There is so much wrong with Malcolm Glazer’s takeover of Manchester United that it might just work.

Glazer, owner of the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, is now also the owner of one of the world’s most famous soccer clubs. He has been stalking Manchester United for two years, gradually increasing his stock holding until he was able, soon after yesterday morning’s opening of the London stock exchange, to increase his share to 75%. At that level, Glazer now assumes control of the club, and will be able to end United’s 13 years as a public company and turn it into his own private business. The remaining stockholders, even if they are not bought out, will have nothing to say about the future running of the club.

This certainly comes under the heading of a hostile takeover. The Manchester United board of directors – the one that Glazer will quickly replace – had refused to recommend Glazer’s takeover bid to its investors. The fans, meanwhile, have shown a suitably fanatical opposition to the move.

Glazer will be privatizing the one club in international soccer that has made an unqualified success of going public. Virtually all of the others, who were encouraged to take the step as a money-raising move during the stock market boom at the beginning of the 21st century, have run into problems. They include Tottenham in England, Italy’s Lazio, Roma, and Juventus, and Germany’s Borussia Dortmund, which announced in February that it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

But just three months ago, United was named – for the eighth year in a row – the world’s richest soccer club, with a $324-million income for the 2003-04 season. Closely following the business success story of ManU were Glazer and his three sons, Joel, Edward, and Brian. Not just the business end of things, but the soccer success, too, it seems.

Last week, Joel spoke for the family in declaring, “We’re all avid United fans.” That statement was immediately ridiculed by the spokesman for United fans as an insult to human intelligence: “Does this guy think anyone will actually believe him?”

Probably not, but what does it matter? With no experience whatever of the treacherous and faction-ridden soccer market, the Glazers are now in charge, and there is almost national outrage in England. A national treasure has been sold to a heartless foreigner who will trample all over its traditions and the loyalty of its fans in search of profits.

That’s the majority view, but a few more reasoned voices have been heard. Arsenal’s French coach Arsene Wenger sees it as “not necessarily a bad thing for Manchester United. I don’t think you can convict a guy who hasn’t even taken one decision.”

But Glazer is utterly guilty of being one thing that the English soccer fraternity can’t abide: an American. That may well be the biggest reason for what looks like almost unhinged vilification. After all, the English all know that Americans don’t give a hoot about soccer, just as they know that all American businessmen are rapacious. How would the Americans feel if Richard Branson took over the Yankees?

Beyond the emotional hostility to Glazer, there is the thorny fact that to amass the $1.4 billion to make the purchase, he has had to borrow nearly $950 million, about half of which is estimated to carry a 10% interest rate. All this to take over what was a flourishing and debt-free operation. Opponents of the move see a doomsday scenario of Glazer trying to maintain ManU as a successful club while he’s forced to raise ticket prices and sell off star players – and maybe even United’s hallowed Old Trafford stadium – to finance the debt he has incurred.

Such a view, however, assumes a pretty naive Glazer – and one of the few certain things about this whole deal is that Glazer is anything but naive. His overall business record and his sports success with the Buccaneers speak loudly against such an idea. The NFL’s finance committee has announced that it will look into the deal to make sure that it does not in any way jeopardize Glazer’s NFL investment, but no one expects any wrong-doing to surface.

In England, the doubts about Glazer persist because his motivation remains a total mystery. Soccer is hardly the most obvious investment if he’s merely looking for profits. Some believe it is the lure of global television money that has attracted Glazer, and that he will try to maneuver United out of the Premiership’s collective TV agreement so that it can make its own deals. But the Premier League’s chief, Richard Scudamore, says that would be “almost impossible.”

And while United has been the most successful club of its generation, Glazer is arriving at a particularly tricky moment for the club. Its performances on the field are faltering, with no major titles won in the past two years. And it now faces the sort of financial opposition that it has never before encountered: Chelsea, drawing on the vast wealth of its Russian billionaire owner Roman Abramovich, can now outspend United with ease.

Unlike Glazer, Abramovich has been welcomed in England. Back in Russia, he is not so well regarded, as the Russians are wondering why, if he’s so interested in soccer, he didn’t choose to help Russian clubs. The same criticism can be leveled at Glazer: I know of no one who’s ever heard of the Glazers being the slightest bit interested in American soccer or in MLS, a struggling league that could do with some financial aid (and which finds itself talking with foreign clubs – of which Manchester United is rumored to be one – in search of investors).

Regardless, the deal is done, and Joel Glazer has made it known that the new owners want to work with the current management, including coach Alex Ferguson. A single dramatic gesture would help – and such a move is available to Glazer. United’s longtime captain, midfielder Roy Keane, is on the verge of retirement. A replacement has been scouted: the young Ghanaian Michael Essien, now playing in France with Olympique Lyon. United doesn’t have the $32 million Lyon wants for him, so Chelsea is the favorite to sign Essien. But a cash handout by Glazer enabling United to corral Essien would greatly help Glazer’s standing among the fans.

At the moment, that standing is about as low as it can get. A United fan group, Shareholders United, is advocating a boycott of United sponsors, but how much support such a move will get is yet another of the unknowns surrounding this affair.

Saturday will see United involved in the FA Cup final against favored Arsenal in Cardiff. Evidence of the extent of fan discontent will make itself known, as Shareholders United are calling on United fans to wear black. The group is also calling for massive anti-Glazer demonstrations at the stadium.

“We won’t do anything that endangers safety,” said Oliver Houston, a vice president of the group, “but they may have to draft in the army to police the match.”

Glazer’s ability to placate this dubious-to-hostile fan base and to return the team to its winning ways will be crucial in the coming months. He has given United the advantage of operating as a private business in which decisions can be made quickly and decisively; but immediate success means spending a lot of money on top players. Having relied on a heavily leveraged buyout to acquire the team, Glazer faces critics who say that he will have no money available for player purchases. Which is why the deal for Michael Essien looms as the first major test of the American’s intentions and of his wealth.