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.
This might be a case of too little too late. Can't imagine PL or UK gov changing stance here.
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).