Surely one of the biggest criticisms of this insistence that somehow there’s sportswashing going on is the fact that everything MCFC does gets picked up on and turned into a negative story about Abu Dhabi? If sportswashing was the motive then it‘s failed. Of course those who decide to attack MCFC or Abu Dhabi will continue to do so no matter what.
I'd like to add something for the sake of a counter argument.
I think there's a much wider public that really don't care about all of this. The most casual of fans or the EA FIFA generation all across the world aren't going to be reading articles about Abu Dhabi being bad.
They have it in F1. F1 superfans gets up in arms every year about races in Abu Dhabi and upcoming races in Saudi Arabia (But not Bahrain, because it's an entertaining track. Read into that what you will). But the increasingly large worldwide audience don't actually care.
I actually do believe that these things do advertise the respective countries, and overall they do a good job of it, despite what we see on the internet suggesting otherwise.
My personal issue is twofold. Firstly, the suggestion that these advertisements are as a means to hide away evil regimes and horrible terrors, as opposed to simple advertising. Tourism is a huge and ever growing industry. It's a brilliant way to boost income and economies. Sportswashing (in football) is a sinister term used to justify closeted bigotry towards successful Arabs, as well as the easiest (i.e. laziest) way to attack City. Bet365 advertise on shirts to make them seem cool when gambling is an everpresent social pandemic. Is that not sportswashing? Are the Coates family not evil? Coca-Cola and McDonald's advertise sports events galore, despite being massive contributors to worldwide obesity and diabetes issues? Is that not sportswashing? Why aren't they criticised at every turn? Bayer literally gave people AIDS once upon a time, and now they get advertised every time you read about Bayer Leverkusen. Nobody think that's weird? Either everybody is bad, in which case equal criticism should be levied at everyone. Or it's all just advertising.
Secondly, it annoys me that these days you see many writings on how the sole purpose of buying Man City was to sportswash. Not to sound patronising to anyone, but why the fuck does anybody with a lot of money buy a football club (or any sports club or similar)? It's because it's really fucking cool to own a (successful) club, and/or it's a great way to make money if you're good at making money, and/or if you love being successful in business then football clubs are an amazing ego boosting way to do it. Abramovich bought Chelsea because he loves football and wanted to own his own club. Kroenke, the Glazers wanted a club because like in the NFL it makes them money. FSG the same.
That's not to reduce it to those few elements. Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha bought Leicester City because of the reasons above, but it was also a great way to advertise his King Power company.
But City, no. Only to sportswash. Not to make money. Not to have the satisfaction of running one of the best run clubs in the world, all because of your own work. Not because it's a privilege to own a club. But because they're worried what the west thinks of them.
Please.
