Over a state owning United? All of them are morally superior.
ACTUAL POLL thread - how do you feel about potential Qatari ownership?
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
It's absolutely not a fact - authoritarian perhaps but certainly doesnt quality as a 'brutal totalitarian' regime.
In fact in the Gulf region it's one of the more 'free' states compared to neighbours like Saudi Arabia or Abu Dhabi and its nowhere near the top of the list of least democratic regimes on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:Democracy_Index_2022.svg
Anyway thats going off topic - I was actually more interested in logic behind the sportwashing comments
Last edited:
There is no state officially bidding for United, but ok I get that you dont agree with that
So you prefer Elliott Capital backing the Glazers?
Yes. I’d rather keep the Glazers.
The arguments for sportwashing are well documented, evidenced and explained by people far more eloquent than me to the extent that they could be considered conventional. The onus is on those arguing that it is not sportwashing to explain why, So far, I've been told it's a vanity purchase and nothing more with no explanation as to how that conclusion was reached.
I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United
There are any number of other reasons to buy our club: he's a lifelong fan who thinks he can do a better job than the current lot, vanity, profit, family legacy etc.
We are the crown jewels of sports clubs on this planet, the opportunity to buy only comes around once in a generation
You might want to have a look into the background of Elliott hedge fund - so called 'vulture capitalists' with the power to bring entire countries to their knees after buying up their bad debts
But let's say the Glazers stay as you prefer - how does that improve the human rights situation in Qatar that you seem so bothered about?
There is a single tweet in support of that argument as opposed to a mountain of academic, journalistic and historical evidence to support the idea of sportwashing. But lets say you are correct and the sportwashing possibilities are just a free bonus that come with a purchase motivated by different reason. The sportwashing still exists.
I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United (I have not seen any academic or journalistic evidence related to this)
Remember unlike Man City, PSG and Newcastle - no state fund is bidding for Man United
So how does a state sportswash without even putting their name on the bid?
Last edited:
Agree with your point. In the case of the Middle Eastern countries, it's not just sportswashing btw. They have so much money they can buy anything on this planet. They've frankly gotten bored of owning the biggest yachts, the fastest cars and the best planes. Sports appeals to these oil monarchs because it's one area where you cannot simply buy your way into victory. Yes I know the league titles suggest otherwise, but how many CL titles have City and PSG won since the takeovers? A friend whose family lives in Qatar told me this, and it made everything make so much more sense to me personally.
I understand that you have a view that Jassim isn't representing the Qatari state and that's where your're trying to lead me. It's going to be impossible to conclusively prove either way. That, in itself, is problematic in my view.
Edit: Here's a quote from Qatari state media:
https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/20...ited-bid-qatar-signals-global-sporting-intent
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually my view is that it is not clear either way if Sheikh Jassim is representing the Qatari state, it's certainly possible but by no means definite as some claim
That being the case, I do have an issue with any opinion that at its base assumes it's a state bid
Has this been conclusively confirmed one way or another? Surely the fact we are being linked along with PSG and Braga as becoming some sort of consortium of teams under Qatar's network suggests there is a state link?
See the quotes above. Out of the horses mouth so to speak.
QSI are the official owners of PSG, they also own a minority (20%) share in Braga
Sheikh Jassim says his bid is private so not connected to QSI
Some other Qatari also owns Malaga - officially this is not connected to QSI either.
In fact QSI say they want to buy Malaga, which is a clear example that just because you are a rich Qatari, doesn't mean you are the state.
Last edited:
How can you compare 30 accidents to thousands of deaths in Qatar under life threatening circumstances? Go work outside in 40-50 degree heat for a couple of weeks without enough water breaks and no airco in the facilities where you stay.
Feck Qatar and all those who empower them.
That's a pretty balanced article which presents the other side too though
However, some experts said the influx of capital from the Gulf region into international sport is not linked to image-building or “sportswashing”.
“This isn’t about soft power. It’s about money and governance,” said Craig LaMay, director of the journalism and strategic communications programme at Northwestern University’s Qatar campus...
Ah so if someone dies on a building site in the UK, it's an 'accident' but if it's in Qatar then it's 'murder'
Seems fair
You expect a full dossier to prove someone who no one has ever heard of and claiming to be one of the most cash rich people in the world isn't what he claims to be?
I have £20 billion in my bank account and might buy Real Madrid. Prove otherwise.
A one line rebuttal carrying no explanation, whose or what money and what governance?. Like I say, even if, in the unlikely event that, there are no credible links between the bid and the state, it's is clear that the state will take full advantage of any association. I suppose we each have a burden of proof required in order to form an opinion. My opinion on this particular issue is flexible and based on the balance of probabilities as the nature of the situation makes a conclusive proof impossible. The available information, descriptions of business and political life in Qatar and historical evidence that I have seen weighs heavily to the view that there is state involvement. If you've got anything that refutes that I'm happy to hear it.
Because I wouldn’t be supporting them? I wouldn’t be giving money to them?
is there genuinely no evil regime that could own United that would upset you?
I mean surely that obvious?
1. I agree, and just 1 migrant worker in the Kafala system is cause for condemnation, however the vast majority of these acts occurred prior, during the development of these places into the hubs we know today. So yes, building stadiums was done with the help of human suffering. But this was ongoing at massive scales long before they touched football. And personally, I really didn't hear much of it until they started getting interested in football. It would have been better off for their reputation if they acted like Mauritania. You ask what's bad about Mauritania? Exactly... they did the smart thing in not bidding for WC 2026.
2. It doesn't, but it's about the scale. Relative to the level of legitimacy they've attained already, already, buying a football club does not move the meter much. They're already in. They're embedded. This may be the cherry on top but without the cherry it's still an awesome sundae. For a country/continent that's sold out to them already, it looks weird to make football the last bastion unpolluted by their influence.
My research shows that the money is not an issue - that seems to be many people's reason for why they think it must be a state bid (based on massive under estimates of the family wealth in the media).
There is enough info out there including huge deals HBJ was involved in while working for the sovereign wealth fund, assets & real estate he is known to own, subsequent investments via the private family office (managed by Sheikh Jassim) to suggest that HBJ is a multi billionaire plus has strong links to several financial institutions for any other funding needed. So I have no doubt that they can afford to buy us privately.
There is no owner that would stop me supporting the eleven players in the pitch and going to Old Trafford to watch the match. I do not see that as supporting an owner, I'm supporting my club.
I already had to make this decision when the Glazers came and some fans chose to leave and it's no different now. I decided back then that I was there before them and I would be there after them. I spent a fair bit of time arguing against boycotts on this forum back then and I actually think there was more reason to boycott back then than there would be now.
I do not see any connection between buying a ticket to watch your team in Manchester (or watching on the TV) and the human rights situation in Qatar.
The most important thing here is who is the best potential owner for the club, who will invest in the stadium and sort out our boardroom issues.
I find it absolutely bizarre that you would prefer the Glazers who have mismanaged us for several years based on some worthless moral crusade.
Last edited:
So what's your math on HBJ's fortune, that leaves you 'no doubt'?
Jesus. Only one of these is using malnourished slaves who were fooled into coming over by pretense. This time not the UK.
Last edited:
Posted it up a couple of days ago - feel free to check my post history. I'll dig it out if I get a chance
That's a bit much. Is it the one where you argued that HBJ earned 2+20 on QIA's assets for the years he was at the head of it? Because that is how a hedge fund in the US or Europe works (and the owner doesn't get to keep all of it because there's all of the other employee's salaries+bonuses and other expenses), but not how sovereign wealth funds work. Otherwise some of the managers of Norway's SWF would be the richest people in the world.
Getting millionaire/low billionaire rich because you were involved, be it as a banker, a manager, or a minor partner, in many big deals over your career is something that happens. 10+ billion in wealth without it being your own capital at risk is corruption.
There isn't. If there is, then the lack of uproar over the more significant connections caused by the UK and Qatar intertwining in defense, economics, culture, real estate... is hypocritical or dumb and that's me being polite
Similar thoughts.
I am at every home game and some away. Some members of my family are at every United game home and away including Europe. I will welcome any owner who provides us with a team able to compete at the very top. To be fair, I'm not even bothered about an upgrade of the stadium or Carrington.
I salute those who genuinely care about the working conditions of people in Qatar. I'm too invested in the club since my childhood to get really concerned about the situation in Qatar. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change the situation. I have a family member who moved to Qatar and he loves the place. He argues those working in Qatar have better pay and conditions than back home in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
As much as it's admired to be concerned our standard of living and working conditions in the West are mostly better than those of other poorer nations whose workforce are willing to sacrifice living away from families to earn more money than in their home countries.
I don't actually think he would have been taking as much as 2+20, it was just an example of what's considered normal. Let's say it's half, even a quarter - feel free to do the maths.
Then imagine that he left his state role in 2013 and used that money to set up a private family office fund to invest in real estate etc - this one managed by Sheikh Jassim himself for some years. Here are just one or two of the assets the family owns privately:
https://www.oerlive.com/qatar/former-qatari-pm-cashes-in-with-333-million-london-hotel-sales/
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesand...ncil-vetoes-staircase-renovation-a135876.html
https://www.manchesterworld.uk/spor...-mansions-to-yachts-and-picasso-works-4056410
So Norway is clearly not a good comparison - do the managers of their SWF own a $300m yacht or have the funds to buy a $200m Picasso or a £150m house in London?
These are just a few of the assets we actually know about, just try to imagine all the assets that are not public knowledge!
By the way that Picasso purchase was the most anyone in the history of the planet Earth had ever paid for a piece of art. And his London house will be the most expensive home in the UK (£300m value).
I'd suggest the person who is able to do that is probably one of the world's wealthiest people.
Those wanting to boycott the club due to their concerns I would also say they need to research our major clothing suppliers whose manufacturing are based in poorer countries. I can guarantee they work in far poor conditions and death rates from accidents are pretty common. We are very likely to be supporting these businesses by wearing the garments every day. Difficult to live a such high moral life.
If those in the West are so concerned about the working and living conditions of the workers in these newly developing countries it is mostly their citizens who are at the forefront of the development of infrastructure and buildings. They can and should make a stand against unsafe conditions with the Qatari government or threaten to quit. Similarly, the workers mostly know exactly the working and living conditions before they commit to signing contracts.
Thankfully we only have to look at the poll to see that the vast majority (85%) are not considering any kind of boycott and I'm sure many of those who are conflicted will keep supporting too
I totally understand that some fans have concerns, I do too, but ultimately I'm only interested in what's in the best interests of our club
And we do need that stadium refurb sooner or later !
What the actual heck is going on now?
You categorically can’t say that Sultan. They aren’t paid ffs!
Do you really believe the employees are not paid?
There are probably more concerning reasons to be against a Qatari owning the club than coming up with unfounded accusations.
But in many cases the contract is only signed after arriving in Qatar buy which time of course many migrant workers will have taken out large loans to pay agents, travel fees etc.
https://www.sheenservices.com/news/...#:~:text=Signing contracts: If the employer,8.
Well, no - it's not proof of that.
But United have millions of fans. And if a (significant) number of those fans go from actively (vocally) stating their dismay with Qatar (in one way or another) to actively (vocally) stating their support of Qatari ownership...that works in Qatar's favour, yes?
(I mean, it obviously does - it can hardly be interpreted in any other way.)
If you don't want to call it "sportswashing", then fair enough: but it hardly matters what you call it: the effect is the same.
ETA
Let's be clear about what we're talking about here:
This isn't simply about "hypocritical" United fans accepting Qatar as the club's new owners, i.e. people who have previously voiced their dismay with City's (or PSG's, not least) owners on seemingly "moral" grounds - but who now happily accept Qatar, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites, etc.
It's about United fans who bend themselves out of shape to rationalize their new stance: look at this thread (and the other one). It's dominated by posters who are either fully against Qatar - and posters who are making all manner of excuses on behalf of the (potential) new owners (in terms of those pesky subjects - we all know what they are).
The posters who flat out admit that they just don't give a shit about "morals" (they just care about football) are much less prominent.
Now, following your premise (as I take it to be): the latter category proves your point to a degree. The former, however, clearly does not: they (the posters in this category) are effectively doing a "sportswashing" job on behalf of Qatar.
Last edited:
I hate this line of argument because it is akin to saying "those who aren't concerned about everything should not be concerned about anything". It is deflection and whataboutism.
The topic for discussion on this Manchester United forum right now is, understandably, a state-backed ownership of the club where that state has demonstrated a disregard for human rights. People are right to be concerned and disturbed at this prospect.
There have literally been instances of this yes?
Why… do you think human rights groups across the world are up in arms about this bid?