Gulf-focused human rights organizations sent letters to the Premier League and the British government calling on them to address state ownership of football clubs.
The owners of City actually have far better record than the bulk of American owners (they have invested massively in Manchester). It seems to me that you can't discriminate and as we know the ownership structures are such that legally they aren't state owned. Just like the PGA isn't. If we ban people from the Gulf on moral grounds, then what about owners from stars like Texas and Florida. Two states that discriminate against women (abortion rights) and love executing people. I'm not supporting the PL here, just suggesting it's a far more complex issue. Then you get into owners from Asia who tend to be heavily linked with state owned fims too. And then I look at the owners of US franchises in NFL, NBA, MLB etc and let's be honest there's plenty I wouldn't want to have a drink with (and who have very strong links to the US Government). And then we have the owners of the WWE and UFC (and the King who's brother was Obama's key man!!)... I would argue the US is using the PL for sift power in the same way as the Gulf stated (and the GB go does too).
Thanks for the feedback! I certainly agree that this discussion requires nuance. However, I think there are some clear distinctions worth noting: City's owner is the VP of the UAE, an Emirati royal, and is one of the most influential politicians in the country. No matter how City fans and the PL spin it, City is a state-powered project. The UAE even admits this, as City is mentioned regularly in their soft power council, which Sheikh Mansur happens to chair! Also, when it comes to their investments in Manchester, there has been significant pushback from locals over the fact that the prime real estate was sold for far too cheap and is being used to generate revenue for the UAE rather than improving life in Manchester.
While American team owners are mostly deplorable, among the key differences is that authoritarian states are not constrained by any institutions or barriers to fulfilling their political agendas. Meanwhile, people like Dana White in the UFC and McMahon in the WWE are using their political connections to boost their revenue, not to reshape the U.S. as part of some prince's political and economic vision.
As you have no doubt seen from reading this newsletter, I believe in covering the intersection of sports and politics in all countries (including the West) and not just in authoritarian states. I'll cover the US and Europe as much as I cover Saudi/Russia because I think there are political controversies in all places. Just because there are problems everywhere, doesn't mean that any one issue isn't worth drawing attention to.
Oh I agree what aboutism isn't acceptable. Top level sport sold it's soul many years ago. It's now just a case of which flavour of rapacious capitalism is acceptable to the home government (in the UK that's everyone accept Russia and China - Russia was OK until the Ukraine war and China until the US started moaning). The US is lucky as it has plenty of very rich people to keep it's clubs and leagues out of foreign owners hands (although PGA just bucked that trend). All very sad, just rich people getting richer.
I think it was Marx who said religion is the opium of the masses. Well, sport and entertainment has replaced Religion in the West and even Saudi's now see it as being essential to keeping the revolutionary instincts of the young in check.
This might be a case of too little too late. Can't imagine PL or UK gov changing stance here.
Indeed. Can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future.
Still, thank you for your work.
The owners of City actually have far better record than the bulk of American owners (they have invested massively in Manchester). It seems to me that you can't discriminate and as we know the ownership structures are such that legally they aren't state owned. Just like the PGA isn't. If we ban people from the Gulf on moral grounds, then what about owners from stars like Texas and Florida. Two states that discriminate against women (abortion rights) and love executing people. I'm not supporting the PL here, just suggesting it's a far more complex issue. Then you get into owners from Asia who tend to be heavily linked with state owned fims too. And then I look at the owners of US franchises in NFL, NBA, MLB etc and let's be honest there's plenty I wouldn't want to have a drink with (and who have very strong links to the US Government). And then we have the owners of the WWE and UFC (and the King who's brother was Obama's key man!!)... I would argue the US is using the PL for sift power in the same way as the Gulf stated (and the GB go does too).
Thanks for the feedback! I certainly agree that this discussion requires nuance. However, I think there are some clear distinctions worth noting: City's owner is the VP of the UAE, an Emirati royal, and is one of the most influential politicians in the country. No matter how City fans and the PL spin it, City is a state-powered project. The UAE even admits this, as City is mentioned regularly in their soft power council, which Sheikh Mansur happens to chair! Also, when it comes to their investments in Manchester, there has been significant pushback from locals over the fact that the prime real estate was sold for far too cheap and is being used to generate revenue for the UAE rather than improving life in Manchester.
While American team owners are mostly deplorable, among the key differences is that authoritarian states are not constrained by any institutions or barriers to fulfilling their political agendas. Meanwhile, people like Dana White in the UFC and McMahon in the WWE are using their political connections to boost their revenue, not to reshape the U.S. as part of some prince's political and economic vision.
As you have no doubt seen from reading this newsletter, I believe in covering the intersection of sports and politics in all countries (including the West) and not just in authoritarian states. I'll cover the US and Europe as much as I cover Saudi/Russia because I think there are political controversies in all places. Just because there are problems everywhere, doesn't mean that any one issue isn't worth drawing attention to.
Oh I agree what aboutism isn't acceptable. Top level sport sold it's soul many years ago. It's now just a case of which flavour of rapacious capitalism is acceptable to the home government (in the UK that's everyone accept Russia and China - Russia was OK until the Ukraine war and China until the US started moaning). The US is lucky as it has plenty of very rich people to keep it's clubs and leagues out of foreign owners hands (although PGA just bucked that trend). All very sad, just rich people getting richer.
Absolutely agree. Well said
I think it was Marx who said religion is the opium of the masses. Well, sport and entertainment has replaced Religion in the West and even Saudi's now see it as being essential to keeping the revolutionary instincts of the young in check.