In the coming days, Sir Jim Ratcliffe should discover if the Football Association's legal team has decided that the Manchester United co-owner brought the game into disrepute with his comments on immigration last week, which sparked condemnation from the government and beyond.

The governing body could decide that his remarks met the threshold for him to be charged with a breach of its rules, write to the billionaire to remind him of his responsibilities, or take no action at all.

But whatever the FA does, the impact of his claim that the UK had been "colonised by immigrants" - while citing incorrect population data - could be felt for some time to come.

Regardless of the fact Ratcliffe also received support in some quarters for raising the issue of immigration in his interview with Sky News, the fact United felt the need to issue a statement, external that read like a public rebuke towards their own co-owner was a sign of the dismay felt at Old Trafford - along with concern at the potential cost of the backlash his words provoked.

The pointed assertion of United's "inclusive and welcoming" values - while not directly naming Ratcliffe - was a deliberate attempt to distance the club from him, and according to Old Trafford sources was signed off at the highest level.

Hours earlier Ratcliffe had said, he was "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".

'Glazers will be horrified by Ratcliffe remarks'

Ratcliffe has consistently spoken highly of the Glazer family, calling them "the nicest people on the planet" last year.

But according to a source familiar with them, the club's majority shareholders will have been "horrified" by his initial remarks, and will have seen them as showing "disregard for their ownership".

The Glazers - whose grandparents were Lithuanian Jewish immigrants to the US - are yet to comment on the episode.

But the source believes a key reason they have supported inclusive initiatives such as All Red All Equal at the club is because they see it as a brand to be nurtured and heavily commercialised, and they will have taken a dim view of remarks that could make sponsors reconsider partnering with United.

"Big multi-nationals want to associate with youth, positivity and forward-thinking. United is currently struggling for sponsors… and this exacerbates that," the source added, suggesting that some potential partners would "run a mile".

This came just days after the Glazers reportedly voiced concerns about United's commercial performance at a recent meeting.

It is easy to see why. United have been without a training kit partner since last season, and their shirt-sleeve sponsor is also set to expire in the summer.

Last year, Marriott International - the world's largest hotel company - decided not to extend its sponsorship agreement with United after its contract expired.

The club's deal with Adidas is also worth £10m less this year because United have failed to qualify for the Champions League for two consecutive seasons.

While United still posted a record commercial revenue of £333m last year, their main Premier League rivals have been catching up in recent years.

So, even with the club's statement and Ratcliffe's qualified apology, it is easy to see why there may be some nervousness among club executives in the wake of the controversy.

Perhaps even more will now hinge on whether the team can secure Champions League qualification for next season.

Potential impact on stadium project

What this means for the long-term relationship between the six Glazer siblings - who retain 70% of the club - and their British business partner is unclear.

It is worth noting that under the terms of the agreement under which Ratcliffe invested £1.25bn in the club in 2024, if the Glazers receive an offer from a third party they want to accept, they can compel him to sell his stake.

And then there are the club's hopes for a new 100,000-seat stadium as part of a 370-acre Trafford regeneration project, which relies on the support of local and national politicians.

In January, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and Trafford council leader Tom Ross both hailed a new development corporation designed to deliver the multi-billion-pound plan.

Three weeks later, however, both men issued statements condemning Ratcliffe's comments. The same applied to both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, both of whom had previously expressed support for the redevelopment project.

While local officials have vowed that taxpayer money will not be used for the new stadium itself, public funds are being sought for surrounding infrastructure, including the crucial relocation of a neighbouring freight rail terminal to St Helens.

Burnham has also said that his office could use compulsory purchase powers via the development corporation to force the sale of land required for the new stadium.

It is unclear whether Ratcliffe's remarks may make the ongoing negotiations more challenging, but they came at an important moment.

"Real harm could have been done," one source close to the regeneration project said.

"The dust is still settling, and none of it is insurmountable. But the optics of the council, the mayor, and the government appearing to support his plans just became harder."

United's hope is that those involved focus on the 15,000 new homes, 48,000 new local jobs, and the billions of pounds in economic value the project is said to deliver.

'This is a global club... apology is a first step'

It appears Ratcliffe's relationship with many of United's fans has been harmed too.

"Comments from the club's senior leadership should make inclusion easier, not harder", posted the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST).

Ghulam Haydar of the Manchester United Muslim Supporters' Club (MUMSC) told BBC Sport that Ratcliffe's apology was "a first step", but said he would like the 73-year-old to agree to a meeting with their members in order to provide some assurances.

"This is a global club… what's he going to do to actually assure us that the club is a welcoming space for people of colour, people of migrant backgrounds?" he asked.

MUMSC has said it does not feel that Ratcliffe's apology "sufficiently addresses the seriousness" of what was said.

"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."

Kick It Out - which works to fight racism, sexism and homophobia in football and says overall reports about discrimination have risen again this campaign after last season's record high, external - told BBC Sport that it has already received a number of reports about Ratcliffe's comments.

Having cut jobs and raised ticket prices, Ratcliffe was the subject of a protest by a supporter group just two weeks ago over the way the Ineos hierarchy has run the club since taking over football operations.

It will be interesting to see what kind of reception Ratcliffe receives when he next visits Old Trafford.

Uncertainty also surrounds the impact this could have on manager Michael Carrick - who will face questions about this issue for the first time when he addresses the media this week - along with United's players and staff, described by the club in their statement as a "diverse group [that] reflect the history and heritage of Manchester; a city that anyone can call home."

Despite United's recent upturn in form since the appointment of the former midfielder, these are challenging times for Ratcliffe and his business Ineos, the petrochemicals firm he founded and leads.

Last week, he warned, external that "current conditions for Europe's chemical industry are unsurvivable without immediate intervention".

Those concerns were the reason Ratcliffe was at an industry summit in Antwerp. And they were clearly what he intended to talk about in an interview that instead ended up with him engulfed in a fierce political storm.

It is a controversy that is unlikely to blow over quickly, and the true repercussions are yet to become clear.