Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DunkFaceKilla t1_jeab9l3 wrote

To ask the obvious unanswered question "who gets to decide what qualifies as a Human Rights Abuse?"

590

mschley2 t1_jeati0d wrote

Looks like the UK Government. It's their law

312

Z0idberg_MD t1_jecqim3 wrote

Fucking love this. I’m not gonna argue that they are neutral, but they certainly aren’t compromised like club owners that are lining their pockets with blood money.

81

wowbanterlad t1_jeczz0k wrote

you think the UK govt isn’t lining their own pockets with blood money?

65

Mediocremon t1_jed497e wrote

Absolutely not.

They launder it first so they don't get stains.

54

Tony2Punch t1_jed4q4b wrote

Wasn’t there a news story that came out a week ago about how tory MPs were getting paid 10k a day to help out/visit with foreign businesses

7

ShaeTheFunny_Whore t1_jedhvc0 wrote

It was a fake foreign business to show how easily they'd just sell out for 10K a year without even researching the company or asking many questions.

6

johnnyfinance411 t1_jediqeu wrote

It was only a couple of them and despite what the news made out, MPs having a second job isn't against the law here

−2

RedAreMe t1_jedipc3 wrote

This is just the government's way of inserting themselves into making some of the money that previously was only going to the football governing bodies. Politicians literally wrote the book on corruption, I'd be surprised if anything meaningfully changed

3

Altruistic_Day_2332 t1_jedp7ox wrote

Kind of wild that up until this point one could be subject to sanctions by the UK government and still allowed to own a Premier League football club

3

ShapersB t1_jefr71e wrote

So you won’t find Qatar or Saudi Arabia on that list for political and trade reasons.

1

brett1081 t1_jeabufq wrote

Twitter

97

CynicalBite t1_jeamn63 wrote

…. and the weather. And the day of the week. And the general mood of the “outraged” upon climbing out of bed that day… and whatever will get the “outraged” even more outraged and therefore the most upvotes.

23

Chuckdatass t1_jeb752d wrote

They will have a neutral country decide those. Believe they are leaning towards Qatar

37

Thingisby t1_jec09vf wrote

This is the big question.

The Saudis aren't on the UKs list for this for example. Make of that what you will.

10

I_Ask_Dumb_Question5 t1_jeb0dlq wrote

(The Head of Fifa) Giovanni Vincenzo " Gianni " Infantino. I mean the dude is a walking billboard for human rights violations. His experience would be most helpful. /s

5

butt_fun t1_jeds47a wrote

Am I missing something? Does the post not explicitly say "Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations"?

2

MauricioPochettino t1_jea1cjo wrote

Surely Newcastle has to be one of the first to be sanctioned?

292

Amasterclass t1_jeagxwm wrote

Then Man City and potentially Utd…

183

socializm_forda_ppl t1_jeav5au wrote

Gonna have to wait for the Glazers to sell for that United investigation. Unless the Glazers are up to more bad shit than I’m aware of

58

Colavs9601 t1_jeb2gyt wrote

Slumlords and the abuse they’ve given United fans but it’s nothing compared to the other big money owners.

42

MC_ScattCatt t1_jed6cwm wrote

Glazers should be on the list for the way they’ve run our club.

5

Elmodipus t1_jeellrf wrote

I'm an American and a Buccaneers fan.

It's so wild to me to see the Glazers run Man U the way they do.

We really like them over here.

0

itsfeckingfreezing t1_jeelzsq wrote

We want to see them hanging from the terraces here.

4

Elmodipus t1_jeepkkg wrote

Why? What have they done for you to hate them? (Other than making the club take out a loan for the first time in its history, I already know about that)

1

MC_ScattCatt t1_jeet1nu wrote

Basically the club is self sufficient, but they have taken money that could have been used for players, stadium, staff, etc. for themselves or pay off the debt they put on the club. Now, because they’ve put it off when we need either a new stadium, or massive rebuild, and upgrades to training facilities we can’t afford it with the Glazers as owners. The debt they put on the club is becoming too much in part because of interest rates and other factors like salaries of players.

We are reaching a point where the club despite it being a money making brand can’t keep up with the debts the glazers put on the club, let alone get new players or upgrade facilities. The way they took ownership of the club is no longer allowed in the UK.

Imagine Raymond James being a dump and you can’t afford to fix it or the practice facility or get new talent because your owner rather take his money than be a good team.

3

Elmodipus t1_jeeykq7 wrote

Yeah that's fucked.

We've had the complete opposite experience, stadium upgrades, new practice facility (built in 2014/2015), marquee player signings, etc.

1

Britz10 t1_jeey4nw wrote

Honestly they aren't that dad as far as football club ownerships go, not even the worst in greater Manchester, considering the state of Neville and Scholes' local clubs.

0

banned_after_12years t1_jeby4pm wrote

Any club owned by Middle Eastern royalty or oil tycoons should immediately qualify.

34

hkbenlui t1_jed3i1t wrote

Any future Chinese money too

6

Britz10 t1_jeeycdz wrote

Wouldn't that eventually mean US exclusion? King Power would also be on thin ice.

3

Thingisby t1_jec052m wrote

Our owners don't qualify as human rights abusers according to the new law.

I mean obviously they are. But the Saudis are allies so the UK govt have no interest in sanctioning them.

It looks like nothing will happen there.

Out of curiosity why did you kot say Man City?

9

MauricioPochettino t1_jedzxg3 wrote

My thing with City is the shell corporations etc. that are on the books. Might be tougher to prove.

I'm sure Newcastle have done similar, but the publicity surrounding the sale, coupled with Kashoggi incident being so prevalent in western media makes me think they're an easy target.

​

If we're being honest, all of them will get off with a slap on the wrist anyway.

2

Altruistic_Day_2332 t1_jedpk9o wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

1

CastleBravo45 t1_jeblbf0 wrote

How do you figure? None of the owners, nor PIF have comitted human rights abuses and dont appear on the UKs list.

−26

prollyanalien t1_jebmb7u wrote

Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is the chairman of the PIF; in November of 2018 the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that MBS had ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Despite the UK not putting MBS on the list for political reasons, it was absolutely a human rights abuse.

35

particle409 t1_jed5il7 wrote

> MBS had ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi

I'm just going to add some color to this, as people may not remember. This is the Washington Post reporter that was chopped up in a Saudi embassy in Turkey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi

>Despite the UK not putting MBS on the list for political reasons

Not only is Saudi Arabia a key ally in regards to Western energy resources, but Jared Kushner may have greenlit the assassination. It would put the UK at odds with the Trump administration, not just the Saudi royal family.

1

haydesigner t1_jedy2gq wrote

There is no longer a Trump administration. He lost.

0

CastleBravo45 t1_jebqc5i wrote

Yasir Al-Rumayyan is the governor of the PIF and Chairperson at Newcastle. MBS is not on Newcastles board, so how would Newcastle get sanctioned? Its unclear how much control MBS actually exerts over the PIF.

−16

prollyanalien t1_jebro3i wrote

In the PIF the governor serves under the chairman, and the chairman is the head of the organization. The PIF owns Newcastle, and the PIF is headed by MBS effectively making Newcastle’s owner MBS.

It would be like if Ratcliffe’s INEOS bought Manchester United and installed someone other than Ratcliffe as chairman of the board, nobody would be saying that Ratcliffe isn’t the owner of Manchester United despite him not being the chairman of the club.

9

Gasa1_Yuno t1_jeaebhj wrote

Was 9/11 enough to get Newcastle disqualified?

189

moving2ksa t1_jeamo57 wrote

Or gitmo, iraq, Afghanistan enough to get Man u, Liverpool?

−165

Attygalle t1_jeau0tb wrote

Both clubs not owned by countries (or investment funds directly tied to countries leaders).

31

GnomesSkull t1_jeaue1z wrote

My tax dollars are supporting British sports teams? I knew they were being siphoned into all sorts of American teams, but British ones too?

11

RK4Life t1_jebs6id wrote

Yes because private US citizens should definitely be held directly accountable for decisions their government makes.

10

siziyman t1_jebwfu3 wrote

let's be real, that's exactly what most of the current sanctions against Russia do lmao

2

PJTikoko t1_jedde0w wrote

I mean don’t they vote on who is the government?

−1

RK4Life t1_jeem5lp wrote

So you’re saying people shouldn’t just be penalized for the choices of their government, but should also be penalized simply if they live in a democracy.

I can’t even begin to wrap my head around how stupid an argument that is.

0

WestwardLord t1_jeb4kd5 wrote

What if their football is just so bad that I feel abused?

148

Attygalle t1_jeau9d1 wrote

In this thread “MuH aMErICa”

I like America-bashing as no other when it comes to football but it’s a ridiculous statement in this context. The US government isn’t active in sportswashing.

[edit] and now in this thread: several Americans trying to convince me the US does do sportswashing because army and navy have sport teams. Dear Americans, of course I was talking within the context of the premier league. This thread is about that. I shouldn’t have to explain that but here we are.

141

MisterDisinformation t1_jeb71wk wrote

Yeah, let me know when Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are buying up EPL teams. I'll buy a plane ticket to the UK to protest.

Sorry but John Henry just isn't nearly as problematic as the Saudi royal family or Russian oligarchs lol, and anyone who thinks he is is wildly ignorant.

66

NotOSIsdormmole t1_jeb8mi4 wrote

Donald Rumsfeld is dead sooooooooo

18

eazygiezy t1_jed25kj wrote

If only Kissinger would just fuck off to Hell too

2

Z0idberg_MD t1_jecqwur wrote

The irony is Liverpool fans that don’t like their current owners complain that they don’t “invest”. Which basically means they don’t just dump their own personal funds into the club and rely on developing it to grow the brand and increase revenues. Which is basically have any reasonable business should be run. They also, oh I don’t know won them a champions league and the Premier league title?

Anyone that thinks the Henry is a problem is basically want an oil money without admitting it.

4

burner46 t1_jebav30 wrote

Here in America we just have our Defense Department pay sports teams/leagues to display military propaganda.

29

medicineteolof t1_jebql4u wrote

What do you mean propaganda. Pat Tillman died in service of this great nation. /s

6

BeefInGR t1_jed5wwd wrote

> army and navy have sport teams.

Technically they're four-year universities.

4

lotsofdeadkittens t1_jeeook7 wrote

It’s also insane and very disingenuous to compare American businessmen like bezos to the oil barons and middle eastern regimes who are not “paying slave wages” but genuinely not paying any wages and activly killing minorities

2

rumagin t1_jeblt38 wrote

Not in this sense but the militarization of sport in US is massive. From the fly bys and anthem, to the military recruitment adverts and movie-military tie-ins, US sport is tied to the military industrial complex

−3

superbomb122 t1_jec1xsu wrote

We are absolutely active is sportswashing lol. We use it to shove the military down the throats of millions so they forget about the war crimes.

However, it's weird that so many people are bringing up the US when the Premier League has so much bigger issues than the few American owners

−7

Attygalle t1_jecu50r wrote

Is the US sportswashing within the context of the premier League?

4

lotsofdeadkittens t1_jeevvrj wrote

In the nfl at least no owner is even in the stratosphere of murdering migrant that have been enslaved on no wages

1

EnvironmentalSun8410 t1_jeb2san wrote

Sports what-ing?

−11

fathertime99 t1_jeb42af wrote

Sportswashing. Basically a term where terrible countries will host sporting events/ leagues to try and improve their vision. The World Cup last year was sportswashing to try and put Qatar in a better light. Or the new LIV Golf by Saudi Arabia.

23

Curse3242 t1_jeb6v66 wrote

Well you can say whatever you want, but the ownership in football is absolutely a joke right now

Regardless of how it has affected football, I see people, even life long fans of their clubs begging for Saudi owners

It's disgusting honestly

63

BigLan2 t1_jebizq6 wrote

The 180 Newcastle fans did when they were bought was impressive. ManU fans going through the same thing now as well. If the option is "competing for top 6 and hating the owners" or "competing for top 2 and hating the owners", it's a fairly easy choice to just turn a blind eye.

And let's be realistic, you need a big-money owner to consistently challenge for the title in England. Chelsea and City (and now Newcastle) changed the landscape so much.

18

Curse3242 t1_jeda2eg wrote

I know a life long Inter fan, like this guy knows football history, knows everything, he's sorta like a ultra, but I was in utter shock when he was begging to be bought by Saudis.

But look at Brighton, or Liverpool (don't spend much) or West Ham last season, Arsenal this season. I shouldn't be saying this even as a Barca fan, but to some extent even Barca with Pedri/Gavi/Araujo. These weren't expensive signings.

I still feel talent can overshadow money. Its just that how modern football is with the schedules and the new rules that you need money.

Schedules need fixing and 3 subs only need to be brought back

6

BigLan2 t1_jedbarg wrote

And look at west ham this season. You can get lucky with a decent squad, but without billionaires behind a team you won't be there every season, which, since Liverpool in the 70s/80s and Man Utd in the 90s/00s is what fans want. Best case you get your squad together in a year the big clubs are rebuilding and end up pulling a Leicester, though they're now back in a relegation fight.

3

Curse3242 t1_jedc7u5 wrote

I don't think being there every season is the point tho. I don't strive for that for my club

It's about good football to me and achieving a better result than last season

For sure, without billionaires teams cannot convert their fortunes in a few years. But it can happen in a span of a decade or something. It definitely can happen. We get suprise winners a lot these days

But the new rules are still a problem. Idk I personally feel if things can be fair for every club. Money won't affect football that much.

2

LuesDE t1_jeeiapw wrote

United make more than enough money to sustain themselves. They don’t need any wealthy owners.

1

Z0idberg_MD t1_jecr3e9 wrote

The crazy thing is the quintessential oil money club, PSG, can’t even when the fucking champions league having three of the absolute best players in the world in their front line. If anything I would argue it leads to a prima donna model where players feel they can breeze through.

Every time PSG burns out I click my heels

7

Curse3242 t1_jedanzx wrote

This is my take on it

If FIFA fix the schedule, bring 3 Subs only back and fix some other rules.... Money genuinely doesn't affect football that much. It affects it, but not to THAT degree

Liverpool didn't need expensive signings to win UCL, Arsenal this season, even clubs like Brighton or West Ham

You don't need expensive signings

Real Madrid is sorta the only club where money seems to affect how they play. But that's always been their DNA, hate the club but respect how they make a system out of picking random stars from everywhere

3

bl4ckhunter t1_jecne3b wrote

It's disgusting but not really unexpected, football "fan clubs" have always been barely a step away from organized crime groups and most of the fans never really had a problem with that, saudi despots aren't that big of a jump in quality.

4

joelsmega t1_jeaoy2z wrote

I call bullshit if City aint sacked by sunday

33

TheMCM80 t1_jeaus7e wrote

One upside… Fan ownership for every club I guess!

Seriously, though, I will have to find out what their loopholes are here, because no one with the kind of money to own a PL club has not had an entity of theirs commit at least one human rights abuse.

They either wrote the rule to somehow make it impossible to connect owners to their nation, or I’m missing something.

You could make a good case that every US President in the last 30yrs has committed war crimes, then tie any political donations by owners to those committing the crimes.

I’m curious to see how deep they are willing to go.

31

chilloutfam t1_jebnsbw wrote

I am curious as to how effective sportswashing has been thus far? It seems to me that it brings a lot of these countries issues to the forefront, rather than normalizing them. I think I would have forgotten all about Jamal Khashoggi if it weren't for the WWE's Saudi Arabia shows, LIV, and Newcastle. Not to say that his killing wasn't horrifying and important, but there are a LOT of other horrifying and important things going on in the world.

15

ovaltine_spice t1_jecgovb wrote

It's a long term project. It's a show of soft power to the regions around them. Over time, people will be indifferent. Look at PSG nobody was talking about Qatar being terrible the whole time. Even when they won the bid it wasn't till 4 years later people started talking about them again. Then there wasn't really any fuss till the WC drew near.

Meanwhile their efforts attract commerce, put the nations name on the map, displays them as lucractive global players. It's not the average person they're after.

But eventually still, the average person will grow complacent. Stop reacting to the mere mention of Sheikh or Middle East. Stop them being adverse to fueling their economy.

It doesn't hide their trash. Just starts making people ignore it.

See how many City fans will say "Well they develop loads of bad areas in Manchester", "They contributed to our communities".

3

Altruistic_Day_2332 t1_jedpmq8 wrote

Depends how it's done. I think Rwanda's sponsorship of Arsenal has been very effective for example.

1

Zev95 t1_jeckbtg wrote

Ryan Reynolds anxiously googling whether RIPD counts as a human rights abuse.

6

thebestbev t1_jec0fxh wrote

Do the human rights abuses activate retroactively or are we as newcastle fans responsible only for the Saudis human rights abuses from last January?

Jokes aside....how can this possibly be enforced? How does the UK government determine certain levels of abuse that are okay and others aren't? If Saudi Arabia sanction the murder of another journalist will NUFC get a fine? Or will they simply say "no you've murdered somebody you can't play with your football team any more?" Either way frankly seems insulting to the gravitas of the situation.

I might also add....

Total UK exports to Saudi Arabia amounted to £11.1 billion,in current prices, in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022 (anincrease of 36.6% or £3.0 billion compared to the four quarters to theend of Q3 2021).

We can sell you arms but you can't play with our football clubs....

4

hkbenlui t1_jed46ra wrote

It is really easy to get around as well, as long as the ownership isn't tied to a state.

1

thebestbev t1_jeefq6w wrote

I just find it really odd that this whole thing seems completely directed at state owned clubs a la NUFC. But is this not something that the government had a say in when the saudis took over the club last january?

0

lotsofdeadkittens t1_jeeox1i wrote

The “you can’t enforce it so why bother” arguement is very shit. This is a clear step in the right direction

1

thebestbev t1_jegy2ca wrote

I'm not saying that you can't enforce it. I'm saying that the process of enforcing it is arbitrary and subjective and therefore likely to be unfair. Rules are supposed to be clear and concise but this can't be if the actual definition of the "rules" is down to interpretation.

You can find human rights abuses in every governments past. Every single one. I'm not suggesting for a second that some don't have more than others but it's still down to opinion. For me, the question should really be - do you allow state owned football clubs or not? I don't think so but last January the FA didn't seem to have a problem with it....so what's different?

2

vorpalsword92 t1_jed9z4p wrote

f1 is doing the same but using human rights abuses as a qualification

note this is a joke

4

FCAsheville t1_jeb4g3s wrote

Lol…this will be enforced worse than FFP!

3

raz299 t1_jecwbuk wrote

Ah I feel like this won't be used fairly...

2

sasksasquatch t1_jec3axo wrote

Can we have this for the NHL?

Typing this while knowing I want this applied to the owner of the team I cheer for.

1

DerCatrix t1_jec6bbj wrote

From the front page but why is Ray Ramano pictured?

1

mc_FaZe t1_jecdvy3 wrote

Yeah right.

1

middleagedstudent t1_jecrffn wrote

Just a ploy to keep the team and its assets within control.

Sort of like the tik Tok , china is taking our info and spying on us but in reality , it's probably that lobbies for FB and other tech giants realizing how they are losing billions to tiktok.

1

zeacho16 t1_ject8xk wrote

Something tells me this will be just about as effective as FFP.

1

DougalChips t1_jed2eju wrote

This is nothing, just another way the PL can pretend to the govt they don't need regulation

1

IamGJD t1_jed3s58 wrote

Everybody loves Raymond

1

0Kpanhandler t1_jed9wlx wrote

Sooooo ALL the owners will be gone next year?

1

royally_unimpressed t1_jedmtr9 wrote

I wonder what a disqualified owner is prevented from doing?

Can they try to enforce a sale? Abramovich sold of his own free will.

​

I think this is pure posturing and will lead to absolutely nothing.

1

Altruistic_Day_2332 t1_jedpaqd wrote

The only owners it disqualifies are those subject to UK sanctions and if they were subject to UK sanctions then how did they buy the club in the first place and why weren't their shares in the club seized as part of sanctions enforcement?

2

Byrnzillionaire t1_jee34rl wrote

If I owned a club id be sheikh-ing in my boots now.

1

VegitoFusion t1_jechdk2 wrote

Good. Now make a rule common place that any player who starts yelling in the ref’s face and whining about foul calls gets a yellow and then kicked out in the second offense.

0

RoboSt1960 t1_jee7use wrote

I think the judge should take into account everything Trump has already said about this and other cases and his inciting the Jan 6 insurrection and show no tolerance for him and deny bail.

0

mikevilla68 t1_jeb5j9h wrote

Basically anyone that isn’t from Western Europe will be considered disqualified and anyone from Western Europe will have their violations waved away

−1

meager_twenties57 t1_jecw0n4 wrote

So does that mean no more English/American owners in the premier league?

−1

lotsofdeadkittens t1_jeep1fb wrote

The idea that shady American/British business practices is even touching the scale of the oil tycoons who use actual migrants on no wages and kill people is so fucking disingenuous and gross

1

slamajamabro t1_jec5tkh wrote

Honestly if you are a billionaire, you most probably have a record of humans right abuse.

−3

Gedz t1_jebt7ou wrote

We’re talking about that sport where people pull their shirts up and think it makes them look cool?

−8

Zee09 t1_jea9y2i wrote

Looks like USA is out of the running then.

−44

Elmodipus t1_jeacnik wrote

For operating in the English Premiere League? Yeah, I would say so.

27

[deleted] t1_jeakhw2 wrote

[deleted]

−12

MasterWaffleZ t1_jeaqzst wrote

Yeah, you're right, John Henry was the one who okay'd the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait. I've personally seen many congressional meetings where they discuss whether to play a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-1-2.

24

someonesgranpa t1_jeaxhcy wrote

The Fenway group isn’t a state owned group ya dingus. It’s a privately owned company that started in American Sports and literally is nothing a Saudi country owning a club. Vastly different.

9

CommunicationClassic t1_jeapiez wrote

OK so I assume we will also be sanctioning American owned teams for their war crimes and OF COURSE this is not a pseudo racial vendetta against Arab owned teams...

−63

TekkogsSteve t1_jear7vp wrote

This argument always falls so flat because your comparing private citizens of a country to literal sovereign wealth funds operated by the rulers of a state. The difference in the level of accountability for their respective governments atrocities should be obvious

31

Greenrico3 t1_jebf7ph wrote

So by that logic you should also believe that Roman abramovich shouldn't have had to sell Chelsea?

−11

Greenrico3 t1_jebf6s5 wrote

So by that logic you should also believe that Roman abramovich shouldn't have had to sell Chelsea?

−12

melancious t1_jec8mkb wrote

He's Putin's lackey. He shares the blame.

2

Greenrico3 t1_jed7k3q wrote

He is still not a part of the Russian government. He is as responsible for Russian war crimes as American owners are for america's.

−1

melancious t1_jedd2dv wrote

Bollocks. He worked as part of the government. He got rich thanks to the government. Football is a sportwashing project for him.

2

MasterWaffleZ t1_jeascn3 wrote

Name one team in the PL that the US government owns? I can name a couple teams that are owned by Arab/Middle Eastern governments. The owners of Fulham, Everton, and Villa are partially or fully middle eastern. BUT they're not part of the government so they don't get criticisms of the countries they were born in or represent.

13

automatic_shark t1_jebd1es wrote

The owners of Fulham are Middle Eastern? Aren't they owned by the Khan family? Pakistani Americans?

3

MasterWaffleZ t1_jebfww4 wrote

Yeah, I guess theres a caveat on what you define as Middle East. Villa’s partial owner, Sawiris, is Egyptian and I guess that’s more North Africa than Middle East, but point still stands in my opinion

1

_NotMitetechno_ t1_jeaudxw wrote

The US government doesn't own any teams. Massive difference between state officials/ministers/Royal family/wealth fund people and rich businessman from America.

12