Yeah again you are really right to ask that question. I guess my line is state's using the good intentions and blind loyalty of sports fans to wash away the crimes of their dictatorships. I appreciate SA is a very different place to Abu Dhabi, but there is a reason football clubs are being used by these states. It's an effective rebranding tool.
But that's my morality line, when it comes to ownership, for me it is less about the morals of owners, but instead the manipulated actions of fans to defend these states that concerns me. I dont think anyone questions if USM or Abramovich are squeaky clean, but USM and Abramovich are not manipulating fans to create an army of twitter warriors to defend them & that troubles me.
Even
@PaulPowersTash, who is clearly a smart rationale fella, arguing that Man City is "owned by a successful business man" shows how people will ignore what's clear as day to everyone else, in order to defend their club, which let's be honest, we all do to an extent
I don't think theres any disagreement that it's wrong at all mate. We can both agree that sports and politics (or at least, reactionary, despotic politics) shouldn't mix. I just think there are hard lines to draw.
I know I keep saying it, but the lines are blurred. Fine Abramovich and Usmanov have not as yet started trying to wield influence in an explicit way, but have they done so in an implicit way? Would they be prepared to moving forward? Maybe?
Likewise, why do you think say Standard Chartered, who are up for illegal money laundering charges (and essentially facilitating very crooked people and occurences allegedly) sponsor Liverpool? Or Nike who have a reputation for allegedly using child labour in sweatshops pay for these high profile sponsorships? Or Vodaphone with United, who were avoiding taxation and mining parts for phones in dubious ways (allegedly)?
I think it's a very hard line to draw, to say some of the above is acceptable, and others is unnaceptable.
I'll tell you a story, a couple of years ago I went travelling around Eastern Europe. Stayed with a couple of fellas and we spoke about the Old Soviet Union. And I said about the horror stories, the totalitarianism, the spying etc. They said they were brought up with the brutality of the west, the factories we ran where children had their arms pulled off in dodgy machinery. The police attacking and killing working people protesting for the rght to a vote. The cramped, inhumane conditions we lived in. It kind of hit me, that these things around morality are quite complex, and we are quite conditioned to view wrongdoing as something other people do, while we are taught to essentially ignore wrongdoing in our society (or at least give it a different label).
If Sheikh Monsour was seen smiling and giving sports jerseys to a tyrant of a leader who tried to over throw democracy, I don't think we would be defending this on the basis of what one of his newspapers may or may not have said. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we are all part of this conditioning.
As for Mansour, I am not sure anybody with that level of wealth is merely there just because of being a talented businessman. Connections, cronyism, nepotism etc are all at play. I'm sure they are for him. It's also true of this country and America too though. Rich people, meet other rich people and find ways to help each other screw everyone over. I don't think it's just a Middle East issue, thats all.
So I'm in favour of calling it out, but to me it should all be called out. Whether it is leading businesses who have close ties to the government here (or the government itself) or the governments in the middle east. It's all very murky.
