Too many laurels, not enough morals

I HAVE a moral question for you and I want you to answer honestly.

If Kim Jong-un said he wanted to buy your football club and would invest £3billion to make you serial Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup and EFL Cup winners, would you take a stand and say, ‘Actually, no, I’m not having that’? My guess is 10 per cent of you might. But the rest wouldn’t care a jot, or at least enough to say anything, despite the huge question marks we know are in place over North Korea’s human rights record.

Regimes

I ask you this because I watched a debate unfold on Twitter last week regarding Manchester City and their owners in Abu Dhabi.

It centred about the Gulf state’s human rights record, following allegations made in the latest round of Football Leaks and the imprisoning of British PHD student Matthew Hedges.

He has been found guilty of “spying for the UK government” and sentenced to life in a United Arab Emirates court in what was reportedly a five-minute trial.

One or two City fans admitted they did feel uneasy supporting companies associated with regimes with questionable human rights records. But others jumped on them and invited them to go and support another club... just not very politely.

I read other tweets from City fans, saying they didn’t care what their owners’ regimes and business associates did in Abu Dhabi because it didn’t affect them personally.

But, in 2018, that can’t be right, can it?

Whether City fans like it or not, by buying a ticket to the Etihad they are supporting a regime which has a woeful human rights record.

Amnesty International has, after all, accused Abu Dhabi of trying to “sportswash” the country’s “deeply tarnished image” by financing the Premier League side.

This is all new territory for English football because, for many years, clubs were owned by local businessmen.

There might have been the odd scandal when £10,000 went missing from club coffers at the same time a chairman was unveiling a new conservatory at home, but allegations of serious wrongdoing were rarely levelled at the top brass. These days, however, we’re talking about countries and sovereign states allegedly involved in human rights abuses owning football clubs, so it’s a genuine conversation that needs to be had. I don’t know what the final answer is, but what I do know is that the Premier League has been disgustingly conspicuous by their absence in showing any moral leadership when it comes to such matters. Both the Premier League and EFL have their ownership rules, but I’m not sure they hold up against countries and states. At the very least, the Premier League should be making clear statements along the lines of: “The Premier League looks to embrace countries and cultures around the world, we are a truly global league. “But, with that, comes a responsibility and we are concerned that one of our constituent clubs, which is owned by sovereign wealth, which is basically the government, has been questioned about its human rights practices. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t involve politics in football, but this is a country that owns the club, not a business, and this needs to be looked at.’

That would make a difference, wouldn’t it?

It wouldn’t in terms of how Abu Dhabi treats people – its migrant workers, for example. But it would basically say: “If you’re looking to invest in this global juggernaut that is our product, then you might want to give a second thought to everything you’re doing”.

Leadership