Incendiary documents submitted to the Admiralty Court as part of the INEOS Racing v Athena Racing legal battle have shown just how far the relationship between Sir Ben Ainslie and Sir Jim Ratcliffe deteriorated before the two split allegiances after the 37th America’s Cup.

We’ve read the full documentation and, as a British sailing fan, it’s shocking.

The case relates to INEOS’s claim that the assets of the British America’s Cup Challenge from the 37th America’s Cup belong to the sponsor. Ainslie, and Athena Racing, contend that they have always belonged to them.

The latest document filed is a Defence from Athena Racing Limited. This 41-page document lists the many reasons that Athena believes that INEOS’s claim is groundless.

However, the most striking elements document just how the relationship between Ainslie and his title sponsor broke down.

Sir Ben Ainslie skipper and Sir Jim Ratcliffe celebrate after defeating Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team during Race 11 of the Louis Vuitton Cup Final in 2024. Photo David Ramos/Getty Images). Top photo: Ainslie and Ratcliffe at the Royal Yacht Squadron, Cowes, in 2018. Mark Lloyd/Getty Images.

‘He will burn your house down’

Under the understated heading ‘The Claimant does not come to equity with clean hands’, Athena lays why it believes INEOS’s conduct “has been, by any objective standard, reprehensible and improper.”

It reports that on 12 October 2024, hours before the first race of the AC37 Cup Match in Barcelona which Ainslie was about to skipper, the INEOS Sport chief executive and CEO, Jean-Claude Blanc and Mr Nevin attended a meeting at Alinslie’s office at the team base in Barcelona.

“During the course of the meeting, Mr Nevin and Mr Blanc demanded that, in order for the Claimant to provide funding for future America’s Cup campaigns for the Defendant, it required the Defendant to transfer to the Claimant all of its assets and intellectual property.

“Mr 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 Group chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe in 2019. Photo: DIRK WAEM/AFP via Getty Images

“In response, Sir Ben attempted to defuse the situation by reminding Mr Nevin that the first AC37 race would be beginning shortly. Mr Nevin then reiterated and expanded upon his threat, explaining that the only instance in which Sir Jim had backed down from a dispute was one concerning the state of the People’s Republic of China.”

Ainslie and INEOS Britannia lost both match races to Emirates Team New Zealand on that opening day of the Cup final.

Ainslie locked in team offices

Other extraordinary elements include an account of when INEOS security visited the British Cup team at their working site in Turweston, Northamptonshire.

The day that the split was made public, on 23 January 2025, Raymond Fellows of INEOS – accompanied by a staff member thought to be a security contractor – told those working there that they were banned from using the site. Everyone was instructed to leave – also leaving their laptop behind. The Cup team employees refused to comply.

The next day the Fellows returned, chaining and padlocking the building from the outside – and locking Cup team employees inside.

Ratcliffe and INEOS Britannia crew celebrate a victory against Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli in 2021. Photo by Gilles Martin-Raget / AFP via Getty Images

Ainslie and his CFO Matt Robinson used a fire escape to get out of the building, and persuaded Fellows to remove the chains and padlocks on the basis that his actions were ‘intimidating the Defendant’s members of staff and causing health and safety risks’.

The Cup team was also locked out of its IT systems from January 2025 until July 2025. The Defence document states: “MercedesF1 did not restore the Defendant’s access to its IT facilities until July 2025, following significant correspondence and the threat of injunctive relief by the Defendant.”

Athena’s Defence

Shocking though these claims of heavy-handed tactics are, the case is likely to hinge on drier topics such as contract interpretation, and tax.

Interestingly, the Defence document outlines that while INEOS claimed that they would enter the 38th America’s Cup themselves (at the time stating “‘we already have 100 scientists and engineers working on the design of our AC38 yacht”), that was in itself a breach of contract.

But, perhaps inevitably, it might all come down to taxes. The Defence document notes that: “As the Claimant was at all relevant times aware…” throughout all three Cup campaigns, Ainslie’s team benefited from “significant UK tax allowances and credits in respect of qualifying capital assets and research and development expenditure.

“In order to obtain such allowances and credits, the assets… were required to be owned by the Defendant.”

Ben Ainslie, team principal of INEOS Britannia, at the team’s winter training base in Palma

The Athena team has stayed largely tight-lipped on the subject of this cause, excluding a quiet confidence that they have done nothing wrong and that the boat, and relevant assets, are theirs. However, as every racing sailor knows, once you put yourself in front of a protest jury, it can go either way.

We’ll continue to follow this story closely.