Erik ten Hag has renewed his criticism of Cristiano Ronaldo’s final months at Manchester United, alleging that inadequate preparation, interrupted training sessions and his influence on teammates undermined plans to accommodate him. The former United manager’s account revisits a relationship that collapsed before Ronaldo’s departure in November 2022.
According to multiple reports covering a new interview, Ten Hag maintains that Ronaldo was initially central to his thinking. His argument is that the forward’s preparation made that arrangement unworkable, rather than that he arrived determined to remove an established star.
Ronaldo has not responded to the latest allegations, according to the supplied reporting. His previous account was sharply different: in the television interview preceding his exit, he accused Ten Hag and others at United of marginalising him and described a breakdown in mutual respect.
A dispute about readiness, not just pressing
The most significant element of Ten Hag’s explanation is his rejection of the idea that the disagreement was primarily about demanding too much defensive running from an ageing striker.
Instead, he alleges that Ronaldo lacked the conditioning to contribute adequately even when United had possession, including reaching positions from which he could finish attacks. That shifts the debate from whether a manager should adapt his pressing system to whether a player could fulfil the attacking role being preserved for him.
Reports describe several examples behind that assessment. Ten Hag alleges that Ronaldo withdrew from training sessions, did not reach the intended heart-rate intensity during others and encouraged teammates to conserve their energy. Two reports also recount his claim that Ronaldo completed only two of three prescribed running laps following United’s 4-0 defeat at Brentford.
Those details require care. The reporting supplies no underlying heart-rate readings, thresholds or medical interpretation. It therefore does not establish a clinical fitness failure, nor does it independently demonstrate why a session was curtailed. These remain allegations supporting Ten Hag’s retrospective judgement, rather than publicly available performance evidence.
There is also an important distinction between managing an experienced player’s workload and accepting insufficient preparation. Ten Hag acknowledges that reduced training can be appropriate for someone already in suitable condition. The unresolved question is where Ronaldo stood on that spectrum, and who had the evidence to decide.
The disciplinary record and the missing explanation
The breakdown was not confined to competing assessments of fitness. Ronaldo refused to enter the match against Tottenham as a substitute in October 2022 and left the touchline area before the game finished. Ten Hag subsequently excluded him for the Chelsea match.
That episode gives the dispute a documented disciplinary dimension separate from the newer training allegations. Even if a player believes his workload or selection is being mishandled, refusing an instruction during a match creates a different problem for a manager trying to apply collective rules.
Yet the chronology also complicates any simple explanation based entirely on commitment. Reports note that Ronaldo missed much of pre-season for personal reasons. That provides relevant context for an interrupted preparation period, without proving or disproving Ten Hag’s account of what happened afterwards.
Ronaldo scored three times across 16 appearances under Ten Hag. Those figures describe a limited and unproductive partnership, but cannot settle its cause. Reduced involvement, physical readiness, tactical suitability and the deterioration of trust are not separable simply by counting appearances and goals.
What the reports collectively leave unanswered is how United attempted to repair the relationship before it became irretrievable. Ten Hag says he had discussed his intentions with Ronaldo in Portugal before starting work at the club. The available accounts offer much less detail about any subsequent agreement over training, recovery or selection.
A wider argument about authority at United
The Ronaldo allegations form part of a broader defence of Ten Hag’s United tenure, which ended with his dismissal in October 2024. He also claims the club’s ownership failed to deliver assurances made around his contract extension after the FA Cup triumph that year.
His objection to Scott McTominay’s sale to Napoli is particularly relevant to that argument. Ten Hag presents the transfer as a decision taken against his wishes, while elsewhere describing goalscoring and recruitment as persistent difficulties.
The connection is managerial authority, although the situations are not equivalent. With Ronaldo, Ten Hag argues that an individual failed to meet the requirements of his team. With the ownership, he argues that decisions above him weakened his ability to shape it. Both claims deserve scrutiny rather than being accepted as a complete explanation of United’s problems.
The latest interview adds detail to Ten Hag’s side of the rupture, but does not resolve it. It shows how differently manager and player understood the same failed partnership: one emphasising preparation and collective obligations, the other having previously emphasised exclusion and disrespect. Without supporting training evidence or a fresh response from Ronaldo, that central disagreement remains open.