The Tyrants Buying Football

[vegassd]

FIrstly, my contention isn't that Guardiola's support of Catolonia is disqualified by his employment by the Al-Nahyan's. My contention is that it is hypocritical of him to be paid by tyrants while at the same time decrying the tyranny of Spain. Again, one is either opposed to political oppression or one isn't. Is it not hypocritical to say that this type of political oppression is OK, while that one isn't?

Moving on, is it your contention that someone is only qualified to speak out against oppression, racism, sexism, discrimination in general by having actually done something about it? Where is the line? What qualifies as doing something about it? Isn't talking about it, doing something about it? Doesn't that count? If not, I'd ask: what has Guardiola actually done about the situation in Catalonia, seeing as all he's seemingly done is wear a yellow ribbon and make fatuous speeches about humanitarian gestures?

Next I would ask, can you point to an American film company that is owned by the US government? Or the French? Or the British?

I think there are subtle shades in all of this, and it needs to be considered in a pragmatic way as well. It's very easy to take the moral high ground in debates but it's good to try and root that in reality as well.

So in the case of Guardiola, if he doesn't like what the City owners have been associated with does that mean he should never have accepted the job in the first place? Maybe. But if he wanted to compete in the PL and he liked what they were doing on the football side of things then that's the job he needs. In the real world we put aside these sorts of moral worries all the time - particularly when it comes to our lifestyle choices - so why apply a different standard to Pep?

The film company example is another good one. If you are Universal or Warner Brothers you might heavily disagree with US government policies, but what are you going to do about it? Leave America? Hollywood is in America and that's where that business takes place so those companies take the pragmatic choice to work in a location that is run by people they disagree with. It shouldn't disqualify them from making anti-whatever movies.

The company Mondelez have done some pretty terrible things in the past, but if your parents come back from holiday and get you a Toblerone from the airport do you throw it in the bin and chastise them for their poor judgement, or do you say thanks and eat the chocolate? When Mondelez bought Cadbury do you instantly stop buying Cadbury products? Nestle have done some pretty bad stuff too as it goes, so getting through Easter and Christmas holidays is going to be a tough moral justification!

We all buy into products created by morally questionable companies or that use morally questionable source ingredients or work forces. We all buy into products created in countries run by morally questionable regimes. It doesn't mean we condone these things... but we have a life to lead and you can't always get 100% moral perfection.

 

[Tucker]

I think there are subtle shades in all of this, and it needs to be considered in a pragmatic way as well. It's very easy to take the moral high ground in debates but it's good to try and root that in reality as well.

So in the case of Guardiola, if he doesn't like what the City owners have been associated with does that mean he should never have accepted the job in the first place? Maybe. But if he wanted to compete in the PL and he liked what they were doing on the football side of things then that's the job he needs. In the real world we put aside these sorts of moral worries all the time - particularly when it comes to our lifestyle choices - so why apply a different standard to Pep?

The film company example is another good one. If you are Universal or Warner Brothers you might heavily disagree with US government policies, but what are you going to do about it? Leave America? Hollywood is in America and that's where that business takes place so those companies take the pragmatic choice to work in a location that is run by people they disagree with. It shouldn't disqualify them from making anti-whatever movies.

The company Mondelez have done some pretty terrible things in the past, but if your parents come back from holiday and get you a Toblerone from the airport do you throw it in the bin and chastise them for their poor judgement, or do you say thanks and eat the chocolate? When Mondelez bought Cadbury do you instantly stop buying Cadbury products? Nestle have done some pretty bad stuff too as it goes, so getting through Easter and Christmas holidays is going to be a tough moral justification!

We all buy into products created by morally questionable companies or that use morally questionable source ingredients or work forces. We all buy into products created in countries run by morally questionable regimes. It doesn't mean we condone these things... but we have a life to lead and you can't always get 100% moral perfection.

It’s one thing to eat a toblerone, or to work for a dodgy company, it’s another to be part of a sportswashing campaign that try’s to paper over their atrocities.

That’s the difference here, City are a PR exercise, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone involved with the club is part of a concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime.

 

[Krule]

Man City overtake Man Utd as the most valuable Premier League club - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48145285

Spurs 3rd above Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal....nice one !! Full credit to Burnley....7th.

 

[vegassd]

That’s the difference here, City are a PR exercise, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone involved with the club is part of a concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime.

I think this is BS if I'm honest, and I don't think it's a healthy way to think or even to talk on an Internet forum.

Man City existed as an organisation before the new owners came in. Do you expect the clerical staff to quit their jobs because they don't like the reported human rights abuses? Should the ground staff resign in protest against torture? Should the tea lady go on strike because she is appalled at the treatment of women in Emirate countries? Of course not - that's not how real life works.

Is everybody who works for Volkswagen a liar?
Is everybody who works for Starbucks a tax dodger?
Is everybody who works for Walmart in support of human trafficking?

They aren't those things because that isn't how the real world works. People need jobs and when you start to look up the management tree I'm sure you will find all sorts of bad behaviour from the people they work for. The bigger the organisation, the worse the behaviour I would imagine. But it doesn't mean that anybody involved with those organisations are part of a "concerted effort" to support those bad things.

Do you think that Man City fans are also part of the reputation laundering? Or that anybody who has spent any money that has gone towards their club - and this includes Spurs fans buying a beer/food during our games there - is complicit in supporting the regime?

If we want to accuse the royal family of Abu Dhabi as being corrupt that's one thing, but to say that anyone involved with Man City is part of a concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime is quite another.

 

[Tucker]

I think this is BS if I'm honest, and I don't think it's a healthy way to think or even to talk on an Internet forum.

Man City existed as an organisation before the new owners came in. Do you expect the clerical staff to quit their jobs because they don't like the reported human rights abuses? Should the ground staff resign in protest against torture? Should the tea lady go on strike because she is appalled at the treatment of women in Emirate countries? Of course not - that's not how real life works.

Is everybody who works for Volkswagen a liar?
Is everybody who works for Starbucks a tax dodger?
Is everybody who works for Walmart in support of human trafficking?

They aren't those things because that isn't how the real world works. People need jobs and when you start to look up the management tree I'm sure you will find all sorts of bad behaviour from the people they work for. The bigger the organisation, the worse the behaviour I would imagine. But it doesn't mean that anybody involved with those organisations are part of a "concerted effort" to support those bad things.

Do you think that Man City fans are also part of the reputation laundering? Or that anybody who has spent any money that has gone towards their club - and this includes Spurs fans buying a beer/food during our games there - is complicit in supporting the regime?

If we want to accuse the royal family of Abu Dhabi as being corrupt that's one thing, but to say that anyone involved with Man City is part of a concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime is quite another.

You’re taking things to an illogical extreme. We were talking about Guardiola as I recall. Did he work for City before the Al-Nahayans turned it into a PR exercise? Or am I missing something here.

Man City is a PR operation, sheikh mansour didn’t buy it to make money. He bought it to launder his reputation. That’s very different to someone who opposes tax dodging working for Starbucks, or an honest person working for a vw dealership.

So maybe I’m being a little harsh on Doris the tea lady who has worked for the club for years, but I know that if it were me I’d be disgusted at what my club had become. I certainly would have a hard time supporting spurs if the same thing happened to us.

As for the fans, yes I do think they are part of the problem, both city and opposition fans. No one is making them go to city games, they won’t lose their living if they don’t go. But by going in and cheering what this blood thirsty regime have done to the club, they are very much part of the problem.

It only takes a good man turning a blind eye for evil to triumph.

 

[rez9000]

I think this is BS if I'm honest, and I don't think it's a healthy way to think or even to talk on an Internet forum.

Man City existed as an organisation before the new owners came in. Do you expect the clerical staff to quit their jobs because they don't like the reported human rights abuses? Should the ground staff resign in protest against torture? Should the tea lady go on strike because she is appalled at the treatment of women in Emirate countries? Of course not - that's not how real life works.

Is everybody who works for Volkswagen a liar?
Is everybody who works for Starbucks a tax dodger?
Is everybody who works for Walmart in support of human trafficking?

They aren't those things because that isn't how the real world works. People need jobs and when you start to look up the management tree I'm sure you will find all sorts of bad behaviour from the people they work for. The bigger the organisation, the worse the behaviour I would imagine. But it doesn't mean that anybody involved with those organisations are part of a "concerted effort" to support those bad things.

Do you think that Man City fans are also part of the reputation laundering? Or that anybody who has spent any money that has gone towards their club - and this includes Spurs fans buying a beer/food during our games there - is complicit in supporting the regime?

If we want to accuse the royal family of Abu Dhabi as being corrupt that's one thing, but to say that anyone involved with Man City is part of a concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime is quite another.

I wouldn't say it's incumbent on those staff who worked for Man City before the Al-Nahyan's takeover to resign in protest. Yes, being pragmatic is a consideration.

The point isn't those who are constrained in their response by circumstance.

My criticism of Guardiola is based on his stance as some form of political commentator. He has, in the past, made a big deal about his support for the politically oppressed in Catalonia (as he sees it - I'm not commenting on that issue here). But then he is happy working for people who engage in political oppression (to put it mildly) in their own country.

That, for me, is hypocritical. It's like speaking out against Mercedes' rigging of emission data and then taking a job with Volkswagen.

Say Conte was Man City manager, I wouldn't accuse him of hypocrisy because he's not made any statements regarding political oppression and I don't know what his stance is. But Guardiola has.

 

[vegassd]

You’re taking things to an illogical extreme. We were talking about Guardiola as I recall. Did he work for City before the Al-Nahayans turned it into a PR exercise? Or am I missing something here.

It was your extremism that I was primarily annoyed with... to say that "anyone involved" was part of a "concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime" is the kind of rhetoric that really winds me up because it doesn't belong in the real world. Perhaps that is me being pedantic but I see no value in going OTT because it misses the intended point.

The whole "blind eye" thing doesn't wash much either. It makes me think of casting first stones and all that. If you and I were to count up the number of products in our household that contain palm oil, the number of items of clothing prepared in pitiful conditions, or tot up the carbon footprint of the food in our kitchens there is a whole lot of eye turning going on there!

I suppose my grumble is that it's very easy for us all to bitch and moan about these terrible things happening around the world whilst at the same time doing absolutely nothing about them ourselves.

My criticism of Guardiola is based on his stance as some form of political commentator. He has, in the past, made a big deal about his support for the politically oppressed in Catalonia (as he sees it - I'm not commenting on that issue here). But then he is happy working for people who engage in political oppression (to put it mildly) in their own country.

That, for me, is hypocritical.

I would say there is a degree of hypocrisy there for sure, but as I mentioned above I think we live in a world where we are all hypocrites in one way or another. It's near on impossible to live a life free of hypocrisy, so with that in mind I don't think it's beneficial to stop doing "good" things just because you would appear hypocritical.

We could extend this to Raheem Sterling surely... should he shut his mouth about racism because he is employed by a human rights abuser? That must make him equally as hypocritical as Pep right, albeit talking about a different form of oppression? These are things that both Pep and Raheem have strong feelings about / get questioned about and I don't think we should crap on their opinions / actions just because their boss is a grade A prick.

 

[scat1620]

Honestly, in a theoretical world where we had the ability to swap circumstances with Man City, I'd take that swap. I'd be lying to say otherwise.

 

[dontcallme]

With all the technological advances in the world someone needs to work out how to make me a God so I can just go round smiting people.

 

[rez9000]

It was your extremism that I was primarily annoyed with... to say that "anyone involved" was part of a "concerted effort to launder the reputation of a repressive regime" is the kind of rhetoric that really winds me up because it doesn't belong in the real world. Perhaps that is me being pedantic but I see no value in going OTT because it misses the intended point.

The whole "blind eye" thing doesn't wash much either. It makes me think of casting first stones and all that. If you and I were to count up the number of products in our household that contain palm oil, the number of items of clothing prepared in pitiful conditions, or tot up the carbon footprint of the food in our kitchens there is a whole lot of eye turning going on there!

I suppose my grumble is that it's very easy for us all to bitch and moan about these terrible things happening around the world whilst at the same time doing absolutely nothing about them ourselves.


I would say there is a degree of hypocrisy there for sure, but as I mentioned above I think we live in a world where we are all hypocrites in one way or another. It's near on impossible to live a life free of hypocrisy, so with that in mind I don't think it's beneficial to stop doing "good" things just because you would appear hypocritical.

We could extend this to Raheem Sterling surely... should he shut his mouth about racism because he is employed by a human rights abuser? That must make him equally as hypocritical as Pep right, albeit talking about a different form of oppression? These are things that both Pep and Raheem have strong feelings about / get questioned about and I don't think we should crap on their opinions / actions just because their boss is a grade A prick.

I think there are levels. When the example is as egregious as the torture and forced disappearance of political dissidents, the repression of women, the de facto enslavement of labourers, the murder of gays, it is harder to claim that one aspires to a moral standard when one is being paid by them.

Although I would also label Sterling as hypocritical for being paid, for supporting his lifestyle, from his employment, there is one component that has to be considered: he's speaking about something that he has experienced personally. Although, that said, there is an argument that he's actually more hypocritical because he's actually experienced the adversity and yet persists in drawing his salary from those who engage in precisely that same behaviour.

If I use a smartphone constructed in China, that does make me hypocritical. However, the options available to me are limited. These individuals are highly-paid people who would not suffer significant disadvantage by refusing to serve the Al-Nahyan's. A tea lady quitting her job would then have to find work in a market where there is far more competition for her services. Sterling coud play for any club in the world and would be paid a comparable amount. Guardiola could manage any club in the world and would be paid a comparable amount. Even on a pragmatic level, they have options that the majority of us don't. In a way that puts the onus on them to act more responsibly. They have freedoms that most of us don't.

However, if they don't want to make that tiny sacrifice, then they should, at the very least, not moralise about the actions of others. There are levels of hypocrisy.

 

[SugarRay]

Nailed it Rez.?

 

[Krule]

I think there are levels. When the example is as egregious as the torture and forced disappearance of political dissidents, the repression of women, the de facto enslavement of labourers, the murder of gays, it is harder to claim that one aspires to a moral standard when one is being paid by them.

Although I would also label Sterling as hypocritical for being paid, for supporting his lifestyle, from his employment, there is one component that has to be considered: he's speaking about something that he has experienced personally. Although, that said, there is an argument that he's actually more hypocritical because he's actually experienced the adversity and yet persists in drawing his salary from those who engage in precisely that same behaviour.

If I use a smartphone constructed in China, that does make me hypocritical. However, the options available to me are limited. These individuals are highly-paid people who would not suffer significant disadvantage by refusing to serve the Al-Nahyan's. A tea lady quitting her job would then have to find work in a market where there is far more competition for her services. Sterling coud play for any club in the world and would be paid a comparable amount. Guardiola could manage any club in the world and would be paid a comparable amount. Even on a pragmatic level, they have options that the majority of us don't. In a way that puts the onus on them to act more responsibly. They have freedoms that most of us don't.

However, if they don't want to make that tiny sacrifice, then they should, at the very least, not moralise about the actions of others. There are levels of hypocrisy.

Brilliant !..