Sir Jim Ratcliffe is in settlement talks with Sir Ben Ainslie over an £180 million legal dispute regarding the AC75 racing yacht Britannia they launched in 2024. The two men have been at odds for 18 months, with the matter now reportedly close to resolution.
Legal action and funding withdrawal
Ineos sued Ainslie's Athena Racing sailing team in March over their continued use of the boat. Ratcliffe announced last January that his chemicals company would no longer be backing them for next year's 38th America's Cup in Naples.
Ainslie had Ratcliffe's funding for the previous two cycles in Auckland in 2021 and in Barcelona in 2024. Manchester United's co-owner said during the latter that he was committed for a third, but backtracked months later.
Ainslie's comments and court timeline
Over a year after legal action began, Ainslie told The Telegraph in Naples this weekend: "A lot of water has flowed under the bridge over the last 18 months. We had a mutual desire to win the America's Cup, and I'm confident we'll be able to find a way to resolve this before it goes to court."
As first reported by The Telegraph, the earliest available dates for hearings and trials at the Commercial Court that are expected to last longer than a week are from 15 November 2027. That would be four months after next year's America's Cup finishes.
Defence and allegations
Ainslie's defence against the High Court action Ratcliffe pursued alleges that he wanted "all of [the team's] assets and intellectual property" transferred to him in return for his continued support. The filing claims Ineos Sport chairman Rob Nevin "stated to Sir Ben: 'This is what Jim wants. We have a phrase at Ineos: 'scorched earth'. It means that if you don't give Jim what he wants, he will burn your house down' (or words to that effect)."
Ineos Sport chief executive Jean-Claude Blanc also allegedly confronted Ainslie alongside chairman Nevin. Their lawyers did not deny that a conversation took place.
They wrote in filed court documents: "It is admitted that Mr Nevin indicated that Sir Jim would not back down (and had only ever done so in a dispute concerning the People's Republic of China) and in that context referred to 'scorched earth'. But it is denied that these comments would reasonably have been understood by Sir Ben as a 'threat' of anything other than the claimant enforcing its legal rights to the fullest extent possible. Mr Nevin's words were intended to be, and would reasonably have been understood to be, used in a figurative rather than a literal sense."
