Opinion What do Cristiano Ronaldo, World Tennis and Formula E have in common — sportswashing

The above instances are not meant to be an exhaustive account of the money being poured by the PIF — and, indeed, Saudi Arabia — into global sports. Aramco, the state-owned oil company, has funnelled millions towards sponsorship deals with Formula One and the International Cricket Council (ICC). Affiliates of the PIF have interests in mixed martial arts and eSports. Saudi Arabia is slated to host the 2029 Asian Winter Games, in a mountain resort that is under construction and will need a topping of artificial snow. Last year, there were widespread media reports about multi-billion-dollar bids by the PIF to also acquire Formula One and WWE. Eventually, these deals did not materialise but they were minor speed bumps in the path of this investment juggernaut. The future of sports, it seems, is tinted a deep shade of Saudi.

The Gulf nation’s zealous flushing of cash into sports is frequently denounced as an attempt at “sportswashing”, particularly, by querulous Western liberal voices. The term, a portmanteau of “sports” and “whitewash”, is of recent origin but has deep roots in statecraft. It refers to the age-old practice of authoritarian regimes using popular sporting events to divert attention from human rights violations or to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the world. The 1936 Olympic Games, held in Nazi-ruled Germany, are often held up as an example of sports being used for political leverage. More recently, the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was also mired in “sportswashing” allegations and controversies surrounding the deaths of migrant workers. While a few commentators in the Arab world had rightly questioned the hypocrisy and prejudice that laced Qatar’s criticism in Western media, the tales of exploitative labour systems and dismal working conditions were hard to ignore.

Much in the same vein, Saudi Arabia’s civil rights record is far from being kosher. ‘Freedom in the World’, the annual global report on political rights and civil liberties prepared by the non-profit Freedom House, has assigned a score of 8/100 to Saudi Arabia in the past two years. The Amnesty International Report 2022-23 noted instances of unfair trials, abuse of migrant workers and discrimination against women.

In January this year, reports about a potential arrangement between the Women’s Professional Tennis Association (WTA) and Saudi Arabia, triggered trenchant criticism of the Arab state by two greats of the game: Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. In an opinion piece for The Washington Post, the pair cited examples of the “unequal status of women…in Saudi law” and the criminalisation of the LGBTQ+ community. Evidence enough, they argued, of Saudi Arabia’s values being in stark contrast to those espoused by the WTA. The Saudi Ambassador to the United States later issued a feisty rebuttal, dismissing the column as “based on arguments that are outdated stereotypes and Western-centric views.” In a press release, the ambassador highlighted the progress made by Saudi women and the power of sports to “drive social change”. There was, however, no defence of the anti-LGBTQ laws.

Notwithstanding the spirited crusade of Evert, Navratilova & co., it is naïve to imagine any sport being able to resist the lure of Saudi petrodollars for too long. Ultimately, organised sports is a business and the needle of commercial rationale feels an almost magnetic pull towards capital. It will always move — towing institutions and athletes — closer to cash. And in such a scenario, when greasy money threatens to take over a sport, what choice does the ordinary fan have?

One option — at the far end of the ethical spectrum — is to follow in the footsteps of “NUFC Fans Against Sportwashing”. A collective of supporters who oppose the Saudi ownership of Newcastle United, this group works with activists to raise awareness about the oppressive practices of the regime. Some of these fans, who spent decades cheering the club from the stands, have not set foot in the stadium since the ownership change. Their moral conviction is certainly laudable, but it is also difficult to embrace.

For most people, sport offers an escape from the banality and travails of daily life. Be it on account of geographical location or passion conjured by athletes, fandom can yoke you to your chosen sporting team for life. It can begin to form part of your identity and offer a sense of community. Any expectation then, that all sports fans should sever relationships with their teams when dubious investors enter the fray, is neither reasonable nor practical. When sporting authorities, institutions and athletes can allow lucre to persuade them into falling in line, why should sports fans be tasked with being the last bastion of morality?

Yet, if complete boycott is a step too far for most, humanity demands that we not turn a blind eye to reality. The moment uninhibited adulation for a sports team leads to the uncritical support of its owners, the enterprise of “sportswashing” succeeds. As one of its goals, the “NUFC Fans Against Sportwashing” tries to ensure that reports of abuses are not normalised or reduced to being mere “issues”. Fans can continue supporting their team but must also bear witness to the brutal actions of the owners. Perhaps this is the responsibility all sports fans need to bear in the future: If not repudiation then, at the very least, remembrance.

The writer is a Mumbai-based lawyer