Saudi/middle eastern involvement in sport

[Hugo]

Just wondering whether anyone holds strong opinions on the way in which the Saudis (and wealthy middle eastern types in general) have started buying up sport?

I don't follow golf but I heard they are getting heavily invested in golf, Qataris are looking into buying Man United, the Saudi league are buying up players left right and centre.

Is anyone worried about what direction this is going in?

[Ymx]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

[Prembore]

I'm fine with it, but I draw the line at BP subsidising tickets for the theatre

[Hugo]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

[JM2K6]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

[Biffer]

Don't like money in sport when it's to make it some kind of plaything, a rich man's toy being used for his own entertainment / reputation etc. Everything from that twat at Gretna FC to the Saudis. If it was market related none of this would happen.

One of the best (and richest) sporting leagues in the world, the Nfl, is run on the basis of redistribution of income, not letting anyone dominate because they're richer and actively trying to make the poorest teams in a closed shop better. It's hugely successful, the teams are worth billions, but you can't come in and just chuck money around and expect to win.

[robmatic]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

Yes, we certainly don't want to humanise those bloodthirsty Middle Eastern types.

[robmatic]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

I think the sportswashing argument is overdone because actually it's not about increasing their reputation in the West. Internally, these kinds of investments are popular with the Saudi public for instance and are a source of national pride for the citizens. There is an element of competition between the Gulf states as well.

[Jim Lahey]

There have always been sugar daddies involved in sport so I'm choosing not to get as upset over it as others. I can understand other people's dislike at the idea, and the reasons behind them however.

Yes the Saudis are total kunts but at least the west can benefit from their investments, and can siphon off some of the mountains of money we willingly send their way for oil.

I don't think the Middle Eastern investments into football clubs has changed the general population's impression that the Gulf states are run by a backward pack of kunts that oppress their populations. The Qatari world cup, if anything, highlighted this fact further.

So I don't buy the sportswashing argument. Everyone still knows that they are pricks, so nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned. The morality argument of taking "blood money" is also moot imo. We are taking back some of the money we are already sending them, and for our benefit. And the revolution to overthrow these kunts has to come from within. The West should not be meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries imo, unless there is a significant humanitarian crisis, not forcing Western values and concepts onto people that have little exposure to them.

[JM2K6]

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

Yes, we certainly don't want to humanise those bloodthirsty Middle Eastern types.

Certainly not the repressive and murderous regimes, no. Sportswashing is PR for them, not the for the common people.

[Sandstorm]

It’s fine. There’ll be another Arab spring soon enough and then the smug clubs owned by those countries will lose their Rich owners like Chelsea did.

[dpedin]

Such is life - it has always been thus!

What I find funny is the outcry when the Middle East money takes over the PGA/DP World golf or the English Premier league or even starts poaching players from the EPL for the own league by paying loads of dosh and everyone starts moaning about it. These sports sold their souls to the devil a long time ago and are only now complaining about it when someone with more money and not their preferred 'devil' comes along and spoils their business model. The Saudis, Qataris and the like are just rich vultures in different clothes from the rich Russian/Eastern European oligarchs or the soulless US capitalists. They all have good financial reasons for investing in sport and it has nothing to do with sport - getting credibility in the Western world, laundering dodgy roubles of over leveraged financial takeovers and access to cheap debt seem to be the biggest ones. Sports like football clubs are assets with huge and reliable income streams, like the UK water or power companies, and are being bought up in a world wide market place in order to make easy huge profits for their new owners.

The players - footballers, golfers, baseball, basketball, cricketers, etc - are mercenaries and will go wherever the money takes them, they have a rare skill set so will make the most of it whilst they can. Who blames them?

In a decade or two the Saudis might get bored or feel they have drained the last $ out of sport and leave it as quickly as they came in and then someone else will come along - google, Apple, Tesla, Amazon etc? - and decide sport is a good investment for them for whatever reason and muscle in and the clubs will be sold to them and the players will continue to pick up the big checks and the supporters will continue to cheer on their 'local team' regardless of who owns it!

Unfortunately for English rugby they tried to jump on this bandwagon, sold their souls too cheaply and to the wrong devils nd then found out that their product and income stream wasn't strong enough, have ended up discarded by the investors and are having to resize their business model. They tried to mirror the French model but forgot they didnt have the real big money investors they needed.

[shaggy]

Such is life - it has always been thus!

What I find funny is the outcry when the Middle East money takes over the PGA/DP World golf or the English Premier league or even starts poaching players from the EPL for the own league by paying loads of dosh and everyone starts moaning about it. These sports sold their souls to the devil a long time ago and are only now complaining about it when someone with more money and not their preferred 'devil' comes along and spoils their business model. The Saudis, Qataris and the like are just rich vultures in different clothes from the rich Russian/Eastern European oligarchs or the soulless US capitalists. They all have good financial reasons for investing in sport and it has nothing to do with sport - getting credibility in the Western world, laundering dodgy roubles of over leveraged financial takeovers and access to cheap debt seem to be the biggest ones. Sports like football clubs are assets with huge and reliable income streams, like the UK water or power companies, and are being bought up in a world wide market place in order to make easy huge profits for their new owners.

The players - footballers, golfers, baseball, basketball, cricketers, etc - are mercenaries and will go wherever the money takes them, they have a rare skill set so will make the most of it whilst they can. Who blames them?

In a decade or two the Saudis might get bored or feel they have drained the last $ out of sport and leave it as quickly as they came in and then someone else will come along - google, Apple, Tesla, Amazon etc? - and decide sport is a good investment for them for whatever reason and muscle in and the clubs will be sold to them and the players will continue to pick up the big checks and the supporters will continue to cheer on their 'local team' regardless of who owns it!

Unfortunately for English rugby they tried to jump on this bandwagon, sold their souls too cheaply and to the wrong devils nd then found out that their product and income stream wasn't strong enough, have ended up discarded by the investors and are having to resize their business model. They tried to mirror the French model but forgot they didnt have the real big money investors they needed.

If they had the French model of municipal stadium then it might have been different, however the clubs have invested very heavily in major infrastructure where the majority of the debts have come from.

[Hugo]

. The players - footballers, golfers, baseball, basketball, cricketers, etc - are mercenaries and will go wherever the money takes them, they have a rare skill set so will make the most of it whilst they can. Who blames them?

Indeed. They are professionals with short careers and so naturally they should go to where they will get most handsomely rewarded for their talents.


Once I saw the light and realised that for the players it is their job its the main reason why over the past few years I just don't have an ounce of interest in club/franchise sport. Professional sport is primarily a vehicle for making money and it seems a little silly to be heavily bought into it.

[Hugo]

Don't like money in sport when it's to make it some kind of plaything, a rich man's toy being used for his own entertainment / reputation etc. Everything from that twat at Gretna FC to the Saudis. If it was market related none of this would happen.

One of the best (and richest) sporting leagues in the world, the Nfl, is run on the basis of redistribution of income, not letting anyone dominate because they're richer and actively trying to make the poorest teams in a closed shop better. It's hugely successful, the teams are worth billions, but you can't come in and just chuck money around and expect to win.

As a model to ensure a level playing field the NFL is definitely very good.

However, in my opinion in most respects the league is appalling. The teams will just up sticks and leave in the middle of the night (Baltimore Colts, Oakland Raiders etc.) if they can get a better deal in another city and the players are largely cannon fodder.

[Biffer]

Don't like money in sport when it's to make it some kind of plaything, a rich man's toy being used for his own entertainment / reputation etc. Everything from that twat at Gretna FC to the Saudis. If it was market related none of this would happen.

One of the best (and richest) sporting leagues in the world, the Nfl, is run on the basis of redistribution of income, not letting anyone dominate because they're richer and actively trying to make the poorest teams in a closed shop better. It's hugely successful, the teams are worth billions, but you can't come in and just chuck money around and expect to win.

As a model to ensure a level playing field the NFL is definitely very good.

However, in my opinion in most respects the league is appalling. The teams will just up sticks and leave in the middle of the night (Baltimore Colts, Oakland Raiders etc.) if they can get a better deal in another city and the players are largely cannon fodder.

Well, they can't just up and leave in the middle of the night, not since baltimore did it. If you leave out the Rams and the Raiders there have only been four moves in sixty years. Rams and Raiders have struggled to find the right place but they're both now in cities that have made major commitments and have the two best stadiums in the league (world?).

[Hugo]

Don't like money in sport when it's to make it some kind of plaything, a rich man's toy being used for his own entertainment / reputation etc. Everything from that twat at Gretna FC to the Saudis. If it was market related none of this would happen.

One of the best (and richest) sporting leagues in the world, the Nfl, is run on the basis of redistribution of income, not letting anyone dominate because they're richer and actively trying to make the poorest teams in a closed shop better. It's hugely successful, the teams are worth billions, but you can't come in and just chuck money around and expect to win.

As a model to ensure a level playing field the NFL is definitely very good.

However, in my opinion in most respects the league is appalling. The teams will just up sticks and leave in the middle of the night (Baltimore Colts, Oakland Raiders etc.) if they can get a better deal in another city and the players are largely cannon fodder.

Well, they can't just up and leave in the middle of the night, not since baltimore did it. If you leave out the Rams and the Raiders there have only been four moves in sixty years. Rams and Raiders have struggled to find the right place but they're both now in cities that have made major commitments and have the two best stadiums in the league (world?).

Isn't it the case though that the threat of leaving town is often used as a bargaining chip to get local governments to pay for new stadia?

I always thought that was why Los Angeles went so long without a team because it was more useful to the owners as a place they could threaten to go to.

[Masterji]

LIV certainly didn’t seem to go away, such was the money injection. I fail to believe they are making anything given the exorbitant cash being thrown at the players.

So something being paid over it’s market value is not great.

The other issue with it really is sportswashing.

But I certainly don’t feel massively strongly about it myself.

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

[fishfoodie]

I am no fan of the Saudis but bloody thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Ah yes, the classic whataboutery gambit

Will we just ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi ?

Or that the Bin Ladens are ?

Or the aggressive war against Yemen ?

Or them happily funding Daesh, & spreading mass murder & barbarity across the globe ?

Or cutting a Journalist apart with a Chainsaw ?

Or them being complete & utter cunts at home ?

Or them taking every opportunity to squeeze the balls of Western Economies by cutting oil production; are you enjoying your fuel prices ?

If any of this landed on your doorstep, would you be as ambivalent towards the House of Saud ?

It's all fine when it's brown people being butchers like animals, but it's only relevant when its you kids getting slaughtered.

[JM2K6]

Good points, although this idea of sportswashing has always seemed to be a little bit of a reach because I think this investment in sport seems to generate a lot of negative attention. I'm not sure its all that effective at laundering reputations.

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

[sturginho]

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

Suella is working on it I'm sure

[Masterji]

The negative attention is overwhelmingly outweighed by the positive - the advertising, the careful PR, the rabid fan bases, the "humanising" of a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards, etc etc.

Sure, it's not going to work on everyone, but it doesn't have to. It just has to make them more palatable to deal with in the eyes of the common man, and therefore a much easier sell for governments.

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

The UK govt invaded another country based lies, it led to 1000s of deaths. You don't have to be a professor in ethics to believe that as much as we pretend to be better, we are just as bad in killing innocent people, so cut he crap about us being the good guys and the others are the bad guys. There is no such thing except in the minds of few gullible individuals like you.

[sockwithaticket]

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

The UK govt invaded another country based lies, it led to 1000s of deaths. You don't have to be a professor in ethics to believe that as much as we pretend to be better, we are just as bad in killing innocent people, so cut he crap about us being the good guys and the others are the bad guys. There is no such thing except in the minds of few gullible individuals like you.

Give the fuck over. If nothing else, the famine the Saudis are deliberately inducing in Yemen makes them worse.

[JM2K6]

I am no fan of the Saudis but blood thirsty bastards? Can you tell me which countries aren't blood thirsty if their interests are threatened? Do you mean USA, UK, Fr etc. Who are these saintly countries that I have missed out on in my lifetime

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

The UK govt invaded another country based lies, it led to 1000s of deaths. You don't have to be a professor in ethics to believe that as much as we pretend to be better, we are just as bad in killing innocent people, so cut he crap about us being the good guys and the others are the bad guys. There is no such thing except in the minds of few gullible individuals like you.

Ah yes, the gulf war and butchering dissidents are exactly the same, morally speaking. Of course.

[Masterji]

Does the UK have murder squads butchering dissidents? We might have just clamped down on protest but I don't see the Met doing that just yet - in their spare time as a hobby, maybe. These are deeply repressive theocratic authoritarian regimes with a history of violence against their own people as well as often being sponsors of terrorism. You don't need to believe in some fairytale about the West being pure and good to recognise the gulf (arf) between them and the likes of the Saudis etc.

The UK govt invaded another country based lies, it led to 1000s of deaths. You don't have to be a professor in ethics to believe that as much as we pretend to be better, we are just as bad in killing innocent people, so cut he crap about us being the good guys and the others are the bad guys. There is no such thing except in the minds of few gullible individuals like you.

Give the fuck over. If nothing else, the famine the Saudis are deliberately inducing in Yemen makes them worse.

I agree it's horrific and evil but who sells the weapons?

[Insane_Homer]

The first 2 F1 races next season will be on Saturday

[sockwithaticket]

The UK govt invaded another country based lies, it led to 1000s of deaths. You don't have to be a professor in ethics to believe that as much as we pretend to be better, we are just as bad in killing innocent people, so cut he crap about us being the good guys and the others are the bad guys. There is no such thing except in the minds of few gullible individuals like you.

Give the fuck over. If nothing else, the famine the Saudis are deliberately inducing in Yemen makes them worse.

I agree it's horrific and evil but who sells the weapons?

Mostly us and the US. I'm well aware, but we sell weapons to a lot of regimes that don't use them for this purpose. It is shameful that we haven't prohibited further sales, especially given our stance on Russia, though back in January it was announced that the ability to supply further arms was being taken to the High Court. I can't find anything about those proceedings beyond they initial announcement.

Probably comes as no surprise to anyone that Liz Truss was heavily involved in clearing future sales back in 2019.