Manchester United’s hierarchy have been accused of failing to properly back Michael Carrick after Jamie O’Hara branded INEOS’s treatment of the manager a “disgrace”.
Speaking on Sky Sports FC, O’Hara questioned why United have not strengthened Carrick’s squad more aggressively after he guided the club back into the Champions League last season.
United have added Youri Tielemans and Andrey Santos this summer, but O’Hara believes significantly more is required if Carrick is expected to compete at the highest level.
“I think it’s a disgrace what they’ve done to Carrick,” O’Hara said.
His criticism centred particularly on United’s defensive options, with Luke Shaw and Harry Maguire among those he highlighted while arguing the squad remains “miles off it”.
Jamie O’Hara questions INEOS backing of Michael Carrick
O’Hara’s comments arrive at an interesting point in United’s transfer window.
The club have deliberately slowed their recruitment since signing Santos and Tielemans to assess how Carrick’s squad developed through pre-season.
However, ReadManUtd reported on Tuesday that left-back has now emerged as United’s main transfer priority, with midfield another area that could still be strengthened.
That makes O’Hara’s focus on Shaw particularly relevant.
United are looking for greater competition on the left and are attracted to the possibility of signing a versatile player capable of covering both left-back and midfield.
The midfield has already received significant investment, although questions remain over its balance. ReadManUtd examined on Monday why Carrick’s £85m rebuild may still be missing an important profile.
Carrick is reportedly pushing privately for at least one more signing and potentially two before the window closes.
O’Hara clearly believes that support is necessary.
United have returned to Champions League football, raising expectations considerably, but their squad still contains several of the same players Carrick inherited.
INEOS now have less than two weeks to decide how far they are prepared to go in strengthening it.
If further reinforcements do not arrive, O’Hara is unlikely to be the last person questioning whether Carrick has been given enough to build on last season’s progress.
Verified internal links used
Man Utd make left-back priority as new transfer profile emerges
https://readmanutd.com/2026/08/18/man-utd-make-left-back-priority-as-new-transfer-profile-emerges/
Man Utd’s £85m midfield rebuild still has one glaring problem
https://readmanutd.com/2026/08/17/man-utds-85m-midfield-rebuild-still-has-one-glaring-problem/
Needs CMS link
None.
Both internal links and the original Sky Sports source are included directly in the article.
External source links
Sky Sports, Jamie O’Hara on Manchester United and Carrick:
https://www.skysports.com/football/video/12606/13574364/man-united-jamie-ohara-says-club-havent-backed-michael-carrick-enough
Embed note
Embed the original Sky Sports video/post featuring Jamie O’Hara’s comments.
This is much stronger than using an aggregator quote graphic because readers can see the criticism in its original context.
Headline
Man Utd told INEOS treatment of Michael Carrick is a “disgrace”
Meta description
Man Utd owners INEOS have been criticised by Jamie O’Hara, who says Michael Carrick has not been properly backed after securing Champions League football.
Focus keyphrase
Man Utd INEOS Michael Carrick
Slug
man-utd-ineos-michael-carrick-jamie-ohara-disgrace
Excerpt
Jamie O’Hara has launched a fierce criticism of INEOS and questioned whether Manchester United have properly backed Michael Carrick this summer.
CMS tags
Manchester United, Michael Carrick, INEOS, Jamie O’Hara, Man Utd transfer news, Youri Tielemans, Andrey Santos, Luke Shaw, Harry Maguire
Star rating
★★★★★ 5/5
A strong direct quote from a major broadcaster, combined with the live debate around Carrick’s transfer backing and United’s remaining squad weaknesses.
Recommended publish time
16:15 BST, Tuesday 18 August 2026.
It follows the net-spend analysis nicely because the two pieces attack the same transfer-window debate from completely different angles.
