Bloomberg and various other sources are reporting that a Qatari bid for Manchester United is incoming. This was much discussed last week but I'll state my view here because I think a lot of the pro-takeover voices failed to understand the key objections. So here, for what it's worth, it is.
A football club is such a meaningful institution above all because of the community it creates: the sense of shared identification with the club. The members of that community are the club's most important stakeholders, and in an ideal world, the club would be owned by them, or at least constituted such that it is run in their interests. Clearly, elite football has long travelled beyond this point. But we shouldn't forget that the relationship with the community of supporters remains the lifeblood of the sport, even if our leverage is relegated to that of consumers and advertising audience in the eyes of the people controlling the sport.
We don't live in an ideal world. It's unlikely that an individual or organisation that has acquired enough capital to acquire Manchester United will be a saintly benefactor who just wants to give the club 'back' to the fans. They are probably going to want something in return: profits or prestige. Most of us have got used to that idea. Where I think we differ is that some proceed from that understanding to shrug their shoulders and decide that any ownership is imperfect so there's no space left for moral judgement.
For me this is a (perhaps unintentionally) cynical view. We belong to the community that predates and outlives any temporary owner of the club. (For instance, I consider myself relatively young but have supported United longer than the combined majority ownership of Louis and Martin Edwards and the PLC.) The club is part of our identity, and what it does in the world, it does in our name. We can't cheer for the team, revel in its glories, and consider ourselves disassociated from the impact and implications of the club as a wider cultural and commercial force.
Again, we live in a flawed world. I've felt ambivalent about United as the club has played a pioneering role in shifting the sport from something community based to big business. I've felt shame at seeing United being turned into a vehicle whose primary purpose is servicing debt repayments. However, in such a world there are nevertheless less imperfect, and more appalling, scenarios.
Under the Glazers we were owned by an organisation that was essentially parasitical: it was here to extract wealth from our community. Now we have the prospect of being owned by an organisation whose primary purpose is prestige rather than profit. To the fan it looks like a solution to the problem posed by the Glazers. Perhaps that flow of money will be reversed. But at what cost?
If Manchester United becomes a trophy asset of a Qatar, our community will be harnessed as a means to attach positive PR, a popular global brand, the prestige and global familiarity of our club with an authoritarian state. This would be different from a generic Bad Man owning the club, which is of course undesirable but basically with no real-world consequences. The real-world impact of an authoritarian state owning United is that it bolsters the position of the ruling elite, creating breathing space for it to torture and imprison citizens who campaign for civil liberties and against corruption. It means every goal we score, every trophy we lift, every moment of joy the club gives us belongs to (and will be instrumentalised by) that ruling elite.
Some people will take that bargain, and that's fair enough. Despite what I'm writing, I feel how tempting it is to imagine our club lifting Champions Leagues again. Everyone can decide their priorities.
What I don't accept is the cynical argument I saw last week that any owner is bad, so ethical commentary is self-righteous grandstanding. To me this is just a convenient, morally lazy way of avoiding having to confront the truth.
The other baseless argument I saw was that this is Western hypocrisy and/or racism against brown investors. This isn't about Western culture being superior. First of all, if any Western authoritarian state or organisation tried to use the club for sportswashing purposes, the objection would be the same. Secondly, opposition to the authoritarian Qatari state is about *solidarity* with the victims of that state, which is to say Arabs who yearn for civil liberties and exploited and abused (primarily) south Asian migrant workers.
Qatar
posted on 14/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
(But we shan't go full Winston-VC on this question!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston - VC didn’t go full on Winston - VC.
Winston tried his best though.
posted on 14/2/23
In what respect do you think they are culturally influenced? I’d agree there’s probably loads that don’t think too much of it, plenty are indifferent, but that doesn’t suggest to me that their sportswashing endeavour is particularly effective.
You only have to look at how many group PSG, City and now Newcastle together to see that only an acknowledgement of ‘oil money’ has had very negative consequences to the perception of these countries - both from fans and the media.
Of course it’s difficult to get a forensic view of this, and I’m obviously talking more in the Anglo-sphere, but Qatar’s hosting of the world cup - something that cannot be separated from their ownership of PSG as they are contingent on one another - received far more negative attention than than any World Cup had before. To the point that it apparently even surprised the Qatari’s.
I’d argue, if anything, if washing their reputation is the motivation then they’re probably looking at achieving that within the Arab and Muslim world, not the West. And it’s far more likely that was successful when you look at the reaction from Arabs and Muslims to them hosting the world cup.
posted on 14/2/23
I'd say attaching a tangible value to these investments is an attempt at attribution that is misplaced here.
This is branding.
It's the normality of the region and the people... moving it from something that is unknown and offputting to something that is normalised.
I think if we're looking for an actual profit attributable to the investment then we'll fail, but that doesn't mean that they're not investing in clubs to benefit the region and the perception that comes with it.
posted on 14/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
I take on board the argument against the concept of sportswashing. I'd add though that there are far more people across the world who aren't committed fans or haters of individual clubs, but are culturally influenced by major sports brands if they get big enough. Iconic teams and stars will transcend the limits of specialist fans. I think PSG has to some extent achieved that, through its stockpiling of famous players more than any actual sporting achievements. Being removed from the tribal loyalties of French domestic football, I have a sense of PSG's cultural cachet, and I think that does kind of glamorise and familiarise Qatar. I can feel it having that effect on my subconscious perceptions, pushing against the grain of my conscious attitudes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure people that do do that necessarily equate PSG with Qatar though, it’s not as if there’s much cultural embodiment associated to it.
posted on 14/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
I take on board the argument against the concept of sportswashing. I'd add though that there are far more people across the world who aren't committed fans or haters of individual clubs, but are culturally influenced by major sports brands if they get big enough. Iconic teams and stars will transcend the limits of specialist fans. I think PSG has to some extent achieved that, through its stockpiling of famous players more than any actual sporting achievements. Being removed from the tribal loyalties of French domestic football, I have a sense of PSG's cultural cachet, and I think that does kind of glamorise and familiarise Qatar. I can feel it having that effect on my subconscious perceptions, pushing against the grain of my conscious attitudes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure people that do do that necessarily equate PSG with Qatar though, it’s not as if there’s much cultural embodiment associated to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it engenders next to no cultural engagement with Qatar as a tangible place. I think Qatar is effectively a blank space for the vast majority of the world, and PSG may be among the first images that occupy that space.
posted on 14/2/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 54 minutes ago
In what respect do you think they are culturally influenced? I’d agree there’s probably loads that don’t think too much of it, plenty are indifferent, but that doesn’t suggest to me that their sportswashing endeavour is particularly effective.
You only have to look at how many group PSG, City and now Newcastle together to see that only an acknowledgement of ‘oil money’ has had very negative consequences to the perception of these countries - both from fans and the media.
Of course it’s difficult to get a forensic view of this, and I’m obviously talking more in the Anglo-sphere, but Qatar’s hosting of the world cup - something that cannot be separated from their ownership of PSG as they are contingent on one another - received far more negative attention than than any World Cup had before. To the point that it apparently even surprised the Qatari’s.
I’d argue, if anything, if washing their reputation is the motivation then they’re probably looking at achieving that within the Arab and Muslim world, not the West. And it’s far more likely that was successful when you look at the reaction from Arabs and Muslims to them hosting the world cup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your last point there, I completely agree with. The potentially damaging thing is within the countries still, more so than the impact on western audiences.
Got to be said as well, in that context, you guys have had a strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia for a while now. I get those that might feel uncomfortable with Qatari ownership, surely there should be a high level of discomfort already though…
posted on 14/2/23
Melts, given Qatar is a bit of a pariah in the Middle East, it would make more strategic sense to be trying to wash their reputation with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.
On the Saudi thing, I remember many voicing their concern at it. But I think it’s more easy to forgive a corporate institution, strategising with that region of the world, than a sovereign state owning the football club. The latter is clearly a more explicit case of the club being associated with questionable people.
The sovereign state is the real problem here as well, setting aside the moral issues. It’s akin to state aid, albeit with different motivations, and that’s something most countries don’t even allow. That it’s been allowed in football is the biggest piiiiiisstake.
posted on 14/2/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Melts, given Qatar is a bit of a pariah in the Middle East, it would make more strategic sense to be trying to wash their reputation with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.
On the Saudi thing, I remember many voicing their concern at it. But I think it’s more easy to forgive a corporate institution, strategising with that region of the world, than a sovereign state owning the football club. The latter is clearly a more explicit case of the club being associated with questionable people.
The sovereign state is the real problem here as well, setting aside the moral issues. It’s akin to state aid, albeit with different motivations, and that’s something most countries don’t even allow. That it’s been allowed in football is the biggest piiiiiisstake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I get it, it’s far more blatant, but ultimately if you’re furthering the goal of that state and willing to deal and profit from them, I’m not sure there’s really that much difference to being owned by them aside from its a lot harder to turn a blind eye to it and the perception of others.
Agree on the last paragraph, a lot of what football allows nowadays in terms of both ownership and club finances I abhor and have always said I’d rather have a return to pre eighties models (as long as we don’t get an owner like Peter Swales again! ). It is ultimately a case of football, and particularly clubs at the very top, eating themselves.
posted on 14/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
I take on board the argument against the concept of sportswashing. I'd add though that there are far more people across the world who aren't committed fans or haters of individual clubs, but are culturally influenced by major sports brands if they get big enough. Iconic teams and stars will transcend the limits of specialist fans. I think PSG has to some extent achieved that, through its stockpiling of famous players more than any actual sporting achievements. Being removed from the tribal loyalties of French domestic football, I have a sense of PSG's cultural cachet, and I think that does kind of glamorise and familiarise Qatar. I can feel it having that effect on my subconscious perceptions, pushing against the grain of my conscious attitudes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure people that do do that necessarily equate PSG with Qatar though, it’s not as if there’s much cultural embodiment associated to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it engenders next to no cultural engagement with Qatar as a tangible place. I think Qatar is effectively a blank space for the vast majority of the world, and PSG may be among the first images that occupy that space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly, I can only speak from my experience of what happened to us and I’d say what it does is expose what that country is actually like to most, particularly if it’s a blank image in their minds already, rather than replace it with a utopian view.
posted on 14/2/23
Melts