with slightly more than 11 minutes.

Will we see some changes in the games against Denmark and Germany, or will Sullivan stick with what worked?

Everything coming up BROCK. NELSON. #WinterOlympics pic.twitter.com/yy7xGkXiR0

— NBC Olympics & Paralympics (@NBCOlympics) February 12, 2026

Takeaway 3: The fatigue factor

One of the underlying themes from the 4 Nations Face-Off was the pace, especially in the final game between Canada and the U.S.

That pace was a factor in the first four minutes of this game, as part of an approach that saw the U.S. wear down Latvia in numerous ways. Combining that speed with physicality and puck possession eventually made Latvia go from a team that tied the game at 1-1 to a team that struggled to just keep up for the final 40 minutes. There were the penalties. There were the goals that came from those penalties. There were those long shifts that allowed the U.S. to dictate play in a way that helped it score four unanswered goals.

Can the U.S. do that against other teams? It’s possible against the other nations with a mix of NHLers and non-NHLers, but what we saw from the Canadians on Thursday indicates that they would be able to keep up.

Player of the game: Brock Nelson, center

There were the two goals he scored. There were also the two goals he almost scored: one off the post, and one disallowed for goalie interference.

Either way, Nelson had the most memorable and arguably strongest performance of any Team USA player.

Naturally, the conversation around Nelson’s game is going to center around his goal contribution. But there’s also a point to be made about how was always in position and used his 6-foot-4 frame to create openings in what was a physical game against Latvia.

Will the U.S. score even more goals against Denmark?

Being the two gold medal favorites is why there’s going to be one eye on Team USA and another on Canada throughout this preliminary round.

Canada struck first with a dominant 5-0 win over Czechia, shifting the focus to the U.S. in its matchup later on Thursday. The answer was a 5-1 win.

Now it’s about seeing if Team USA can carry that over into its next game Saturday against Denmark. The Danes were playing at the same time as the U.S. and lost 3-1 to Germany, despite the fact they finished with 38 shots.

Overall team grade: A-

The only blemish for Team USA in its opening game was the lone goal it allowed because of a net-front scramble. Beyond that, the Americans controlled every aspect of their opening game.

Those disallowed goals along with Latvia’s game-tying goal created a bit of a tenuous start. But the four unanswered goals — and how the U.S. flexed its skill and strength — made it too hard for Latvia to find an opening.

In a letter to NCAA president Charlie Baker, the Big Ten Conference Student-Athlete Issues Commission (SAIC) called for a continued push to limit or outright ban prop bets based on individual college athletes to reduce harassment and protect mental health and game integrity.

The SAIC wrote Tuesday that student-athletes are receiving angry messages, threats or criticism from bettors when wagers lose, including from fans who sit behind the bench “yelling horrible things” and on social media.

A 2025 study of more than 20,000 student-athletes found that 51% of Division I men’s basketball players had received social media abuse based on their performance, much of it coming from bettors.

“Prop bets are a direct avenue to the overwhelming number of death threats that student-athletes receive if they ‘ruin a parlay’ or cause a fan to lose a bet,” the letter to Baker states.

Baker has pushed state gambling regulators to ban sportsbooks from offering prop bets on individual college players. More than a dozen states prohibit sportsbooks from offering college props, but still jurisdictions allow them, including on alternate betting platforms such as daily fantasy and sweepstakes sites.

Missouri gaming regulators recently denied a request from the NCAA to eliminate college player props.

The SAIC also expressed concern about prop bets damaging the integrity of the game by creating doubt about a player’s performance.

“These athletes are often young and more susceptible to influence, including financial incentives that may encourage them to perform in a certain way or affect specific outcomes,” the letter says.

Last year, three Division I basketball players were ruled ineligible for participating in a gambling scheme centered on prop bets on individual statistics.

“While we understand that sports betting is becoming increasingly more common across the country and allows for states to generate increased tax revenue, prop betting represents unique risks at the college level,” the SAIC wrote. “We believe protecting student-athletes must be a priority. Limiting or eliminating prop betting on college athletics would be a meaningful step toward reducing harassment, protecting mental well-being, and preserving the integrity of college competition.”