How was I the first to give that a like..........?Send our regards to Rio whilst you are out there..
Quick point.
As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).
We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.
So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?
A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.
If he had that performance in a red shirt there’d be a massive media push to get him in the World Cup squad!Imagine if Rico had that performance wearing a red/rag shirt.
Edit* seems from other posters comments breakfast sports news have had a nudge, not seen any sports news yet as I've only just woken up.
Delooney’s stock response is that sponsorship isn’t ownershipQuick point.
As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).
We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.
So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?
A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.
Maybe they could teach kids about the Heysel disaster too! But I’ve got a feeling they’d be “offended” by thatFfs that clown MP Ian Byrne on talkshite spouting off about every teams supporters singing about Hillsborough. Saying it shud be in national corriculum at school. Can’t they just let it go.
Delooney’s stock response is that sponsorship isn’t ownership
A cowardly and disingenuous position imo. Money is money. Money doesn’t care who owned it 10 minutes ago
None of these hypocrites ever mention clubs like Leicester and Stoke whose sponsors are owned by the same people who own the clubIt's not a small point IMO.
We are now lumped in with Newcastle and PSG in the "state owned" stakes.
But as far as Amesty and HRW are concerned, shirt sponsorship is still "sportswashing" but rarely mentioned as such anymore in the UK mainstream media because the focus is on the 3 klopp clubs and more widely with Qatar due world cup.
Ironically Emirates/Dubai probably fund more into European football each year than Abu Dhabi/ Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors
Emirates sponsor:
Real Madrid
Arsenal (plus Rwanda and an owner with very dubious dealings)
AC MIlan
Lyons
Benfica
Olympiakos
Newcastle
Other clubs who receive/have received Gulf sponsorship money:
United
Chelsea
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Aside from Bayern Munich (fan protests) there is little push back against any.
As far as Amnesty and HRW are concerned the argument is that "state funding" is more pernicious due the scope for political influence etc. PSG are the best example with the guy on UEFA executive and the Bein deal. Corrupt as fuck.
Or perhaps you could write a book about how good the world cup in Russia was?Qatar calling its critics racist opens a debate that may be worth having | Barney Ronay
Increasingly prevalent line may sound dubious, but talking it through sensitively could have unexpected benefitswww.theguardian.com
of course City get their usual airing, this time with regard Klopp’s comments and City’s alleged accusation that he’s xenophobic.
the sock puppet who penned this quotes Klopp saying the three state owned clubs have no financial restraint and can spend what they want, he then goes on to say Klopp is accurate. ignoring FFP and their spend etc, of course the buzzword that gets them around having to call out the cartel clubs who take ”blood money” in sponsorship is “owners”, therefore its fine and dandy to take money from any old mafia, just not to let them buy you.
American vulture capitalists good, rich Arab owners bad.
and of course this whole sportswashing straw man kind of falls flat on its face when our government dumps refugees in the centre of London in the middle of the night and our number one business is food banks.