The Tyrants Buying Football

[Gassin's finest]

FIFA are the worst of the bunch... ever since 1962 and the Chile WC, FIFA are happy to allow corrupt governments spend public money on hosting tournaments, while sweeping the social problems to one side (in the case of the Argentina '78 WC, literally into a big hole in the ground), only to hoover up all the profits.

Explain why an NGO who just arranges football matches has a slush fund of 1 billion dollars?

As long as FIFA practice it, it will continue.

 

[rez9000]

I've been too lazy to get involved in this discussion despite having quite strong opinions about it. I actually agree with you to some extent.

I think it is rather simplistic to say that because Pep gets paid by the city owners it disqualifies his support for Catalonia. He is standing up for something he believes in, most of us dont. We just complain about it and never do anything.

I have a very strong opinion about the negative influence that the US has on the world for example, but I dont really do anything about it. I watch American films and buy products from American companies. I'm equally opposed to Israel's treatment of Palestinians, again I dont do anything about it and no doubt indirectly line their pockets.

And what about the UK? We are as bad as anybody. The French in Africa? Chinese in Tibet?

I'm not sure that morality, in this sense at least, can be applied universally.

We're all hypocrites to some extent.

I am quite proud of the fact that our club isn't bankrolled and that we have tried to do things the right way. But I'm sure that some of the businesses we moved on for our new stadium would disagree. Or that if you were to look at the loans we have taken out to fund it you would find that some morally questionable companies have contributed to it. Would you all be prepared to boycott the stadium if you found that we borrowed from the UAE?

Hey walworth, you raised some interesting points, so I thought I'd move them in here to cover them. Be forewarned, it's a very long post!

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?

Man City (and the Al-Nahyan's other clubs) and PSG (and the other clubs in the QSI group) are directly linked with the governments of the UAE and Qatar. They are instruments of those governments and they are being used to further a governmental objective. That would be bad enough if the governments in question were democratic; that they are absolute monarchies that engage in human rights violations makes it worse.

That isn't saying that countries like the UK, the USA, France or Israel haven't committed humans rights violations. But none of them are going around buying up football clubs in an effort to burnish their reputations. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if they did? Israel, in particular, were it to attempt to do that would be jumped on immediately, and rightly so. So why should the UAE and Qatar be protected from the same condemnation?

It's not uncommon to find that people conflate the struggle of the Palestinians with everything Arab-related. The thinking being that if someone attacks Arabs then it is in some way supportive of Israel or Islamaphobic or whatever. But the Israeli / Palestinian conflict has no bearing on the behaviour of the Emirati and Qatari governments in this regard. Just because they are Arabs has absolutely no bearing on Israel.

The Emirati and Qatari governments don't give shit one about the Palestinians. In fact, the general view of Palestinians in the Middle East is pretty unfavourable. And that's from the man-on-the-street. The upper crust of Arab society views Palestinians as vermin. If you look around the governments of the Middle East, the majority of them have no problem with Israel's existence. The Arab nations are far more concerned with Iran than they are with Israel.

So trying to conflate Israel's behaviour with the behaviour of the Emirati and Qatari governments when it comes to the way they are buying up football clubs is specious. The two do not relate. If Israel started buying up football clubs, then I'd include them in my argument. The discussion of Israel's behaviour is a different subject. That's the mistake NayimFTHL made - he thought that because we're critiquing the behaviour of an Arab country, then Israel's behaviour is automatically relevant. It isn't in this case. If the discussion was about military interventions, then there would be ground for discussion.

When it comes to purchasing products, you have a stronger point, but it's undermined by the fact that purchasing from companies based in the US, the UK, France or Israel doesn't make us complicit in the behaviour of those governments, because those governments are democratically elected (for a given value of democracy, of course) and can be changed.

When it comes to China, it's a tad stronger. With so many products being manufactured there it could be argued that we are, in effect, propping up a dictatorial regime. It may then be argued that we're acting hypocritically. There are key differences however:

First off, it would be impossible to divest ourselves completely of all Chinese products. We can try to avoid them as much as possible, but it's simply not possible to cut out all Chinese products from our everyday lives. When circumstances prevent someone from divestiture, calling them hypocritical for not doing so isn't fair. We can try to pressure companies that make use of Chinese products to divest themselves, but using those products while doing so isn't hypocritical because we often have no choice.

Just to contrast, Guardiola can very easily divest himself of the income that he draws from the Al-Nahyans. His services would be in demand all over the world. He could very easily draw a salary from a club that isn't owned by torturers and oppressors.

Secondly, what the UAE and Qatar are doing isn't about making a profit - it is about trying to deflect attention from their behaviour. In the current accepted economic model, trade is necessary. What China is engaging in is trade. What the UAE and Qatar are engaging in isn't. They don't need any trade beside their oil industry. So what purpose does purchasing football clubs serve? Nothing, except either as a plaything, in which case we have strong grounds for condemnation because of the trophy purchasing; or because they are trying to polish the turd of a reputation they have, which is likewise grounds for condemnation and that's the point of this discussion: that tyrants are buying up football clubs in order to divert attention from their disgusting behaviour. For all its faults, China isn't doing that.

On the loan point, you make a very good one. If the stadium build was funded by a loan from the UAE, then my conviction would be tested. But we don't know where the loans came from, we don't know if those absolute monarchies are benefiting from our support. It's unclear, uncertain. One thing is certain, though:

If I found out that the stadium was funded by a loan from the UAE and I still chose to attend games, do you know what that would make me?

A hypocrite.

 

[aussiespursguy]

Reports now that Qatar want to buy a Premier League club!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html

The report mentions Spam but also us!

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Reports now that Qatar want to buy a Premier League club!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html

The report mentions Spam but also us!

Oh it sure does...

West Ham remain the most likely sellers — despite the owners’ denials — and the Qatar Investment Authority would not be frightened off by a New York investment bank’s £1billion valuation of the London Stadium club.

£1billion?

West Ham?

 

[nailsy]

If West Ham became the next Uber rich team I'd probably give up on football.

 

[Tucker]

If West Ham became the next Uber rich team I'd probably give up on football.

Didn’t the dildo brothers have to sign a thing to say they wouldn’t sell for ten years after the stadium move or something?

 

[nailsy]

Didn’t the dildo brothers have to sign a thing to say they wouldn’t sell for ten years after the stadium move or something?

I think there was something about sharing the profit if they sold within a certain number of years.

 

[rez9000]

What a disgrace that the response by the average football fan to a buyout of another English club by another despotic regime would be virtually non-existent. That we are so apathetic, even hostile, to the idea of collective action that we'd just let another one waltz in and add to the travesty that is Man City.

 

[carmeldevil]

I sure hope Spurs doesn’t sell to one of these oil dictators when Joe Lewis passes on.

 

[Gbspurs]

I sure hope Spurs doesn’t sell to one of these oil dictators when Joe Lewis passes on.

I always thought the same when Roman took over. Then Chelsea won shit loads and everyone stopped caring. When Man City were bought i was glad it wasn't us and thought their achievements would always be tainted. Then they won shit loads and everyone stopped caring.

Nowadays i wonder if it would be such a bad thing. We are doing the right thing and no-one cares, we just get told that we win nothing. If some twats like West Ham get bought and then become a new uber rich club, maybe it's better that it's us?

I think i would still rather not but i don't want to watch another team leapfrog us in that way.

 

[rez9000]

I always thought the same when Roman took over. Then Chelsea won shit loads and everyone stopped caring. When Man City were bought i was glad it wasn't us and thought their achievements would always be tainted. Then they won shit loads and everyone stopped caring.

Nowadays i wonder if it would be such a bad thing. We are doing the right thing and no-one cares, we just get told that we win nothing. If some twats like West Ham get bought and then become a new uber rich club, maybe it's better that it's us?

I think i would still rather not but i don't want to watch another team leapfrog us in that way.

I couldn't do it. I couldn't bring myself to support an oil slaver club. I'd terminate my membership. I just couldn't do it.

 

[Spurger King]

I always thought the same when Roman took over. Then Chelsea won shit loads and everyone stopped caring. When Man City were bought i was glad it wasn't us and thought their achievements would always be tainted. Then they won shit loads and everyone stopped caring.

Nowadays i wonder if it would be such a bad thing. We are doing the right thing and no-one cares, we just get told that we win nothing. If some twats like West Ham get bought and then become a new uber rich club, maybe it's better that it's us?

I think i would still rather not but i don't want to watch another team leapfrog us in that way.

The ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ approach.

I’d like us to be on a level playing field with the teams we’re competing with. If West Ham hopped above us I’d give up on football. Close to doing so anyway thanks to the Sheik Mansour team.

Like @rez9000 I couldn’t support an oil slaver side either, although if some billionaire who is happy to throw cash around and had no evident human rights issues decided to buy us, I’d be happy to see us play the mega bucks teams at their own game.

I guess very few people get to become mega rich without stepping on a lot of innocent people. I’m sure Lewis has more than a few skeletons in his closet, and we’ve also been happy to accept money from PSG and the Sheik Mansour team. The ethical waters are extremely muddy when it comes to football and blood money.

I’m willing to overlook a lot of things when it comes to the insidious side of football, but I think a Qatari owner would be a step too far.

 

[carmeldevil]

The ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ approach.

I’d like us to be on a level playing field with the teams we’re competing with. If West Ham hopped above us I’d give up on football. Close to doing so anyway thanks to the Sheik Mansour team.

Like @rez9000 I couldn’t support an oil slaver side either, although if some billionaire who is happy to throw cash around and had no evident human rights issues decided to buy us, I’d be happy to see us play the mega bucks teams at their own game.

I guess very few people get to become mega rich without stepping on a lot of innocent people. I’m sure Lewis has more than a few skeletons in his closet, and we’ve also been happy to accept money from PSG and the Sheik Mansour team. The ethical waters are extremely muddy when it comes to football and blood money.

I’m willing to overlook a lot of things when it comes to the insidious side of football, but I think a Qatari owner would be a step too far.

I don’t mind a billionaire that has some moral qualms. We all ain’t perfect. Just not prefer a nation buying the Spurs through one of these oil princes or “president for life” etc.

But that’s just me. Opinions vary.

 

[spursfan77]

Reports now that Qatar want to buy a Premier League club!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html

The report mentions Spam but also us!

Depressing. Those who are constantly moaning about enic and levy should be equally concerned who might buy us. It’s a hard one.

 

[SugarRay]

Reports now that Qatar want to buy a Premier League club!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html

The report mentions Spam but also us!

That report is years old mate

 

[riggi]

I’d probably stop going due to the increase in divs and tourists.

 

[Saoirse]

I know Joe Lewis isn't a saint. But if we got taken over by a fascist regime who thinks I should be stoned to death and that Yids deserve to be gassed, that'd be it for me. I wouldn't go or give a penny to that club, because it wouldn't be Tottenham Hotspur any more.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Bump...

https://www.football365.com/news/should-we-divorce-man-city-from-human-rights-abuses

 

[rez9000]

Bump...

https://www.football365.com/news/should-we-divorce-man-city-from-human-rights-abuses

Nice piece.

And it makes a valid point - it's not possible to protest absolutely everything that one finds morally questionable. But one can have principles and seek to live up to them as much as possible.

Personally, I'm someone who is opposed to discrimination in any form. Do I protest every instance of it? No. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. I wish I could. One does what one can to live up to one's principles knowing that it's not always possible to abide by them to the letter, simply because of the nature of the modern world. Where one's aware of a conflict, one does what one can.

Are there football owners other than Man City who have committed immoral acts? Undoubtedly. Are they as egregious and as obvious and as bloodthirsty as the Emirati regime? That's open to debate. But in the same way that two rights don't make a wrong, ignoring so obvious an example of immorality just because there are other immoral acts going on is a shallow, borderline specious, argument.

The world is full of oppression. I am opposed to oppression. Man City's owners are one example of people who oppress others. Therefore I am opposed to Man City's owners' activities and refuse to acquiesce to their ownership of a football club.

And that's not even mentioning the effect they have on football. Even if they were otherwise the saintliest people on the planet, I'd still oppose them on those grounds alone.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Nice piece.

And it makes a valid point - it's not possible to protest absolutely everything that one finds morally questionable. But one can have principles and seek to live up to them as much as possible.

Personally, I'm someone who is opposed to discrimination in any form. Do I protest every instance of it? No. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. I wish I could. One does what one can to live up to one's principles knowing that it's not always possible to abide by them to the letter, simply because of the nature of the modern world. Where one's aware of a conflict, one does what one can.

Are there football owners other than Man City who have committed immoral acts? Undoubtedly. Are they as egregious and as obvious and as bloodthirsty as the Emirati regime? That's open to debate. But in the same way that two rights don't make a wrong, ignoring so obvious an example of immorality just because there are other immoral acts going on is a shallow, borderline specious, argument.

The world is full of oppression. I am opposed to oppression. Man City's owners are one example of people who oppress others. Therefore I am opposed to Man City's owners' activities and refuse to acquiesce to their ownership of a football club.

And that's not even mentioning the effect they have on football. Even if they were otherwise the saintliest people on the planet, I'd still oppose them on those grounds alone.

This is the crux of it to me. This and intentionally seeking advantage at the expense of others misery.