he parallel is real and the issue is in governance, which had and will impact performance. Tata Sons is not in decline the way United has been. The group is worth roughly $185 billion, and the fight is over who controls it. United's story is about what happens when a great institution's ownership and decision-making structure stops serving the institution itself.
1. A founding-era succession problem
Manchester United's slide began when Ferguson left in 2013 with no institutional replacement for his authority. The club had effectively outsourced judgment to one person, and what followed was a revolving door of managers and strategies. Tata had a similar moment when Ratan Tata stepped back and then died in 2024. Much of his authority was personal and moral, and the structure that remains has to settle things by formal rights. The current clash is a symptom of that vacuum.
2. Owners whose interests diverge from the institution's
The Glazers' leveraged takeover loaded the club with debt and treated it as a financial asset. Fans' "Glazers out" protests were about that mismatch. In the Tata case, the Trusts own about 66% of Tata Sons, and the philanthropic owners and the executive board are now in open conflict. Per reports, the Tata Sons board voted 4-1 on September 17, 2026 to reappoint N Chandrasekaran as chairman, and Noel Tata, who chairs Tata Trusts, called the decision "illegal." The owners and the operators are no longer aligned.
3. Power split between two centres
United's long problem was unclear authority. Owners, an executive vice-chairman, a director of football and a manager each held part of the decision-making, with no single accountable line. The Ratcliffe/INEOS arrangement, which gave a 25% investor control of football operations while the Glazers kept majority ownership, is a patch on that problem rather than a resolution. Tata has the same dual structure: Bombay House runs the group, while the Trusts hold the voting power. Both are cases of control without clear accountability.
4. Infighting spilling into public and legal arenas
United's dysfunction became visible through leaks, briefings and fan protests. The Tata fight has gone further into formal channels. Noel Tata and his son Neville filed a caveat in the Mumbai city civil court on October 7, 2026, naming fellow trustees Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Darius Khambata and Bhaskar Bhat. Srinivasan has asked the Maharashtra charity commissioner to order an inquiry into the trust's administration and governance, and has questioned Noel Tata's continuing status as a perpetual trustee and his son Neville's induction into SDTT. Tata Trusts has also brought in senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to represent it. In both cases the dispute eventually absorbed more energy than the core mission.
5. A strategic fork nobody can agree on
United has cycled through philosophies: Moyes, van Gaal, Mourinho, Solskjær, ten Hag, each with different squad-building logic and little continuity. Tata's equivalent is the listing question. Tata Sons has begun steps toward a potential listing following the RBI's position on its Core Investment Company registration, while Tata Trusts says it has not agreed to a listing and wants alternatives examined. A regulator-forced decision is landing on owners who disagree about the group's purpose.
6. Legacy as both asset and constraint
Both institutions run on inherited prestige. United's brand sustained revenue for years after results declined, which delayed hard reform. Tata's reputation for ethics and trust is its core asset, and a prolonged public feud erodes exactly that.
Where the analogy breaks
Performance: Tata's operating businesses are not failing. United's decline is measurable on the pitch, and Tata's crisis is a control dispute.
Purpose of ownership: The Trusts are charitable and the Glazers are profit-seeking. Tata's problem is arguably too much principle in conflict, not too little.
Reversibility: A football club can reset with a new coach and a good window. A conglomerate with a regulatory, legal and shareholder tangle cannot move that fast.
Precedent: The Mistry episode in 2016 already showed Tata what happens when the owner-operator relationship breaks. United had no comparable warning.
Takeaway
The shared lesson is that institutions built around exceptional individuals and informal authority are fragile when that person leaves, and that formal structure then has to carry weight it was never designed for. United's version of that lesson has taken more than a decade to play out. Tata's is only now playing out.
Caveat: the Tata material above is from recent reporting and the situation is moving quickly, with court filings and the AGM still ahead. Manchester United is at the bottom of the EPL table at the time of writing
Share this post