Liverpool Thread - 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
JASR said:
Red shirt fans didn’t go ‘yep it’s sportswashing’ in 2008, that only came when we beat United to the PL in 2012 & Liverpool in 2014. Suddenly the realisation that the recent past (united) and the middle past (Liverpool) duopoly was going to be broken, and that their team wasn’t going to be top dog, caused them and the sycophantic media to search around for any excuse (other than the obvious factual truth)… and hey presto the meaningless soundbite ‘sportswashing’ became a thing to repeat ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Yep. Luckily, Google allows you to limit searches to particular dates, so you can see when people actually started talking about something. Actually the peak for the phrase sportswashing is 2005, and I think mostly refers to some golf tournament in Saudi and the Bahrain Grand Prix. In fact, every reference to sportswashing I can find refers to a country hosting a sporting event. If you search 'sportswashing Man City' and limit searches to before July 2011, you get "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search." Even after we won the title, there was no talk of sportswashing. When Baku hosting the European Games in 2015, there were accusations of sportswashing, but it was still something that had not been levelled at City's owners at that point. When Guardiola arrived in 2016, it wasn't mentioned.

Genuinely, the first example I can find of someone being 'concerned' about human rights in relation to Man City is a 2018 article in the Independent by Miguel Delaney.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Yep. Luckily, Google allows you to limit searches to particular dates, so you can see when people actually started talking about something. Actually the peak for the phrase sportswashing is 2005, and I think mostly refers to some golf tournament in Saudi and the Bahrain Grand Prix. In fact, every reference to sportswashing I can find refers to a country hosting a sporting event. If you search 'sportswashing Man City' and limit searches to before July 2011, you get "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search." Even after we won the title, there was no talk of sportswashing. When Baku hosting the European Games in 2015, there were accusations of sportswashing, but it was still something that had not been levelled at City's owners at that point. When Guardiola arrived in 2016, it wasn't mentioned.

Genuinely, the first example I can find of someone being 'concerned' about human rights in relation to Man City is a 2018 article in the Independent by Miguel Delaney.
Click to expand...
Ta for searching. I did think it was later than I mentioned 2012/2014.
But I didn’t realise it was a full further 4 years.
Agenda’s and deflection, right there.
10 years after the start of the City project… after exhausting the ‘he’ll get bored’ trope, the ‘money doesn’t buy success’ trope, the direct attack of City FFP regulations… they come to ‘sportswashing’

Clear and obvious
 
JASR said:
Yes, it’s something I’ve never quite ‘got’.
If it was a ‘sportswashing’ exercise (it’s not), then HH would have pulled the plug about 2010 as the City juggernaut was starting to gather pace , as the rising tide of media bile searched for a new neoligism to soundbite their invective and settled on ‘sportswashing’.

City fans didn’t go ‘oh look were having investment, it must be because the nation of Abu Dhabi has told its citizens to spend their private money acquiring assets to sportswash their worldwide image’. No we went ‘Jesus aren’t we bloody lucky and look at this fantastic football, makes a change from the 35 years dominance of teams in red… oh and wow look at the plans for East Manchester- brilliant for such a cash deprived area’.

Red shirt fans didn’t go ‘yep it’s sportswashing’ in 2008, that only came when we beat United to the PL in 2012 & Liverpool in 2014. Suddenly the realisation that the recent past (united) and the middle past (Liverpool) duopoly was going to be broken, and that their team wasn’t going to be top dog, caused them and the sycophantic media to search around for any excuse (other than the obvious factual truth)… and hey presto the meaningless soundbite ‘sportswashing’ became a thing to repeat ad nauseum.

Financial knowledgeable people may have questioned the original takeover (they shouldnt have, the potential for growth/profit was plain to see, unless you wore a istree shirt), but by the time of 2012 and the ever burgeoning commercial and TV money being thrown at the PL, many people should have been searching for the next growth potential club. The fact that it’s taken till 2022 for the next massive potential growth club - Newcastle - to be taken over is a bit odd. ‘Missed the boat’ was a phrase used many times by City fans in the past decade, as the drawbridges of FFP etc were scattered everywhere to inhibit City and discourage others from ‘doing a city’.

As for ‘the man in the street’ who doesn’t fall into any of the other categories mentioned, I dont think they give a single thought to ‘sportswashing’ on any level … because they know it’s bollox.

‘Sportswashing’ - an artificial constructed soundbite to deflect from their own failings
Click to expand...
Great post, JASR.
 
JASR said:
Ta for searching. I did think it was later than I mentioned 2012/2014.
But I didn’t realise it was a full further 4 years.
Agenda’s and deflection, right there.
10 years after the start of the City project… after exhausting the ‘he’ll get bored’ trope, the ‘money doesn’t buy success’ trope, the direct attack of City FFP regulations… they come to ‘sportswashing’

Clear and obvious
Click to expand...
I knew it would all come out in the wash...
By the way, when var came out, which were the only 2 clubs not equipped for its' use?
(Clue: they both play in red.)
 
Grassland Blue said:
I knew it would all come out in the wash...
By the way, when var came out, which were the only 2 clubs not equipped for its' use?
(Clue: they both play in red.)
Click to expand...

Surely theirs a time limit to bring their statiums up to premiership standards. If both the rags and the dippers statiums cant be bought up relegate them lol. That's what happens in lower leagues.
 
Wretched Vengeance said:
We've fucked them up good and proper.

Fucking have it, you cunts.

joaquin-phoenix-smile.gif
Click to expand...
Most eloquent post on Bluemoon in years.
Well said that man !!
 
Grassland Blue said:
I think because one of them is an 'istree club and the other plays by different rules.
Click to expand...

So really the premier league is run no different to grassroots kids football. I always found the worse behaved clubs were the ones with people on the league committee.

Seriously if their statiums cant come up to the 2022 standards the other clubs should stand together and take action. It's wrong that lower league clubs can be denied promotion because their ground doesn't come up to spec. Yet at the top of the football tree the fa turn a blind eye.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Yep. Luckily, Google allows you to limit searches to particular dates, so you can see when people actually started talking about something. Actually the peak for the phrase sportswashing is 2005, and I think mostly refers to some golf tournament in Saudi and the Bahrain Grand Prix. In fact, every reference to sportswashing I can find refers to a country hosting a sporting event. If you search 'sportswashing Man City' and limit searches to before July 2011, you get "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search." Even after we won the title, there was no talk of sportswashing. When Baku hosting the European Games in 2015, there were accusations of sportswashing, but it was still something that had not been levelled at City's owners at that point. When Guardiola arrived in 2016, it wasn't mentioned.

Genuinely, the first example I can find of someone being 'concerned' about human rights in relation to Man City is a 2018 article in the Independent by Miguel Delaney.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's no coincidence that there is little academic interest in the use of the term "sportswashing". The general consensus is that "sportswashing", firstly, is a media-driven construct and, secondly, that it applies to states and is synonymous with the exercise of soft-power and nation building. In fact, it can be argued that the use of these terms, together with reputation laundering, which can also be used with corporations and individuals, is better terminology.

Further, it's no coincidence that "sportswashing" is used solely for states that are not seen to be western allies, or deemed not to have western values. So, when Qatar or Saudi Arabia are involved, it is "sportswashing" with the negative connotations, but when a western country with their own rights problems does the same it is not.

There are also problems with the underlying premise of "sportswashing", in that it assumes that the act in question negates or draws attention away from an unfavourable perception of the actor. I think we can accept, in the present climate with social media, that sponsoring or investing in sport to do either of these things in fact does the opposite. It merely draws attention, of whoever is offended by the activities of the actor, to those activities.

So, to conclude, I would say that Mansour owning City isn't a case of nation-building or the exercise of soft power because he isn't a state, nor is it a case reputation laundering as he, as an individual, doesn't have a reputation that needs laundering. So this "sportswashing" epithet, as well as being academically superfluous, is inappropriately used.

An argument could be made that sponsorship from AD state-owned entities is reputation laundering/ nation building/ the use of soft-power depending on your point of view. But then so are all sponsorships from state-owned entities from Qatar, SA and any other country involved in the exercise of soft power/ nation-building/reputation laundering.

Also, you don't have to bend very far to come to the conclusion that Standard Chartered's sponsorship of Liverpool is a much more blatent example of laundering of a pretty bad reputation than Mansour's investment in City.

To summarise: it's all bollocks.

As an aside, it is pretty clear that Mansour has made good money on his investment, and that PIF will with Newcastle. Not sure about Qatar/PSG but if anyone buys Liverpool or United for north of 3-5 billion, it is fair to say the lack of much of an upside would mean nation-building, the exercise of soft-power or reputation laundering ("sportswashing" to the great unloved) would be very much on the agenda.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top