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?

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?

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....