The Manchester Paradox: Is Your University’s Reputation Really Yours?

Universities spend millions building their international reputations. But what if some of their most valuable brand assets have nothing to do with academic excellence, research or rankings – and everything to do with football?

Ask a British student about the difference between the University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University, and you will probably receive a fairly clear answer. One is a member of the prestigious Russell Group, the other a former Polytechnic. One is associated with research excellence and academic selectivity, the other with a more applied, professionally oriented tradition.

Now ask the same question to a prospective student in China, India, Indonesia or the Middle East. Will they know the difference? Perhaps. But how many will understand what the Russell Group represents? How many will know what a Polytechnic was, or that the UK abolished the distinction between universities and Polytechnics more than three decades ago?

Now ask them whether they have heard of Manchester United or Manchester City.

Suddenly, the conversation changes.

For millions of people around the world, Manchester is not primarily a university city. It is a football city. And that raises a question universities rarely ask themselves: How much of our international reputation actually belongs to us?

WHEN FOOTBALL BUILDS A UNIVERSITY’S REPUTATION

Manchester United has spent decades building one of the most recognizable sporting brands on the planet. Manchester City has added another dimension to that global visibility through its sporting success and international expansion. Together, the two clubs have carried the Manchester name into homes across Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas.

A teenager growing up in Indonesia may have followed Manchester United since childhood. A student in India may have spent years watching Manchester City. Someone in China may recognize Old Trafford or the Etihad Stadium long before encountering a British university ranking.

They know Manchester.

They may never have visited the city. They may know very little about its industrial heritage, economy or higher education institutions. But Manchester already exists in their imagination. And that is an extraordinary reputational asset.

Universities spend millions developing brand awareness in international markets. They attend education fairs, invest in digital advertising, establish overseas offices and build relationships with recruitment agents. Meanwhile, Manchester United and Manchester City generate international exposure for the city’s name every single week.

Of course, recognizing Manchester through football does not mean someone will automatically choose to study there. Supporting a football club is not the same as evaluating an academic program. But familiarity matters. When an international student begins exploring destinations for higher education, a city they already recognize may have an advantage over one they have never heard of.

And this creates a fascinating paradox.

The University of Manchester enjoys an established international academic reputation, supported by its research, rankings and institutional history. Manchester Metropolitan University has built a different kind of standing. It was named Modern University of the Year in 2026 and again in 2027 by The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide. It holds TEF Gold for teaching, its Business School has triple-crown accreditation (AACSB, AMBA and EQUIS), and it was the top-rated university provider of degree apprenticeships at the RateMyApprenticeship Awards for five consecutive years.

Yet both share more than the Manchester name. Both trace their roots to the Manchester Mechanics’ Institution of 1824. Both potentially benefit from the city’s global visibility, and both contribute to it. And both operate in a geographical location whose international recognition extends far beyond the British higher education system.

How much of the international recognition associated with these universities comes from their academic achievements, and how much comes from the football clubs whose name they happen to share? We cannot answer that question without research. But the fact that it is worth asking reveals something fundamental about university reputation.

Sometimes, it is built through football.

THE RUSSELL GROUP: A BRILLIANT BRITISH BRAND THAT DOES NOT ALWAYS TRAVEL

The contrast becomes even more interesting when we consider the Russell Group. Established in 1994, the association brings together 24 research-intensive British universities. Over the past three decades, it has managed to establish itself as one of the most recognizable markers of academic prestige within the UK.

For British students and their parents, Russell Group membership has become a powerful shorthand for institutional quality. It influences perceptions of selectivity, academic excellence, employability and social status.

What makes this remarkable is that the Russell Group is neither an accreditation body nor a ranking. Membership does not automatically guarantee a better student experience, stronger teaching or superior career outcomes. It is an association of universities that has successfully built a collective identity. And that identity has become so deeply embedded in British higher education that it is often treated as a proxy for excellence.

But cross the English Channel, and the picture begins to change. Ask a French employer, an American parent or an Indian student what the Russell Group represents, and the answer may be considerably less precise.

Oxford and Cambridge are internationally recognized, of course. So are Imperial, UCL and several other British universities. But their global reputations are not necessarily dependent on Russell Group membership. Indeed, some of Britain’s most respected universities, including Bath, St Andrews and Lancaster, are not members.

This creates another paradox. The Russell Group may be one of the most successful collective reputational brands in British higher education, while remaining far less meaningful to international audiences than to domestic ones.

The distinction between traditional universities and former Polytechnics is similarly rooted in British educational history. In 1992, Polytechnics were granted university status, formally ending the binary divide between the two sectors. More than three decades later, that history continues to influence institutional positioning and domestic perceptions, even where it no longer describes what institutions do.

Positions also move. In the last Research Excellence Framework, Manchester Met doubled both the size of its submission and the proportion of its research rated world-leading, and recorded the third-highest increase in the UK in its share of future research funding. An institution long known mainly for teaching is building research strength alongside it, which a historical classification cannot capture.

But why should a student in Singapore, Dubai or São Paulo understand a British educational classification that disappeared before they were born? And if they do not, what other signals influence their choices?

THE GEOGRAPHY OF PRESTIGE

Manchester is not an isolated example. Consider Nottingham and Nottingham Trent. Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam. Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores. Birmingham and Birmingham City.

Or perhaps the most striking example: Oxford and Oxford Brookes. Nobody would suggest that the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University enjoy equivalent research reputations. Yet Oxford Brookes operates in a city whose name has become virtually synonymous with academic excellence.

For centuries, the University of Oxford has contributed to the city’s global identity. Other educational institutions located there may benefit from the recognition associated with that geographical name, without sharing Oxford University’s history, resources or academic standing.

The same phenomenon exists well beyond the United Kingdom.

Think about Boston. Harvard and MIT have helped establish the Boston-Cambridge area as one of the world’s most recognizable centers of higher education and innovation. Other universities in the region operate within an ecosystem whose academic reputation extends far beyond any single institution.

Or consider Paris. The city’s international reputation is shaped by culture, luxury, business, history and education. Institutions located there can benefit from associations with a globally recognized destination, even when their individual brands are less familiar internationally.

Singapore offers another variation. Its reputation as a global business and financial hub, combined with its strong education system, contributes to the attractiveness of institutions operating there.

Dubai provides an especially interesting case. The city has invested heavily in establishing itself as an international business, tourism and education destination. Universities opening campuses there can benefit from a geographical brand that has been developed through decades of investment in infrastructure, aviation, tourism and international business.

In each case, universities operate within a reputational ecosystem they do not entirely control. The city may be familiar before the institution is. And for universities without globally established academic brands, that familiarity can be valuable.

The city opens the door. The university must then demonstrate why it deserves to be chosen.

THE REPUTATIONAL HALO NOBODY TALKS ABOUT

There is an uncomfortable dimension to this discussion. Universities do not build their reputations in isolation. They operate within ecosystems shaped by other institutions, companies, industries, cultural organizations and public investment.

In Manchester, the city’s international reputation is reinforced by its football clubs, cultural heritage, businesses and universities. But the relationship also works in reverse.

Both of the city’s largest universities contribute to its standing, in different ways. The University of Manchester’s research reputation benefits every institution carrying the Manchester name. Manchester Met, one of the largest universities in the UK, adds scale, professional education and links with employers: it works with more than 500 employer partners on degree apprenticeships and is consistently among the UK’s top five universities for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.

In Manchester the shared reputation is not only an accident of geography. The two universities are partners, with the city council, the NHS and others, in the Oxford Road Corridor, an innovation district of more than 86,000 students and 104,000 jobs. They jointly run the Manchester School of Architecture, and they work together on GrowAI, a UKRI-funded program helping regional businesses adopt AI. Reputation here is partly built on purpose, through collaboration.

In Oxford, the university has played a central role in establishing the city’s international identity. In Boston, Harvard and MIT contribute to the wider region’s academic reputation. In Paris, the prestige of the city and the reputation of its educational institutions reinforce one another.

This is not necessarily a problem. Cities and universities have always benefited from one another. What is interesting is how rarely this reputational spillover is acknowledged in institutional strategy.

Universities spend considerable resources trying to differentiate themselves from competitors while simultaneously benefiting from associations they share with those same competitors. The result is a reputational ecosystem in which institutional prestige, geographical recognition and collective identity constantly interact. Yet we continue to measure reputation as though it were an entirely independent institutional characteristic.

ARE WE MEASURING REPUTATION OR SIMPLY RECOGNIZING FAMILIAR NAMES?

For decades, universities have approached reputation primarily as an institutional asset. They invest in research visibility, international accreditations, rankings, marketing campaigns, alumni engagement and partnerships. The underlying assumption is relatively straightforward: the stronger the institution, the stronger its reputation.

But reputation is not universal. It is contextual.

A university can enjoy considerable prestige within its domestic market while remaining relatively unknown internationally. Conversely, an institution with a modest domestic reputation may benefit from strong recognition in specific countries, industries or professional communities. And geographical identity adds another layer.

This raises an interesting question about international university rankings. Reputation surveys typically ask academics or employers to identify institutions they consider excellent in their respective fields. But how much of those perceptions reflects direct knowledge of institutional performance, and how much reflects familiarity with a name, city or established brand?

This does not mean rankings are meaningless. Research performance, academic quality and employer perceptions remain important dimensions of institutional standing. But it does suggest that reputation and recognition are not necessarily the same thing.

Rankings create reference points. Reputation creates preference.

A ranking may help a university make it onto a prospective student’s shortlist. But it does not necessarily explain why that student will ultimately choose one institution over another. That decision is also shaped by trust, emotional connection and the ability of an institution to demonstrate what it can offer beyond its position in a league table.

A familiar name may attract attention without guaranteeing academic quality. And an excellent institution may struggle for international visibility simply because it lacks a recognizable geographical or institutional brand. Could we be confusing the visibility of an institution with the quality of what it actually delivers?

The challenge for universities is therefore not simply to demonstrate that they deliver academic excellence. It is to explain what makes their contribution distinctive. Most institutions can describe what they teach. Fewer can clearly articulate how they teach differently, and why their educational approach matters.

A compelling institutional narrative must connect these three dimensions: what the university delivers, how it delivers it, and why it matters. But a narrative alone is not enough. It must be supported by tangible evidence, from graduate career trajectories to research impact and partnerships with local industries.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE LOOK AT GRADUATES INSTEAD?

Perhaps the most interesting way to challenge traditional reputational hierarchies is to examine what happens to students after they graduate. The Russell Group enjoys a strong reputation among British employers, and graduates from many of its institutions achieve excellent professional outcomes.

But does the historical distinction between traditional universities and former Polytechnics accurately predict long-term career success? Does a graduate from a Russell Group university necessarily progress faster than someone from a former Polytechnic? Are graduates from research-intensive institutions more likely to become senior executives, entrepreneurs or business leaders? And does the answer change depending on the industry, country or stage of someone’s career?

These questions cannot be answered simply by looking at university rankings or starting salaries. They require us to examine what happens to graduates five, ten or fifteen years after leaving university. Where do they work? How quickly do they progress? Which organizations recruit them? How internationally mobile are they? How many reach leadership positions?

Any meaningful comparison would need to account for differences in student intake, disciplines, socioeconomic backgrounds and other factors before attributing outcomes to institutional quality.

Some evidence already exists. On its Chartered Manager degree apprenticeship, Manchester Met’s achievement rate is 76%, against a national rate of 55%, according to government data. Its own impact research on degree apprenticeships also found a far higher share of first-in-family learners than among young graduates generally. Measures like these, which take account of who students are when they arrive, say more about what an institution adds than its label does.

But such analysis could reveal something fascinating. Perhaps the traditional reputational hierarchy is strongly reflected in graduate career trajectories. Or perhaps certain former Polytechnics outperform some Russell Group institutions in particular sectors, industries or international markets.

Either outcome would tell us considerably more about the relationship between reputation and professional success than institutional labels alone. And it would introduce a distinction that higher education has often struggled to make: the difference between the reputation of an institution and the actual outcomes of its graduates.

THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT DOES NOT SEE THE SAME UNIVERSITY

Perhaps the biggest mistake universities make is assuming that their reputation travels unchanged across borders.

It does not.

A British student choosing between Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan operates within a relatively well-understood national hierarchy. An international student may approach the same decision through an entirely different combination of signals.

They may recognize Manchester because of football. They may consult international rankings. They may rely on recommendations from friends, family or education agents. They may be influenced by tuition fees, employment opportunities, visa policies or the presence of an established community from their home country. The Russell Group label may matter enormously to some of these students and very little to others.

And this is where the conventional understanding of university reputation begins to break down. We speak about institutional reputation as though it were a single, measurable asset. But perhaps we should be speaking about reputations, in the plural.

Domestic academic reputation. International brand recognition. Employer perception. Graduate career outcomes. Geographical attractiveness. These dimensions overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A university can be strong in one and relatively weak in another.

More importantly, the relative value of each dimension changes depending on the audience. And this has significant implications for international recruitment strategies.

Universities often invest in communicating their institutional achievements to audiences who may not recognize the significance of those achievements. A Russell Group university may emphasize its membership in a market where the label carries little meaning. A modern university may underestimate the value of its location in a globally recognized city. And an institution in a less internationally visible destination may need to work considerably harder to establish the recognition that others inherit from their surroundings.

Understanding these differences should be central to international university strategy.

And a new intermediary is entering this reputational ecosystem: artificial intelligence. Increasingly, prospective students can ask AI-powered platforms to compare universities, recommend programs or assess career opportunities. These systems do not simply reproduce institutional rankings. They synthesize information from multiple sources, potentially reshaping how universities are described, compared and recommended.

For universities, this creates a new reputational challenge: understanding not only what people say about them, but also what AI systems say on their behalf. In this emerging landscape, generative engine optimization may become as strategically important as traditional search visibility.

WHO REALLY OWNS YOUR UNIVERSITY’S REPUTATION?

The internationalization of higher education has made reputation one of the sector’s most valuable currencies. Universities compete for students, faculty, research funding, corporate partnerships and international visibility. And increasingly, they compete in markets where their historical position within their national higher education system means very little.

The Russell Group illustrates the power of collective reputation. The former Polytechnic label illustrates the persistence of historical institutional hierarchies. And Manchester United and Manchester City demonstrate how organizations operating entirely outside higher education can contribute to the international recognition of a university’s geographical identity.

None of these reputational signals is inherently misleading. Each communicates something different. The problem arises when we assume they communicate the same thing to everyone.

Perhaps the next frontier in university reputation is not simply achieving a higher position in a ranking, obtaining another accreditation or investing in another international marketing campaign. Perhaps it begins with understanding what prospective students and employers actually recognize, what they associate with an institution and whether those perceptions correspond to measurable outcomes.

Because the uncomfortable truth is that universities do not entirely control their own reputations. They inherit some of it from their history. They borrow some from their cities. They share some with other institutions. And they earn some through the achievements of their graduates.

The real question is not simply how prestigious your university is. It is where that prestige comes from, who recognizes it and whether it translates into something meaningful.

Thus, the first step toward a stronger reputation is not another marketing campaign, but a more fundamental exercise in listening. What do prospective students actually know about us? What do employers associate with our name? What do our alumni say about the value of their education? And how accurately do these perceptions reflect what our institution delivers?

Before changing the story, universities need to measure the gap between the reputation they believe they have and the reputation their stakeholders actually perceive. Only then can they build a distinctive narrative, supported by evidence and carried by the people who embody their institution: faculty, students and alumni.

Two universities can share the same internationally recognizable city name while earning very different kinds of reputation. But once we cross borders, the value of those reputational signals changes. While universities spend millions competing for a few places in international rankings, two football clubs can introduce their city’s name to hundreds of millions of people around the world without ever mentioning higher education.

Which brings us back to the question we started with.

Is your university’s international reputation really yours?

---

Benjamin Stévenin is the former Director of Business School Solutions and Partnerships at Times Higher Education and the co-founder of Deans Insight. Hannah Holmes is Dean of the Business School at Manchester Metropolitan University. Guilhaume Jean is Senior Director of Corporate & Public Affairs at JIN Agency, and leads missions of influence, lobbying, press relations and leaders reputation in higher education, health, mobility, innovation, and industry. A Sciences Po graduate, he teaches at Sciences Po and IHEDN, and serves on the Board of Sciences Po Alumni.

© Copyright 2026 Poets&Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets&Quants, please submit your request HERE.