No it's not but the media and the fans of other teams would make it out as so
State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
So Abu Dhabi bought Man City because they genuinely love the club and city?
Wasn't he just trying to monetise checkmarks?
It most definitely is a moral platform because it serves as an amplifier to state behavior and objectives, which let’s face it, given that Saudi Arabia is an autocracy, would needlessly affix United to an autocratic regime when there are suitors in the west without MBS’ dirty laundry available.
They bought City to dick wave their wealth (amongst their peers). The same way they buy extra long yachts to dick wave their wealth (amongst their peers)
The concept of them caring about what the average bloke on the street thinks about them has always been ludicrous and I think the Qatar World Cup demonstrated that.
They also bought said clubs to gain global legitimacy, particularly in the west. Having a lot of money alone doesn’t do that. Owning valuable, globally recognized western assets does. Ditto with Saudi.
These kind of thoughts always baffle me. So, for instance, instead of say Norway, it would be preferable to be owned by anyone out of Monsanto, BAT, Anglo American, Chiquita Brands, Amazon, Kyodo Senpaku, etc. I don't know...
Considering history, sports associations and especially football ones have been at the top of the image laundering business since their foundation. One can either accept it or pay the conscience fee. There's always the german solution with clubs 51% fan owned, but since that would make any english club inmediately less competitive relative to the big oil clubs, there's no hunger for that at the moment.
Ah so it's an issue of fan base holding the upper ground over fan base, got it
What action of an autocracy has been amplified/emboldened by ownership of a football club?
Ah so it's an issue of fan base holding the upper ground over fan base, got it
What action of an autocracy has been amplified/emboldened by ownership of a football club?
All of them. Hence the dedicated term sport washing.
They're emboldened all right, all these States are now buying clubs, it's not like they need the money is it?Ah so it's an issue of fan base holding the upper ground over fan base, got it
What action of an autocracy has been amplified/emboldened by ownership of a football club?
They're doing it to improve their image and to diversify their investments, whether the former works remains to be seen but the latter is just plain economic sense
Their global legitimacy was secured long before they got into sports. They've been major players in the international scene for decades, due to geopolitics as you've noted. Their political system isn't challenged. What form of legitimacy is greater than what they have? The need to be loved?
Will the Saud's bombing of Yemen increase by 1.2% now that they've bought Newcastle?
Of course buying clubs to improve their image remains to be seen, it hasn't happened. It's such an insane reason to buy a club. Plus they have many times indicated that they don't care about their global image. Qatar was probably the most controversial host we've had this side of Argentina's junta... Mostly bashed in Western media for their abhorrent views on LGBT issues and deaths of migrant workers... They didn't and don't give a feck.
Diversifying their investments makes absolute sense. That's not sportswashing though. That's just diversification. Now if you have a vested interest in seeing oil autocracies fail then you don't want them diversifying... But that's different from being against sportswashing.
Who knows, but it’s a moral stain no respectable western club should strive to accept.
Why is it an insane idea?
It may not have worked yet but it's slowly getting there, to use the Chinese term, slowly, slowly catchee monkey - that's what they're doing
How many people used to go to Dubai 20 years ago - virtually none, there's a 100+ flights a week from just the UK, there's loads of flights to Abu Dhabi and Saudi as well, people are going there so it's pretty clear their image is improving otherwise, aside from work, why would you go there?
Its much more based around attracting tourism and western businesses investing in the country I believe, obviously governments will do business with whoever has the oil and who's willing to buy weapons, but that doesn't do much for attracting foreign investment in the country, the wwe shows, owning newcastle, these things do. And that's what's behind the drive for modernising aspects of the country, its all about attracting foreign investment for when the world stops needing oil
I strongly disagree with the notion that MBS bought Newcastle for the sole purpose of dick waving. Maybe I'm a cynic, I just find it hard to believe that he isn't looking at the ways he can extend his power. Who knows what sort of influence and leverage it will afford him in the future. I think it's normal and probably advisable to be distrusting of his motives, though.
Last edited:
And yet they chose City.
Sometimes beggars can’t be choosers.
My body is ready.
That's a Chinese term I've never heard
We don't know if the purchase of City and PSG have "worked" for their owners. Why assume it's going to have this huge impact?
Why would you go to Dubai? Probably because they made themselves a major transportation hub and invested oil profits in making Dubai a tourist centre for a huge proportion of the world locked out of Western Europe/North America? This was happening without buying a club though.
You don't need to have a great reputation to be a tourist center. At the risk of the "whataboutism" term being used, there are plenty countries (including democracies) with spotty reputations that remain tourist centers.
The only thing that matters to me is they put the club first.
On ownership most probably the German ownership model comes close to being the best. Other than that any prospective business purchaser will be looking to get a return for their investment or an agenda to market their country.
On ownership most probably the German ownership model comes close to being the best. Other than that any prospective business purchaser will be looking to get a return for their investment or an agenda to market their country.
Most likely get the whip instead
I always find it amusing when people use "glory hunting". Mate, this club has been completely irrelevant for ten years. There are no glory hunters left. Wanting the club to be the best is not "glory hunting". If I wanted glory, I'd have switched to supporting Real Madrid years ago.
I've already made my point in the other thread, so I will just reiterate it here. Americans represent peak incompetence to me when it comes to owning football clubs. Whether born out of ignorance, indifference, or greed, it doesn't matter. Incompetence such as this upsets me greatly. So I'm just not going to subject myself to another 15-20-however-many years of it. And since I won't be watching Manchester United, I won't be watching football at all, except the World Cup and Euros.
I don't believe countries should be able to own football clubs. I don't much care which country.
I'm really surprised fingers are only pointed at the oil nations for killing people (MBS an example). I think there will be so-called respectable nations doing despicable acts to their own population and obviously foreigners including killing.
But hey, carry on if it makes you feel better about your nation being saintly.
But hey, carry on if it makes you feel better about your nation being saintly.
Lets not pretend Newcastle United are a key strategic asset
His motives involve make Saudi Arabia more attractive to western investment , closer ties to the west through cultural acquisitions form a part of that
I was trying to understand what you meant but you seem to want be aggressive. So you know what, saying you want the best for the club is fine but saying if my club is not going to be the best then I won’t support them does sound like a form of glory hunting.
Would you say Liverpool's owners are incompetent?
The best model for ownership is the german 50+1.
However, nobody in EPL will accept that, cause it's not as profitable for smaller clubs, cause under 50+1 you get what you produce which means a bigger club with more fame and clout, inevitably will make more money, and thus create a natural imbalance that will become unbreakable at some point (see Bayern Munich).
If 50+1 was a thing in England, pretty much obvious that Liverpool and United would completely dominate EPL over the Chelseas,Citys, Newcastles, Tottenhams, Arsenals,etc as they are 'naturally' the biggest clubs in England.
No sane club in England will choose 50+1, cause that means straight giving the leadership of the EPL to United and Liverpool.
However, nobody in EPL will accept that, cause it's not as profitable for smaller clubs, cause under 50+1 you get what you produce which means a bigger club with more fame and clout, inevitably will make more money, and thus create a natural imbalance that will become unbreakable at some point (see Bayern Munich).
If 50+1 was a thing in England, pretty much obvious that Liverpool and United would completely dominate EPL over the Chelseas,Citys, Newcastles, Tottenhams, Arsenals,etc as they are 'naturally' the biggest clubs in England.
No sane club in England will choose 50+1, cause that means straight giving the leadership of the EPL to United and Liverpool.
I wouldn't discount Arsenal but basically you're right, it'll never happen now, in facy I doubt you could do it in any major league now, including Germany if they were trying to bring it in now
No country should own a football club, it doesn't matter if it's China, Germany, Australia, Philippines,Norway,Japan,Morocco, Saudia Arabia, etc...whoever.
Especially a country that can pump infinite money cheating the FFP rules.
Any genuine examples where they were unable to work with US or UK before, but suddenly we're able to because of buying City.
Believe what you want.
Yes. They owned Liverpool for half a decade before Klopp. Not pretty. Just as the Glazers owned United during the time of SAF. Both propped up by excellent managers at different times. Just because they didn't saddle Liverpool with crippling debt and left to rot doesn't make them competent owners. The Glazers are just in a league of their own. FSG are notoriously stingy and the Scousers hate them. Too bad they are looking to bail now that their squad needs big investment. I so wish to see Liverpool under FSG, but without Klopp. Good times.
Technically and legally it's not actually countries that own the clubs, it's investment funds that do, I realize that's often a distinction without a difference but the authorities might have some issues in a court if they tried to ban them, moral and ethical objections would have no standing in a legal battle
Well, City are now recogised as a global brand whereas before they were famous for being a vehicle for toilet paper
If it's a choice between the two I'd go Profit Seeking. One thing a lot of people forget about profit seeking in sports is that it requires success to continue a turnover in merchandising and tickets. The better your team perceived on the world stage, the more you can charge for both.
It's not ideal for most of us, but hey who among us can even afford to go to a game now anyway?
State ownership doesn't require profit, unless someone suddenly reverts to the Gold Standard in the next week there's not a state on Earth required to make a profit. So it's a vanity project. If you'll excuse the phrase, it's more likely to be a pump and dump.
Ideally we get Ratcliffe, he stages a coup, freezes utility bills at 2004 levels, gives my cat something for her arthritis and personally trains my puppy fat away.
In reality the Glazers don't care, they're about to make a 1000% profit on their initial fee and can't spare the change for anything except loans. We'll be sold to a state and I'll just have to start going to Bath FC games like I always promised them.
It's not ideal for most of us, but hey who among us can even afford to go to a game now anyway?
State ownership doesn't require profit, unless someone suddenly reverts to the Gold Standard in the next week there's not a state on Earth required to make a profit. So it's a vanity project. If you'll excuse the phrase, it's more likely to be a pump and dump.
Ideally we get Ratcliffe, he stages a coup, freezes utility bills at 2004 levels, gives my cat something for her arthritis and personally trains my puppy fat away.
In reality the Glazers don't care, they're about to make a 1000% profit on their initial fee and can't spare the change for anything except loans. We'll be sold to a state and I'll just have to start going to Bath FC games like I always promised them.
That's not really what sport washing is. Its simply the rehabilitation of a [typically autocratic] nation through sport. Examples would be Putin using the Sochi winter Olympics to lull the international community into a momentary admiration of Russia immediately before Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, or 4 years later, his use of the WC to distract from what he previously did in Ukraine. MBS is no less megalomanical and power hungry than Putin and could easily use any number of PR actions to distract from his wider ambitions, whether with Yemen, Iran, or as a pretext to crack down on internal dissent. That's why its bad business for United or any club to be owned by a nation state, much less a predatory autocracy.
Last edited:
I don't think people quite grasp the fact that a ME takeover of United is a lot different to that of City and Newcastle.
Firstly the club itself is already one of the biggest, if not the biggest in world football so they don't need to aim for that goal. Secondly we already make enough money to fund our own transfers through commercial activity. So again they don't need to pump in millions for players like the Sheikh did.
What we need is a new stadium and the debt clearing. It's a very different situation to PSG City n Newcastle really.
I will be happy with anyone who has the best for the club clear in their thoughts.
Firstly the club itself is already one of the biggest, if not the biggest in world football so they don't need to aim for that goal. Secondly we already make enough money to fund our own transfers through commercial activity. So again they don't need to pump in millions for players like the Sheikh did.
What we need is a new stadium and the debt clearing. It's a very different situation to PSG City n Newcastle really.
I will be happy with anyone who has the best for the club clear in their thoughts.
So you are against being state owned, but at the same time are trying to relate United to Marx as some kind of honor? The guy who didn’t work, the guy who let his sons die of hunger, the guy who started a doctrine which has been a failure everywhere and only caused misery and hunger. Really?
Marx also advocated state ownership of private industry. So it does check out, just in a very confused way.