Sportswashing

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm absolutely correct, and the Miguel Delaney's and Barney Ronay's of the world just continue to prove the point. Ronay has spent the last ten years felating Abramovich and writing countless smear articles about City and ADG like they're not exactly the same situations with different skin colours.

 

[Pothas]

Would you in a perfect world want City to be owned by someone else? Or us it totally irrelevant?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Would you in a perfect world want City to be owned by someone else? Or us it totally irrelevant?

No one who has enough money to buy a football club is a good person.

 

[StephenZA]

First time I`ve read this thread, did not know what sportswashing was... and this thread is not what I thought it was going to be.

 

[Spark]

The Rumble in the Jungle is an example that never really comes up. Might be wrong but from what I’ve read the idea that it should have been boycotted on humanitarian grounds never even seemed to come up. In that political context it would probably have come across as transparently racist.

It never comes up when events take place in China either. When people point this kind of thing out it’s usually to defend a team they support, and they’re accused of whataboutery. But the more I think about it the more accurate DCYE’s post is.

This is what I was getting at when I said that it falters on people assuming that sports were much more important than they actually are. If they truly, fundamentally were that important than your choice of which team to support could be imbued with some inherently moral quality (i.e. it's moral to support some teams instead of others). But they aren't, so it isn't, and a lot of "sportswashing" discourse is about trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[StephenZA]

I wonder how much of this could also have been applied to Apartheid South Africa. Because even if it did, I still really don't feel like teams should have played against countries with an all-white selection policy. That might be inconsistent of me.

in general though i get where the critics of sportswashing are coming from, but they tend to make the mistake of thinking sports are much, much, much, much more important than they actually are.

Just as a general comment, and to show Sparks point, the 'sportswashing' is largely symbolic and pretty irrelevant to the larger problems normally being discussed. It was the economic sanctions that brought apartheid in SA down; along with some changes in government and practical realties. Not being able to play Rugby and Cricket internationally was more symbolic but was important for the people in SA, because it just made you a bit more aware that the RoW was condemning your government/countries actions.

As pure speculation, if SA had just had economic sanctions, but still been allowed to participate in world wide sporting events, and other such things; I think that may have created some more acceptance and even possibly allowed the world to see SA in a more positive light... which may have ended with reduced sanctions and bigger business push back. Ultimately its the internal politics and SA got pretty lucky in the end, in the way apartheid ended.

 

[Uppercut]

Just as a general comment, and to show Sparks point, the 'sportswashing' is largely symbolic and pretty irrelevant to the larger problems normally being discussed. It was the economic sanctions that brought apartheid in SA down; along with some changes in government and practical realties. Not being able to play Rugby and Cricket internationally was more symbolic but was important for the people in SA, because it just made you a bit more aware that the RoW was condemning your government/countries actions.

As pure speculation, if SA had just had economic sanctions, but still been allowed to participate in world wide sporting events, and other such things; I think that may have created some more acceptance and even possibly allowed the world to see SA in a more positive light... which may have ended with reduced sanctions and bigger business push back. Ultimately its the internal politics and SA got pretty lucky in the end, in the way apartheid ended.

The other thing about SA is that it’s a rare regime change success story. Usually when a political system collapses it’s replaced with something even worse.

As you say, the internal political details are so important, and are often the part of the equation that outsiders are most ignorant of. The Apartheid boycotts empowered the people they were supposed to empower, whereas AFAIK the criticism of Qatar does the opposite.

 

[Pothas]

No one who has enough money to buy a football club is a good person.

As far as I am aware Delia Smith never had anyone beheaded. Sure we are all compromised in some way but there are levels.

Thing is that City never bothered me but the Saudi Newcastle thing really did which is obviously entirely inconsistent of me.

 

[Uppercut]

As far as I am aware Delia Smith never had anyone beheaded. Sure we are all compromised in some way but there are levels.

Thing is that City never bothered me but the Saudi Newcastle thing really did which is obviously entirely inconsistent of me.

It’s because overlooking it is one thing, but actively and openly celebrating it is absolutely embarrassing. Especially for a club that thinks so highly of itself.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's probably overstated, but I do think the Gleneagles Agreement did play a small part in the dismantling of apartheid.

From the outside looking in sport seems more ingrained in SA culture than it does in Qatari or Saudi Arabian cultures, so the boycott seemed to hurt.

If FIFA suddenly decided that stoning women for adultery was a bad thing (I realise even imagining FIFA having a moral compass is a massive stretch, but bear with me) and banned Saudi Arabia from international football, I couldn't see the Saudi FA funding rebel tours to provide the Green Falcons (which is the nickname of their national team, apparently) with decent opposition.

 

[Niall]

The Rumble in the Jungle is an example that never really comes up. Might be wrong but from what I’ve read the idea that it should have been boycotted on humanitarian grounds never even seemed to come up. In that political context it would probably have come across as transparently racist.

It never comes up when events take place in China either. When people point this kind of thing out it’s usually to defend a team they support, and they’re accused of whataboutery. But the more I think about it the more accurate DCYE’s post is.

Any discussion of the rumble in the jungle does speak about the situation of the country where that fight was held to be fair.

Regarding China, always amusing when I see the NBA lads talking about social justice and quiet as a mouse about Muslims been placed in concentration camps. Its a sport which is quite left wing, aimed at a diverse audience and it takes no courage to go "Trump bad" but wont dare upset their paymasters.

 

[Son Of Coco]

i wonder if the appropriateness of a sports "boycott" depends on the nation then

eg i would say north korea is a country who we should be doing a lot more to play sports with. south africa during apartheid to my understanding, and correct me if i'm wrong, were illiberal though not cloistered right? which is to say, with countries that are already in the "outgroup" boycotts serve only to further isolate, but countries that are in the "ingroup" of trade and commerce etc, maybe boycotts are more appropriate there

How could anyone compete against a country whose Dear Leader shot 38 under par the first time he ever picked up a golf club? And that with 11 holes in one no less. North Koreans are simply a class above when it comes to physical endeavours.

(And a dozen classes below when it comes to working out how far to push a lie)