On the 7th of October, it was announced that a Saudi-led consortium had successfully taken over Newcastle United. In the following days, fans' euphoria manifested itself in raucous street parties, shameless gloating on social media and a viral appearance by Sam Fender on GMB. In short, this was a godsend due to the possibility of trophies, superstars, and European football and the economic implications for the City. Investment in a football club can have myriad social benefits.
The classic example is the story of Manchester City. When Sheikh Mansour opted to drag City from mid-table mediocrity to the pinnacle of world football with the financial muscle, the whole of Manchester knew about it. Research conducted in 2019 concluded that City's title race with Liverpool brought in an estimated £220m for the City's economy. The Thinktank Centre for Economics and Business Research believes that any involvement in a title race can boost a city's growth by 1.1%. This is without considering the direct investments made into the local area, such as the 1,229 employees (as of 2020), the £4m annual rent paid to the council for the stadium and the 80 acre City Football Academy which set them back £200m.
Having witnessed the revolution in Manchester over the past decade or so, Newcastle fans can be forgiven for celebrating the boundless possibilities that this takeover could offer. The Saudi Public Investment Fund – worth £320bn – dwarves Sheikh Mansour's measly £22.9bn fortune, meaning that Newcastle could see an unprecedented level of investment. However, as is the case with most examples of corporate philanthropy, there is a high moral cost that can't be swept under the rug.
Despite the 'legal assurances' made to the Premier League, Saudi Arabia's influence over Newcastle United is no escaping. 80% of shares are now owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, effectively Saudi Arabia's savings account. The chair is Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman or 'MBS.' This is controversial for many reasons, namely the series of human rights abuses that are reportedly allowed to occur in Saudi Arabia by MBS. However, it's believed that one of the key reasons behind the purchase was to effectively use Newcastle United as a PR tool for the Saudis, a practice commonly known as 'sportswashing.'
In theory, this would make supporting Newcastle an immoral form of consumption but football fans, myself included, are willing to maintain a degree of cognitive dissonance to continue supporting their club. This is because whilst the new owners of Newcastle are – most would agree – objectively wrong people, that isn't to say that the likes of Chelsea's Abramovich, City's Sheikh Mansour or even United's Glazers are paragons of moral virtue. Most football fans would consider their owners extremely repellant people who've done hugely immoral things, but this knowledge doesn't affect their unwavering support.
England fans, too, are content to enjoy the following football at the expense of human rights. Next year, football fans will flock to Qatar to watch the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, De Bruyne and Foden playing on pitches built by thousands of indentured servants working under unacceptable conditions. Seemingly, despite the current trend towards ethical consumption, football remains immune to any pesky moral concerns. Now that oppressive foreign regimes are effectively buying up the beautiful game, the question remains how long can this wilful ignorance last.
Whilst fans regrettably have little power in today's game, it's about time we see some adequate legal checks and balances implemented by the EPL itself to stop aiding and abetting these abhorrent owners in their attempts to appear otherwise.
Comments