Erik ten Hag has given his side of his Manchester United years in a two-part interview with Laurie Whitwell for The Athletic. Two years after he was sacked in October 2024, he accuses INEOS of "continuing the toxic culture" at the club, says a promise not to sell Scott McTominay was broken, and says the new owners turned down his help on data because "they were of the opinion that they knew already everything". Manchester United fan YouTubers have been arguing about it since Tuesday, and the club plays Como in the Champions League on 21 October.
Ten Hag, now technical director at FC Twente, puts INEOS's background in plain terms: "they came from petrochemicals, from Formula 1, from cycling. Top football demands something totally different." On talks about the club's structure, he says "with them there was no communication". The rooms mostly agree with the diagnosis. Where they split is over whether he's the right person to make it.
Ten Hag goes after INEOS, and some of it lands
Mark Goldbridge at UnitedStand thinks the second part of the interview "just blows the doors off on what's going on at Man United with INEOS", while still calling it "very balanced". His summary of the complaint is that the new owners wouldn't listen on signings, on data or on training. He also has a reply ready for Simon Jordan, who called it a self-serving interview on talkSPORT: "we live in a world, Simon, where most interviews are self-serving."
Over at UnitedViewTV, Flex and KG look at the results instead of the quotes. "We got a worse win percentage since INEOS came in," one of them says, and that's across three managers, counting Ten Hag, Amorim and Carrick. The fix they want is simple and unlikely: "They have to relinquish power immediately."
The McTominay promise
The detail that has stuck is Scott McTominay. Ten Hag says he'd agreed with the club that McTominay would not be sold, and that he was "very embarrassed and disappointed" when he went to Napoli. FullTimeDevils read that section aloud, but only after a warning: "There is going to be an element of PR here of him trying to sort of paint himself as a good manager who was let down."
Webby & O'Neill like McTominay and never wanted him sold, but the promise story doesn't impress them. "Shame on him for not actually saying who it was," they say. Their live poll went 62% "exposing the truth", 29% "right but shares blame" and 8% "making excuses", but they reject that middle option: "He doesn't share blame. If you read the full article, he does not share blame at all." Their verdict: "some of it's the right message, but just coming from the wrong person."
Some fans haven't forgiven him
SaeedTV starts by declaring an interest. He and Ten Hag "didn't get along". Even with the FA Cup and Carabao Cup, he says, "I think his tenure was really bad." He also has a theory about the timing: the non-disclosure agreement has expired, and the gap since the sacking is about as long as those usually last.
Then there's KGRecklessSport. KG, wearing an Ajax shirt "in solidarity", rings his mate James to defend Ten Hag and gets two words back: "He's a liar." James's evidence is a matchday programme from the start of that season, where Ten Hag's column talked about "working together towards our shared game model." KG says managers don't write those, then admits Onana, Mount and Antony are hard to defend. James puts the three at "250 million pounds", a rough figure KG doesn't check.
The argument: right message, wrong messenger?
Across the rooms, almost nobody disputes what Ten Hag says about the structure. They argue about whether he's earned the right to say it. UnitedViewTV call it "revisionism", Webby & O'Neill want names, and Goldbridge thinks the substance outweighs the motive. Meanwhile, Carrick takes a depleted squad to Como. Ten Hag is busy at Twente, and the people he's talking about are still running United.
More from the rooms: Manchester United fan YouTubers.