What should be done with City's titles?

[GazTheLegend]

@adexkola living up to his tag big time in this thread

@Garnacho's Shoelaces I'd always thought that ownership of football clubs was more of a side hustle for the guys in charge of the UAE, Saudi or whatever. There's a REALLY good reddit thread about the rich and the 'levels' of richness. For instance, a millionaire might own a Ferrari, and their children could go to a private school. But then their classmates Dad is a billionaire, who owns a one Lambourghini, the ONLY car of it's type on planet Earth - and he even owns an island. But that island is in Nova Scotia, and ANOTHER kid's family are yet richer, their family owns -LANAI- in Hawaii. That sort of thing. And partly regarding access, as well - when money is not an object, your time is the most valuable resource you have.

So they'd go to their networking meetings and get to lord it over their friends over a 'coffee' because alcohol is forbidden, and the talk might turn to the football clubs they own, and one of those clubs is not doing so well, and yours just did the treble, so you get that extra layer of superiority. If money is no longer a measure of your success, then you can start living vicariously through the clubs you own. I've never been convinced by the whole sportwashing thing when it comes to Middle Eastern clubs, it's just a jewel in the crown for them. Now the RUSSIANS on the other hand, want to spend their oil money and they certainly don't want to live in Moscow, but London isn't so far off and there's a few football clubs there you can use that oil money on if you so choose... so you can use that oil you stole from trains by falisfying documents during KGB coups (as an example, not suggesting this happened in real life, certainly be an interesting google perhaps?) and put it all into a football club somewhere in London, allegedly.

That's not to say it doesn't improve their image, it does. But it's a multi-layered thing. Plus these days it seems like a pretty solid investment, although in Manchester City's case it's clearly built on pretty thin foundations, Chelsea at least are now a global phenomenon in a way they couldn't have been without that investment in the early 2000's,

 

[Fluctuation0161]

D. Hold the responsible parasites to account in front of a packed etihad stadium, and then execute them. Its a bit extreme, but then, these are extreme times.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

@adexkola living up to his tag big time in this thread

@Garnacho's Shoelaces I'd always thought that ownership of football clubs was more of a side hustle for the guys in charge of the UAE, Saudi or whatever. There's a REALLY good reddit thread about the rich and the 'levels' of richness. For instance, a millionaire might own a Ferrari, and their children could go to a private school. But then their classmates Dad is a billionaire, who owns a one Lambourghini, the ONLY car of it's type on planet Earth - and he even owns an island. But that island is in Nova Scotia, and ANOTHER kid's family are yet richer, their family owns -LANAI- in Hawaii. That sort of thing. And partly regarding access, as well - when money is not an object, your time is the most valuable resource you have.

So they'd go to their networking meetings and get to lord it over their friends over a 'coffee' because alcohol is forbidden, and the talk might turn to the football clubs they own, and one of those clubs is not doing so well, and yours just did the treble, so you get that extra layer of superiority. If money is no longer a measure of your success, then you can start living vicariously through the clubs you own. I've never been convinced by the whole sportwashing thing when it comes to Middle Eastern clubs, it's just a jewel in the crown for them. Now the RUSSIANS on the other hand, want to spend their oil money and they certainly don't want to live in Moscow, but London isn't so far off and there's a few football clubs there you can use that oil money on if you so choose... so you can use that oil you stole by falisfying documents during KGB coups (as an example, not suggesting this happened in real life, certainly be an interesting google perhaps?) and put it all into a football club somewhere in London, allegedly.

That's not to say it doesn't improve their image, it does. But it's a multi-layered thing. Plus these days it seems like a pretty solid investment, although in Manchester City's case it's clearly built on pretty thin foundations, Chelsea at least are now a global phenomenon in a way they couldn't have been without that investment in the early 2000's,

I think it gets beyond the club being a plaything (Boehly, Abramhovich, etc.) when it's State sponsored.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

You seem to think that they bought City to move coverage about them from the horrible stuff they've done, to them owning a successful football club.

sportswashing: the practice of an organization, a government, a country, etc. supporting sports or organizing sports events as a way to improve its reputation.

It's common knowledge that your whole schtick on the caf is taking contrarian and provocative positions on fairly obvious opinions, but the feigned ignorance on this one is quite funny.

 

[adexkola]

@adexkola living up to his tag big time in this thread

@Garnacho's Shoelaces I'd always thought that ownership of football clubs was more of a side hustle for the guys in charge of the UAE, Saudi or whatever. There's a REALLY good reddit thread about the rich and the 'levels' of richness. For instance, a millionaire might own a Ferrari, and their children could go to a private school. But then their classmates Dad is a billionaire, who owns a one Lambourghini, the ONLY car of it's type on planet Earth - and he even owns an island. But that island is in Nova Scotia, and ANOTHER kid's family are yet richer, their family owns -LANAI- in Hawaii. That sort of thing. And partly regarding access, as well - when money is not an object, your time is the most valuable resource you have.

So they'd go to their networking meetings and get to lord it over their friends over a 'coffee' because alcohol is forbidden, and the talk might turn to the football clubs they own, and one of those clubs is not doing so well, and yours just did the treble, so you get that extra layer of superiority. If money is no longer a measure of your success, then you can start living vicariously through the clubs you own. I've never been convinced by the whole sportwashing thing when it comes to Middle Eastern clubs, it's just a jewel in the crown for them. Now the RUSSIANS on the other hand, want to spend their oil money and they certainly don't want to live in Moscow, but London isn't so far off and there's a few football clubs there you can use that oil money on if you so choose... so you can use that oil you stole from trains by falisfying documents during KGB coups (as an example, not suggesting this happened in real life, certainly be an interesting google perhaps?) and put it all into a football club somewhere in London, allegedly.

That's not to say it doesn't improve their image, it does. But it's a multi-layered thing. Plus these days it seems like a pretty solid investment, although in Manchester City's case it's clearly built on pretty thin foundations, Chelsea at least are now a global phenomenon in a way they couldn't have been without that investment in the early 2000's,

You literally agree with everything I've been saying. Seems like someone needs a new tagline

Seriously, yes. Please link that reddit thread if you ever find it.

sportswashing: the practice of an organization, a government, a country, etc. supporting sports or organizing sports events as a way to improve its reputation.

It's common knowledge that your whole schtick on the caf is taking contrarian and provocative positions on fairly obvious opinions, but the feigned ignorance on this one is quite funny.

3 options. 1 is idiotic and a waste of time

1. Ignore the poster if they offer no value to ye
2. Debate the poster's posts
3. Engage the poster based on preconceived biased notions

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

3 options. 1 is idiotic.

1. Ignore the poster
2. Debate the poster's posts
3. Engage the poster based on preconceived biased notions

Well, there is a 4th option.

4. Spot the poster's style across multiple threads across multiple years, realize that they do not debate in good faith most of the time, and call it out when you see it happening in specific posts again so it can save others their time.

Feel free to exercise option 1 yourself, though.

 

[adexkola]

Well, there is a 4th option.

4. Spot the poster's style across multiple threads across multiple years, realize that they do not debate in good faith most of the time, and call it out when you see it happening in specific posts again so it can save others their time.

Feel free to exercise option 1 yourself, though.

I don't think having a strong opinion about something is debating in bad faith. I'm quick to admit when I'm wrong or uneducated on an issue. The issue of "sportswashing" on here is full of circular logic and not backed by much academic research, which is why the very definition is I'll defined. It's a term that has little form outside of internet forums and casual conversations.

And, no, I won't exercise 1. I do invite those who have an issue with my posts to ignore me. I do press the ignore button if they stalk me for years enough that they think they know how I post. Now that's just weird.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

I have some counter questions:

• What should be done to the PL for allowing those charges to stack up over the years - unchecked?
• What should be done about the delay these investigations seem to take, conveniently beginning and continuing beyond a decade after the alleged wrongdoing has occurred?
• Which entities would be complicit in the wrongdoing if these charges indeed stay? Leadership from the Premier League itself? The FA? The UK? The UAE?
• Will the current decision makers be prejudiced or compromised by the question above? If yes (it's bloody yes), why would they penalize themselves, especially at such scale?
• What is in the best interests of the owners of the aggrieved parties (not fans) when considering the findings of this investigation?
• What is in the best interests of the PL, and the money that flows into it, when considering the findings of this investigation?
• What is the easiest way to appease the consumers (fans) while preserving the best interests of the brand image?

If you truly engage with these questions, then it would seem fairly apparent that no matter what the punishment for City - it won't be 'just'. And at that point, I don't truly care what happens to the past titles or even the future ones. My personal cynical view is that the game is broken, and will continue to break.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

sportswashing: the practice of an organization, a government, a country, etc. supporting sports or organizing sports events as a way to improve its reputation.

It's common knowledge that your whole schtick on the caf is taking contrarian and provocative positions on fairly obvious opinions, but the feigned ignorance on this one is quite funny.

On the basis of that definition, is there a country that does not engage in sportswashing? If you ask a different person they will give you a different definition for what it means, who can engage in it, what objectives it is supposed to achieve, what the instrumentalities of the practice are etc.

Hypotheses about the supposed motivations for the practice are well trodden, but conclusions about the efficacy (based on the theory that is it about state reputation laundering) are unclear at best and often just assumed by people who discuss the topic.

Even an Amnesty International UK representative concedes that it is almost impossible to measure how effective, or not, attempts at sports washing are.

This article is even less sanguine about the efficacy of sportswashing:

Spoiler

Many of Qatar’s critics couch their accusations in this argument, convinced that, with each new World Cup milestone, audiences become less aware of, less concerned with, less moved by, the state’s misdeeds. But does that assertion hold up against the evidence?

Not yet. To date, only one study has attempted to analyze news coverage of Qatar’s World Cup. Based on a cross-section of British newspapers, it concluded that the coverage was “overwhelming negative,” with abusive labor practices and human-rights violations the key driver. Turns out, the World Cup has not displaced damaging content—as observers of sportswashing might believe—but likely invited it.

To be sure, Qatar has tried to shape how foreign media outlets cover its tournament. Just last month, Qatari authorities updated the terms of the permits that they issue to international film crews, barring them from recording at government buildings, universities, and labor camps. Interviewing exploited migrants has become that much more difficult. However, it appears that Qatar’s cup may be triggering what political scientist Victor Cha calls the “Olympic catch-22,” wherein sporting events like the Olympics spotlight the unflattering side of closed societies. Sportswashing, in other words, is not necessarily the boon it is made out to be.

 

[tomaldinho1]

On the basis of that definition, is there a country that does not engage in sportswashing? If you ask a different person they will give you a different definition for what it means, who can engage in it, what objectives it is supposed to achieve, what the instrumentalities of the practice are etc.

Hypotheses about the supposed motivations for the practice are well trodden, but conclusions about the efficacy (based on the theory that is it about state reputation laundering) are unclear at best and often just assumed by people who discuss the topic.

Even an Amnesty International UK representative concedes that it is almost impossible to measure how effective, or not, attempts at sports washing are.

This article is even less sanguine about the efficacy of sportswashing:

Spoiler

Many of Qatar’s critics couch their accusations in this argument, convinced that, with each new World Cup milestone, audiences become less aware of, less concerned with, less moved by, the state’s misdeeds. But does that assertion hold up against the evidence?

Not yet. To date, only one study has attempted to analyze news coverage of Qatar’s World Cup. Based on a cross-section of British newspapers, it concluded that the coverage was “overwhelming negative,” with abusive labor practices and human-rights violations the key driver. Turns out, the World Cup has not displaced damaging content—as observers of sportswashing might believe—but likely invited it.

To be sure, Qatar has tried to shape how foreign media outlets cover its tournament. Just last month, Qatari authorities updated the terms of the permits that they issue to international film crews, barring them from recording at government buildings, universities, and labor camps. Interviewing exploited migrants has become that much more difficult. However, it appears that Qatar’s cup may be triggering what political scientist Victor Cha calls the “Olympic catch-22,” wherein sporting events like the Olympics spotlight the unflattering side of closed societies. Sportswashing, in other words, is not necessarily the boon it is made out to be.

It’s quite easy to see high level in practice though. Think of Saudi and the big sports push, particularly with boxing, when Groves fought Smith there ~5 years ago it was a bit random and everyone was asking ‘why?’. Now it seems like most fights are there are want to be there and that means more coverage, more sponsors and more tourists traveling there. Golf was in no way thought of as being linked to Saudi and now they’re merging with the PGA within a few years of setting LIV up. Football will be tougher but they’ve bought the WC and the league attracted more and better players than most predicted.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

The physical trophies and gongs should be destroyed in the center circle before all 10,000 of their fans. Then the titles voided and awarded to second place. When Lance Armstrong was caught they didn’t just have no winner for those years, they gave it to the second place finisher.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

It’s quite easy to see high level in practice though. Think of Saudi and the big sports push, particularly with boxing, when Groves fought Smith there ~5 years ago it was a bit random and everyone was asking ‘why?’. Now it seems like most fights are there are want to be there and that means more coverage, more sponsors and more tourists traveling there. Golf was in no way thought of as being linked to Saudi and now they’re merging with the PGA within a few years of setting LIV up. Football will be tougher but they’ve bought the WC and the league attracted more and better players than most predicted.

What exactly is the practice though? And how are we assessing it's efficacy?

People have been going to the Middle East for sport for a while now. What has changed recently is the scale of the investment to overcome the lack of desirability of these places as sporting destinations, which draws more events and the heavy outflows of investment into sport beyond the region. What is unclear is the causal link between invest in sports --> more sporting events --> everyone forgets about our human rights record and thinks we are an amazing place, so we can continue with our repressive practices.

People definitively say that the reputation has improved, but on what basis? Is money the predominant driver of increased sports activity? Or an enhanced reputation? Is there a point at which the "investment" in money will result in a durably improved reputation such that these places will be thought of as destinations of first resort even when the money stops flowing to the same extent? For sportswashing to be deemed to have "worked", does that mean that these places can continue to engage in their malign practices to the same degree, even as sports activity and tourism ramps up? If they move away from and moderate on undesirable beliefs and practices in order to accommodate more tourism and sporting attention, is that a bad thing?

I think the soft power/tourism explanation is probably at the heart of the activity, but a lot of the discussion around it lacks clarity and rigor.

 

[Josep Dowling]

The Aguero moment can never been shown on telly again.

 

[Brightonian]

Where your reasonable post falls flat is that the UK and US had significant ties with these countries before they started wading into sports. And the UK and US continue to maintain relationships with problematic regimes who do NOT own sport teams, and hence aren't in the minds of that apathetic majority. Governments will ignore public opinion and act in what they perceive to be in the best interest.

And the bolded is... you surely can't believe that Biden declined to make Saudi Arabia a 'pariah', not because they're a counterweight to Iran, or because they want to peace it up with Israel, or because of oil, but because... they bought Newcastle and host F1??? If you believe that then fair enough because we'll never be on the same page. But that's a stance that has no factual basis.

You're deliberately misinterpreting my point if you think I'm saying the sportswashing is the motive for US foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia. I'm talking about how it helps to give national governments the political room to pursue those policies.

Why do you think Biden made the 'pariah' statement? All of the reasons you highlight to stay cosy with SA were as true then as now. It was because Khashoggi was a significant enough story to break through to a significant chunk of the US population. Failing to appear to distance himself at that time would have cost Biden too much popular and political capital. Fist-bumping MBS would have been political suicide. But no serious observer has changed their opinion about SA since then. It's just that the less politically active majority last read SA's name in stories about football and formula one, not the assassination of a journalist.

Sportswashing, of course, is just one part of the general 'soft power through cultural investment' strategy. Charity, aid spending, arts etc all play their role too. But sport has a particular power to access the kind of person who doesn't read the front pages.

 

[Brightonian]

Good description. But Id also add that it is done to impress the native population in their country. You probably wont revolt against a regime that gives you a lot of entertainment and “adds value” to the country internationally.

People live in extreme poverty, but at least you can take the focus off a bit by having a local team that are on pair with the best in the World.

Oh for sure. But I think usually sportswashing is more about a country's international reputation. What you're talking about is good old-fashioned bread and circuses, right?

 

[JagUTD]

Something else.

Melt them down and recast them as a giant hand giving the finger outside The Etihad, with the fingernail painted in United colours.

 

[adexkola]

You're deliberately misinterpreting my point if you think I'm saying the sportswashing is the motive for US foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia. I'm talking about how it helps to give national governments the political room to pursue those policies.

Why do you think Biden made the 'pariah' statement? All of the reasons you highlight to stay cosy with SA were as true then as now. It was because Khashoggi was a significant enough story to break through to a significant chunk of the US population. Failing to appear to distance himself at that time would have cost Biden too much popular and political capital. Fist-bumping MBS would have been political suicide. But no serious observer has changed their opinion about SA since then. It's just that the less politically active majority last read SA's name in stories about football and formula one, not the assassination of a journalist.

Sportswashing, of course, is just one part of the general 'soft power through cultural investment' strategy. Charity, aid spending, arts etc all play their role too. But sport has a particular power to access the kind of person who doesn't read the front pages.

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything. For months I've been waiting for that aha post on this topic that would make me issue an apology to the Caf for being so obtuse... I've not seen it yet. If you believe I'm being deliberately obtuse, please save yourself the trouble of replying.

I think Biden made the pariah statement because he was horrified by their actions. There's a story floating around about how Trump said he was going to cut off aid to the vast majority of the world, and leave NATO, and the Secretaries of State and Defense got freaked out and pulled him into a room and gave him a 101 of our alliances/treaties and how we couldn't rock the boat because China/Russia/etc... And he came around. Biden isn't stupid unlike Trump. But after that righteous outburst, I think he got pulled back with a dose of Realpolitik. It's the Saudis, oil, China, Iran... and then Salman put Biden back in his pocket

And most Americans don't even know about Newcastle or the PL or the F1's strong presence in Saudi Arabia! They couldn't even point Newcastle (or even the UK) on the map. See why it feels like linking that comment of Biden to this conversation is a huge stretch?

Now here's where I sort of agree with you. Most nations powerful enough start to delve into obtaining soft power through sports or culture or art or bla bla. 2 caveats though: the prerequisite is being legitimized by the powers that be (case in point: North Korea has no base from which they can develop soft power). Second: in order for this term "sportswashing" to make sense, it needs to be applied consistently and uniformly when an imperfect nation deploys soft power (in an attempt) to cover it's flaws. For what powerful nation does that not apply?

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Eboué

 

[adexkola]

@Brightonian

Here's an academic article regarding Sportswashing which I felt made a couple of good points, which my incoherent posts on the matter revolve around:

This critical perspective cannot, however, only be limited to particular actors and it is notable that the term sportswashing tends to focus on a narrow range of non-Western actors, the most notable of which are Russia, Saudia Arabia and China. This does not mean failing into a dangerous form of relativism, but if sportswashing is to become a useful analytical concept, it needs to be applied to other parts of the world as well, where salient. For instance, we should ask whether an event like the 2012 London Olympics could ever be labelled as sportswashing, given that it arguably involved a former imperial power looking to raise its profile abroad (Grix et al., 2015) and domestically, perhaps, deflect attention away from a deeply unpopular programme of austerity (Widdop et al., 2018)?

Likewise, as Chadwick quoted in Walt (2021) observes, ‘If you sit in Qatar, you sit in Saudi Arabia, [they call what they are doing] nation building .. [or] .. soft power, Sportswashing is in the eye of the beholder’. Therefore, as academics, we need to be consistent in our uses of concepts and be able to justify their application to particular cases, whether Western or not.

We also require better ways of evaluating the impact (or otherwise) of sportswashing. Some of the current debates seem to assume that the hosting of an event or purchase of a sports club naturally leads to favourable reviews or attitudes, whether among fans of a given club or the sport in general. Research around the hosting of mega events has shown a good deal of resistance from a range of sources (Boykoff, 2013, Skey et al., 2016). Therefore, we need to actively investigate who supports and who resists, through what means and channels and to what ends. It would also be useful to know more about the kinds of reputational capital that are generated by such associations with sporting events, organizations and personalities and to what extent they persist over time.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/fu...erral&utm_campaign=saudi-arabia-s-hole-in-one

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

City fans should be made to wear hair shirts in the city center and to ring bells to warn everyone when they approach.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

On the basis of that definition, is there a country that does not engage in sportswashing?

I agree, there isn't. Trying to influence your country's 'image' isn't a new activity. Nor is it a binary checkbox, but rather one part of a multi-dimensional spectrum that all countries exist on (this 'spectrum' itself is up for larger discussion). I'd also argue that the countries making more 'explicit' efforts to actively influence where they are perceived to stand on this spectrum are younger than their counterparts.

I am aware that I am levelling the accusation of sporstwashing against a nascent country like the UAE, given their rather recent track record of heinous human rights abuse. And that I'm not doing so against, say, the UK itself - a much older nation whose (people won't like being reminded of the next bit) wealth, prosperity, and heritage was extensively rooted in the colonisation and systemic exploitation and abuse of life, resources, culture, and wealth of other nations. One can say the UK has already succeeded in sportswashing - 4.7 billion watch the Premier League across the world, and I'm pretty certain only a small minority of it are aware or vcoal about the atrocities committed over a century ago.

But whataboutism and pointing to another nation's historic wrongdoings doesn't excuse one's current ones. The fact is that today the UK believes in democracy, defending human rights, equality, freedom, and other values that we strive towards. When their actions do not reflect these beliefs (the Israel-Hamas war, say), the people in the UK have a chance to express their discontent at protests and the polling booths. And the fact is that the current leaders at the UAE, with their current rapsheet of terrible human rights records in a non-democratic form of governance, do not believe in these values and actively squash all forms of criticism.

Hypotheses about the supposed motivations for the practice are well trodden, but conclusions about the efficacy (based on the theory that is it about state reputation laundering) are unclear at best and often just assumed by people who discuss the topic.

I will agree that the effectiveness of sportswashing is not academically established - but I'll follow up that it is because the act itself is a complex geopolitical phenomenon which is difficult to study, difficult to measure, and that countries have active and mutually benefical reasons to block and obscure data points that can allow any studies that establish these claims. To accurately establish the efficacy of sportswashing as a study (something you rightly pointed out as unclear at best), you would need to directly collect a layered opinion poll of a large enough sample of people across multiple demographics before and after an alleged sportswashing event - an impossible user study. (Even if you could ask a million people who had watched the Qatar World Cup the question "What are your views on Qatar's human rights record"? both before and after the event - you can never judge the veracity of the answer or the bias already induced for the second answer.) What we have are indirect metrics - like the increase in number of people showing up to support a club owned by the entity in question, or the amount of investment provided to the event, or the opportunity to future events, or the growth of profile and publicity of players willing to move to said entity before and after an event, a fall in the public perception of the entity's wrongdoings, or other indirect developments which can never make the causality needed for academic research. In your example, a cross section of British newspapers post the Qatar WC, which begs the question - what about social media? Or panel shows with massive viewerships? What about the demographic breakdown of the users? It is not enough to state the coverage is negative - sentiment analysis studies typically also need to understand which aspects were negatively covered, and which had a positive change. The point is, sportswashing cannot be academically established or proven given the constraints of the research needed in the first place.

If you're indeed engaging in good faith, you will acknowledge this and stop using it to muddy the waters. If you're indeed engaging in good faith, you will also have to concede that intuitively there are too many of these indirect positive developments coinciding immediately after a sportswashing event for it to not be successful. And yet, after such a long defense, I'll concede that encouraging sportswashing endeavour itself is a subjective policy decision by the PL's governing bodies and the UK government. I have strong views against it, but I can understand why these decisions are made.

Where it stops being subjective and starts being objective is when these 'sportswashing' entities start cheating to gain an unfair advantage. The concerns against the UAE leadership are reinforced in the shadowy, arm-twisting and corruption ridden underhand tactics that City have used to gain their success. It is very common knowledge that City got away at CAS on a technicality about time-bound charges. It is common knowledge that Mancini was paid off-the-books, that Pep's brother gained financial advantage from City's sister clubs, that City's sponsorships were not in line with their fanbase, that they do not earn the money (at least not in their initial quantities) they spend, and that their extensive team of lawyers is obstructing and contesting every one of those 115 charges as we speak. These concerns are why sportswashing should be discouraged, because the puppet-masters at UAE are not inherently people who wish to develop the community or contribute to the sport or make for better football. They are insidious folks who, as part of their very nature, poison and consume the very sport and its governing bodies they're infiltrating in their desire to covet and to win because their values assure them that the means justify the ends.

You can go ahead and argue about the research-based validity of the term, or point to other countries which engage in the same alleged behavior, or deflect blame across individual people in power, or bemoan the failures of governing bodies for letting all of this happen, but if you're someone who's been watching football for a while, you know it means less now that it used to before, and it's not just because United are a shit team and our rivals are doing well - there's no joy in watching big games across CL, because there is no comptetive integrity left in the game. And that's because we let money ruin it, and will continue to do so. We have and will let the likes of City get away with their crimes, and it kills the game.

 

[adexkola]

On the basis of that definition, is there a country that does not engage in sportswashing? If you ask a different person they will give you a different definition for what it means, who can engage in it, what objectives it is supposed to achieve, what the instrumentalities of the practice are etc.

Hypotheses about the supposed motivations for the practice are well trodden, but conclusions about the efficacy (based on the theory that is it about state reputation laundering) are unclear at best and often just assumed by people who discuss the topic.

Even an Amnesty International UK representative concedes that it is almost impossible to measure how effective, or not, attempts at sports washing are.

This article is even less sanguine about the efficacy of sportswashing:

Spoiler

Many of Qatar’s critics couch their accusations in this argument, convinced that, with each new World Cup milestone, audiences become less aware of, less concerned with, less moved by, the state’s misdeeds. But does that assertion hold up against the evidence?

Not yet. To date, only one study has attempted to analyze news coverage of Qatar’s World Cup. Based on a cross-section of British newspapers, it concluded that the coverage was “overwhelming negative,” with abusive labor practices and human-rights violations the key driver. Turns out, the World Cup has not displaced damaging content—as observers of sportswashing might believe—but likely invited it.

To be sure, Qatar has tried to shape how foreign media outlets cover its tournament. Just last month, Qatari authorities updated the terms of the permits that they issue to international film crews, barring them from recording at government buildings, universities, and labor camps. Interviewing exploited migrants has become that much more difficult. However, it appears that Qatar’s cup may be triggering what political scientist Victor Cha calls the “Olympic catch-22,” wherein sporting events like the Olympics spotlight the unflattering side of closed societies. Sportswashing, in other words, is not necessarily the boon it is made out to be.

I put the term "Sportswashing" into Google scholar. There are a couple of insights in the papers I think is worth highlighting in another thread.

 

[croadyman]

Stripped and titles won, voided. No winner those seasons.

Yeah that is best result but don't see it materialising much like any relegation either

 

[Tarrou]

I don't really care but their owners should be banned from owning a football team for life

if they get relegated they'll win promotion in one season and the whole charade will start again

and all these players and managers are getting off lightly too, Mancini knew what was up for starters and unless Pep is a fecking moron he does too

 

[foolsgold]

I don't really care but their owners should be banned from owning a football team for life

if they get relegated they'll win promotion in one season and the whole charade will start again

and all these players and managers are getting off lightly too, Mancini knew what was up for starters and unless Pep is a fecking moron he does too

If convicted there's no way that they could possibly pass the "fit and proper" ownership test and would be forced to sell. The loss of face and ego from publicly being branded a crook would be devastating. Thee whole thing is a financial house of cards, when relegated it'd be a 1,000 times worse than Leeds. I struggle to see how Manchester City survives this as a professional football club. It kind of makes me sad, it's bad for the city of Manchester and their actual long term fans don't deserve what's coming.

 

[ROFLUTION]

Oh for sure. But I think usually sportswashing is more about a country's international reputation. What you're talking about is good old-fashioned bread and circuses, right?

Ah good old Rome. Check out The History of Rome podcast. So good.

And definitely the same workings. I think this angle was also why China wanted to get into football a decade ago.

 

[Oranges038]

Void the titles so it will always remain known they cheated and then remove them from the league. Ot hit them with a huge points deduction for every season they cheated, so they start off on -100 points for each, that will make it impossible for them to avoid relegation every year for about 10 years.

If they readjusted the tables so that City's games were removed and voided the titles. The teams that should have won the league should be able to take legal action for the prize money lost.

Then every team that was relegated that may have avoided it because of results against City, should be allowed to take legal action for loss of earnings.

 

[GMok]

Take the titles away, but not awarded to 2nd Placed Teams. Lifting a league title has its own moment, which is long gone.

 

[JogaBonitoRooney]

Too much to read and I can't be bothered looking. If second place get the titles, does Liverpool take over United for most league records?

 

[TheGodsInRed]

I won't really be happier to get these medals now... What would annoy me is the fact that Gerrard would be seen as having won the PL

I changed my vote when I read this

 

[steeeb]

The plan is simple.

Set things off with Everton, a pretty harsh in all fairness 10 point penalty but test the waters and try get it through.

Next deal with Chelsea. This will then set the tone on how past cheating is going to be dealt with. I expect probable titles stripped that there is evidence for, hefty points deduction resulting in certain relegation, some form of European ban either from PL or UEFA issuing it especially in relation to the Moscow possible match thing. They'll moan but cooperate.

Then expect several times that punishment for City, but it'll drag out for some time since they're not cooperating.

Nothing will happen until Chelsea are punished, and that won't happen until we see the effects of Everton towards the end of the season.

 

[Bogga]

I changed my vote when I read this

This picture that means so much would become irrelevant...

 

[Yagami]

2nd place should definitely get the titles. I don't get how anyone can think otherwise.

It's not just about that moment of seeing your team lift the trophy. It's also about recognising and rewarding the team that finished above EVERYONE that didn't cheat that season.

Also, make sure to confiscate the medals off the players. Let them know that they were only there for the money. They didn't actually legitimately achieve anything in the sport itself.

 

[spwd]

Shouldn't all of Cities games be removed and the league table recalculated on a 36 games basis? So the team that finished second wouldn't necessarily win the title, but the team that won the most points over the 36 games without the cheats in the league.

Null all of their matches and award the trophies to whoever came second after recalculating the points

I'd go with this. There's no way they should keep the titles and although it's years ago the correct clubs should be awarded those titles so they're in the records.

And obviously relegate them to league 1 with a 20 point deduction.

 

[reddyornot]

Stripped and titles won, voided. No winner those seasons.

I don't like the idea of anyone connected to man city walking around in the nude!

 

[Bluelion7]

As someone who played competitive sports at a decently high level, I would want some action taken of the players that beat me were found to be cheating with PED’s or bribed officials.

But accounting crimes in putting the team together? I guess you could strip them … but I certainly wouldnt want them. They were better than me. They trained better, they
played better. Do you want to hand me a trophy and say “Congratulations!! Here is your pity trophy attained solely because your team attained basically the same amount of money as theirs, just in a different way! Your lucky day!

Should they be forced to go through a structural change in the organization? Forced to sell the team? All “Yes’s” for me.

But as much as it may pain United fans, that moment of magic from Kun Aguero is an integral part of the lore and history of the Premiere League, created not by a Sheik, or a crooked accountant, but by the better player at a pivotal moment.

Trying to go back and make it like that stuff simply did t happen would be a mistake that hurts the league as a whole in my opinion.

 

[rimaldo]

i think any titles and lands should go to the crown. i think more people would respect king charles if they thought he’d won a treble.

 

[thebelfastboy]

As someone who played competitive sports at a decently high level, I would want some action taken of the players that beat me were found to be cheating with PED’s or bribed officials.

But accounting crimes in putting the team together? I guess you could strip them … but I certainly wouldnt want them. They were better than me. They trained better, they
played better. Do you want to hand me a trophy and say “Congratulations!! Here is your pity trophy attained solely because your team attained basically the same amount of money as theirs, just in a different way! Your lucky day!

Should they be forced to go through a structural change in the organization? Forced to sell the team? All “Yes’s” for me.

But as much as it may pain United fans, that moment of magic from Kun Aguero is an integral part of the lore and history of the Premiere League, created not by a Sheik, or a crooked accountant, but by the better player at a pivotal moment.

Trying to go back and make it like that stuff simply did t happen would be a mistake that hurts the league as a whole in my opinion.

Aguero at City doesn't happen without the financial doping. The players are complicit and know fully well what's going on.... I don't think you can completely separate the two.

Yes they've played some incredible football, but that's only because they've assembled a squad of superstars alongside one of the best domestic managers the game has seen.

Who cares if the credibility of the league takes a bit of a hit when actually the credibility of the sport is at stake?

Do people forget what and where City were before the takeover?? The whole thing stinks.

 

[Bright_Eyes]

Null all of their matches and award the trophies to whoever came second after recalculating the points

I don't understand why some people are advocating for this. Say there was a season where team A and B finished joint second on the same points, where team A beat City twice and team B lost twice, if you recalculate points then team B wins the title because they lost to City.

Recalculating points without City's games just means punishing teams who did well against City, which surely isn't what we're trying to do here? This only makes a bit of sense if you think that their cheating made them easier to beat, and even then doesn't really make sense to dock points from teams that beat them, because if their cheating made them easier to beat, that's their own fault.

 

[Robbie Boy]

Yeah, void. I would feel absolutely nothing getting some titles because we finished 2nd place.