Football and the UAE: A Corrupt Relationship?
In the context of the recent Emirates FA Cup final between Arsenal and Chelsea, it is vital to look at the sponsorship behind this year's competition, and its participants.
The final of this year’s FA Cup, which took place last Saturday, not only represented a fiery encounter between two London rivals in Arsenal and Chelsea, but also provided a visible platform to the United Arab Emirates’ public image. Captions such as ‘Fly Emirates’ could be seen throughout Wembley stadium, and into the homes of millions watching the match around the world. Emirates Airlines, a UAE state-owned company, currently pays £10m a year to the Football Association for the right to sponsor the FA Cup. For £30m a year, it will continue to be Arsenal's main shirt sponsor until 2019, and has naming rights over its home ground until 2028. These deals come in spite of a commitment made by FIFA this year which states that all footballing activities should be embedded within a context that prioritises the respect for human rights. These intentions were based on the advice from an independent report that states that the “primary obligation, to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights”, should apply to all football corporate sponsors.
The UAE has long been criticised for its violations of international law, and its failure to uphold the basic human rights of those within its borders. International organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have protested vigorously against the oppressive regime that governs the Emirati state. The internationally renowned case of the ‘UAE 94’ is an apt illustration of this, where up to 94 activists, including human rights lawyers and teachers, were arrested after calling for democratic reforms, held in secret location and subject to brutal torture and punishment at the hands of UAE authorities. Amnesty branded the unfair nature of the trial in which the victims were denied the right of appeal. Since 2011, the UAE has tightened their cyber-surveillance and censorship of online content and has introduced new cybercrime laws which criminalise any form of dissent or public criticism of the government, its ruling families or their allies. In 2016 alone, 300 people have been reported to have been detained for their social media posts. Freedom of expression and assembly are just two of the basic rights that are routinely denied in the UAE.
In light of this evidence, clearly, the sponsorship from the UAE poses damning ethical implications on the world of football. The question remains as to why we allow such ruthless regimes, counter to our human rights position in the UK, to be involved in a sport we hold so dearly. This in particular seems to cross ethical boundaries, given FIFA’s latest position on human rights. The independent advisory board, which includes FIFPro General-Secretary Theo van Seggelen, stated that:
“Through the power of football, FIFA, supported by FIFPro and other world experts in this field, can play a decisive role to advance human rights across the globe”. The initiative has been launched to ensure FIFA respects human rights in all of its activities, yet no mention of the investment the UAE has in football has been addressed, despite the internationally-recognised gross human rights violations.
Few fans would protest over a billionaire owner taking over a club, when the wealth provided set out a clear path to glory; something every fan dreams of. This can be seen none more so than when Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan bought Manchester City in 2008. Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family, has since spent over £1bn in a 10-year deal with the club. During the 2010-2012 period the club had reportedly lost around £300 million, a sum that would barely touch the surface of Mansour’s wealth. With his drive to make City one of the greatest clubs in the world, it is no surprise that fans have conducted little protest, especially as Mansour bought Manchester City their first Premier League title in 2012 in 44 years. However, blatantly turning a blind eye to the atrocities that Mansour’s family is part of, for the chance of footballing success, is a stance that can no longer be taken. The mistreatment of the detainees in the UAE 94 trial and in light of the Arab Spring makes this relationship between Mansour and City riddled with flaws.
The UAE’s inward capital investment into the UK in the form of sponsorship rights over key cultural institutions such as football clubs is indicative of the way that the UAE launders its image in order to project itself positively on the world stage. This should be of concern to football supporters and the FA alike. Through their wealth, the UAE are covering up their disregard for basic human rights by effectively sponsoring football clubs, cultural festivals, and tourist attractions such as the Emirates Air Line, to transform the name into a brand. By channeling money into football, the UAE authorities effectively gain a platform to influence an important part of British culture which can be used to conceal the darker side to life within the Emirati state where arbitrary detention, torture, and restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly are commonplace. Not only is this achieved by buying players, paying their wages and creating stadiums, but also through advertising. Manchester City have allowed the clubs owner to bring in four UAE state-owned companies: the airline Etihad, the telecommunications company Etisalat, the investment company Aabar and the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority. These companies are plastered all around the Etihad stadium in a similar fashion to that of the ‘Emirates’ cup final and in Arsenal’s Emirates stadium. With premier league football attracting a global audience, this constitutes an incredibly powerful global advert for the United Arab Emirates.
It is not just Arsenal and Manchester City that are affiliated with the UAE, in fact Nottingham Forest and Leeds United also have Gulf-based owners. It is likely, based on past evidence that the majority of these clubs fans would ignore the situation in the Gulf region for the chance at title success. However, this is not a position that should remain viable. Football is based predominantly on tradition, and many would consider it an integral part of British society and culture. Nicholas McGeehan, Human Rights Watch researcher on the UAE, points out that Manchester City, a club which has historic roots in city’s working class communities, are now owned by a government that does not even allow trade unions in its country, and presides over one of the most repressive labour systems in the world.
McGeehan goes on to say that football clubs:
“Are cultural institutions and they needed to be protected from people who would manipulate them and who would harm the club and the game as a whole, which is such a big part of UK culture. Now as it stands if you are convicted of financial crimes then you are not allowed to buy a football club… but what it doesn’t address is heads of foreign states who haven’t been prosecuted for crimes because their position enables them to escape any sort of prosecution.”
The increased presence of the UAE into UK popular culture should be understood within the wider context of its 'special relationship' with the UK government. In a year which has seen the UAE authorities arbitrarily detain the prominent human rights activist, Ahmed Mansour, and sentence journalists and academics to heavy prison terms for comments made on social media platforms, the UK government has announced its intention to increase trading relations with the Emirati state of up to 25bn by 2020. The British government has so far failed to add their voice to growing concerns coming from the international community regarding human rights violations in the UAE. The British state likes to pride itself on its liberal values, and respect for human rights around the world. It is with a bitter irony that a government that so flagrantly opposes democratic and civil rights within its own country is now sponsoring cultural institutions in the UK that have their historic roots within communities that fought and struggled to win those very same rights many decades ago.
1. p.36 https://www.solidar.ch/sites/default/files/ruggie_humanrightsfifa_reportapril2016.pdf
2. https://www.fifpro.org/news/human-rights-on-fifa-agenda/en/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/manchester-city-human-rights-accusations
4. https://leftfootforward.org/2013/09/football-human-rights-overseas/
