Gary Neville has sparked outrage amongst construction workers after demanding they remove a Union Jack flag from his Manchester development site.
The former Manchester United star spotted the flag flying on the fifth floor of his St Michael's office redevelopment in Bootle Street and immediately intervened.
Workers say the 50-year-old walked past the site, saw the flag alongside Moldovan and other flags, then got on the radio to demand specifically that the Union Jack be taken down.
"He only mentioned the Union Flag, not the other two and said it had to come down," one employee revealed to the Daily Mail.
TRENDING
Stories
Videos
Your Say
The incident has left builders furious, with many questioning why they can't display the national flag at their workplace when it's common practice across construction sites throughout Britain.
The construction worker who spoke out said Neville's actions have caused significant anger on site.
Gary Neville posted the controversial video on his LinkedIn page
|"Gary Neville played for England, but he won't let us put a flag up to celebrate the country where we live," the employee explained.
“Afterwards we had to do ‘toolbox chats’ for everyone about political messages on the building site. Basically we had to explain why we can't have flags, and we can't express our political views because Gary Neville says we can't.
Gary Neville has taken aim at people putting up flags around the country | PA"Some of us disagreed, but we had to take them down. They weren't happy that they had to take them down, but they have to do what they are told - they don't want to lose their jobs.
“Everyone else can put their flags up so why can't we?”
The flags had been put up by joiners working for main contractor Domis Construction, with the Union Jack clearly visible from the street whilst the other flags were more hidden inside the site.
The controversy exploded when Neville posted a video on LinkedIn last Friday, initially addressing the deadly synagogue attack in Manchester where two Jewish worshippers were killed.
**SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE DAILY GB NEWS SPORTS NEWSLETTER HERE**
However, his message quickly shifted to criticising the display of national flags across the city.
"We're all being turned on each other and the division that's being created is absolutely disgusting," Neville said in the video. "Mainly created by angry middle-aged white men who know exactly what they're doing."
He revealed he'd "instantly" removed a Union Jack from one of his development sites, questioning why anyone would need to display the flag now when they hadn't in the previous 15 to 20 years.
"It's quite clearly sending a message to everybody that there is something you don't like," he claimed.
The backlash has been swift and severe, with football fans threatening to cancel their Sky Sports subscriptions over Neville's remarks.
LATEST SPORTS NEWS:
Gary Neville featured 85 times for England during his playing days | PA"Really rate you as a pundit, but how the hell can you blame people like me for a terrorist attack?" one viewer wrote online.
The timing of his comments, just 24 hours after the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack by Jihad Al-Shamie, drew particular criticism from the Jewish community.
Barrie Taube, a synagogue security volunteer, said Neville had missed the real issue: "The division is caused by antisemitic rhetoric, not by 'middle-aged white men'."
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson accused the £1.1million-a-year pundit of being "out of touch”.
Neville, who's built a business empire worth an estimated £100million through property investments, defended his stance by citing his 85 England caps and love for his country.
"But the Union Jack being used in a negative fashion isn't right," he insisted, calling for people to "bring ourselves back to the centre."
His St Michael's project, run by his development company Relentless, began construction in 2022 and is set for completion in 2027, creating offices, apartments, a hotel, bars, restaurants and cafes.
Sky Sports has yet to comment publicly on the mounting complaints demanding an explanation or apology for their pundit's controversial remarks.