Disregardful Perspective on Newcastle United, Overlooking a Significant Flaw
Rewritten Article:
Newcastle's Wembley triumph left football fans and pundits with a mixed bag of feelings.
On one hand, it was undeniably a long-awaited victory for the Geordies, a trophy they hadn't lifted since 1969 – quite the wait. The passion and determination displayed by the players were a sight to behold, and it seemed like the side wanted it more than their opponents.
But, on the other hand, the ownership of the club by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) has caused some debate. Critics argue that this victory was, in part, used as a tool for 'sportswashing,' helping to improve the country's image by associated it with a positive event like a football tournament win.
The takeover had been controversial from the beginning, with concerns raised about the PIF's human rights record and its role in sports. Some journalists felt it was a form of 'sportswashing' — improving a country's image through sports, rather than real reforms.
The sports world has been reshaped in recent years, and many find it hard to separate politics from sports. Perhaps it was the World Cup in Qatar that truly turned up the volume. While it's important to discuss the broader issues, it's also essential for journalists to practice self-examination and balance in their stances.
Oliver Kay, a prominent sports journalist writing for The Athletic, acknowledged Newcastle's triumph as a 'feelgood story' but brought up the ethical concerns surrounding the ownership. He questioned the contrast between the joy felt by Newcastle fans and the PIF's involvement in human rights abuses and highlighted the easier funds' potential violations of sports integrity principles.
Barney Ronay, in his critique for The Guardian, argued that the magical moment of triumph for Newcastle was also a victory for the Saudi Arabian regime. He discussed the uneasy feeling of guilty pleasure that the victory might bring and suggested that the entire process constitutes macro-violence towards sport, clubs, leagues, and fans.
It's only fair to mention that the journalists' harsh criticisms of Newcastle ownership contrast sharply with their previous praise for owners like Roman Abramovich. They seemed to have overlooked ethical concerns back then, as shown in Kay's 2015 profile pieces on the Chelsea owner without putting much emphasis on his questionable human rights record.
It's crucial that journalists acknowledge the inconsistencies in their critiques and apply the same standards to all clubs, not just those with foreign owners with controversial backgrounds. Moreover, if we want to discuss the ethical implications of foreign ownership more effectively, it is essential to address blindspots in the broader media discourse on sports ownership and remain vigilant in demanding greater transparency and accountability in club ownership structures.
- Despite Newcastle United's triumph, concerns about the club's ownership by the Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) persist, with questions about sportswashing and the involvement in human rights abuses.
- In a different context, Liverpool's victory over Chelsea whitewashed any doubts about their dominance, exactly the opposite of the ethical questions surrounding Newcastle's triumph.
- In harnessing the power to inspect club ownership structures and the impact of their owners on sports integrity, journalists have an opportunity to ensure consistent ethical standards, as seen in the contrasting reviews of Roman Abramovich's tenure at Chelsea and the PIF's involvement at Newcastle.
