Fan outcry needed to curb leagues banking blood money

What do the FA Cup, the NBA, the Tour de France and Sudan’s civil war have in common? They’re all being funded by the United Arab Emirates.

Unsurprisingly, the UAE acknowledges only three of these sponsorships. But its financing of the fourth is a widely-held matter of fact and, increasingly, a major problem for the sporting properties receiving its cash.

Last week, the humanitarian agency Refugees International renewed its call for the NBA to sever its relationship with Emirates — the airline owned by the UAE’s sovereign wealth fund. Emirates is the title sponsor of the annual NBA Cup.

It also holds the naming rights for a Tour cycling team and English football’s FA Cup, and its wordmark can be seen on the shirts of prominent clubs like Arsenal, AC Milan and Real Madrid.

For some context on the urgency of the issue, consider that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has stated that the United Arab Emirates has “fuelled” the conflict and “legitimized the monsters destroying Sudan.”

It’s not every day that Republicans and Democrats agree on something, but the UAE’s war profiteering seems to be a unifying matter. (We’ll just let the irony sit there a moment.)

So, what happens next? What will these leagues and teams do about the blood money they’re banking?

Probably nothing.

From a business standpoint, Emirates is a very reliable partner. Then there’s the argument that, if not Emirates, other sponsors would step up, inevitably with their own ethical problems. Fossil fuel companies, for example; maybe fashion labels that rely on low-wage labour. “What, pray tell, is the line?!”

A good question, because we do have to draw one arbitrarily. That said, it’s pretty safe to say that the financing of atrocities is on the other side of it, and by some distance.

Generally speaking, the involvement of sovereign wealth funds is always a cause for skepticism. Oftentimes, these state-owned investment pools are not advertising actual products, but rather national brands.

Emirates, as an airline, is an exception. Sort of. It’s all rather sneaky. People can choose whether to fly on its planes, but if they do they should be aware that their upgrade to Premium Economy just helped purchase ammunition for Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces.

What properties like the FA Cup and NBA are doing when they partner with the UAE is rinsing all those dirty billions through their own reputations, perceived both as healthy and culturally significant. It’s the definition of sportwashing.

Unfortunately, terms like “sportwashing” and “human rights” are increasingly hollow and even eyeroll-inducing. Not that complicity from our favourite competitions and clubs is helpful. Or that the most complicit of all happens to be the biggest one.

FIFA, under president Gianni Infantino’s dishonourable leadership, has sold itself to Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the PIF. As a result, the upcoming World Cup will put the Saudi’s state-run oil company, Aramco, and its internal displacement megaproject, NEOM, in front of its international audience.

It can get away with it because, at least for now, too few people care. Or, they might care a bit, but not enough to stay away from the stadiums or decline to buy merchandise. The FA Cup, NBA, Arsenal, etc. are comfortable running the risk as well, at least for now.

They might also have taken instruction from Borussia Dortmund, long seen as one of world football’s most socially progressive institutions.

In 2024, the Bundesliga club agreed to a multi-year partnership with weapons manufacturer Rheinmettall. Initially, the fanbase reacted with fury, and it looked for a time that the contract might be cancelled. Then the uproar died away and Dortmund got to cash its cheques.

It’s all quite disheartening, though not unexpected. But what if…

What if — imagine with me now — pangs of conscience, otherwise known as business decisions motivated by a nauseated customer base, compelled these sporting establishments to simply let their sovereign wealth fund sponsorships expire?

They’d get to keep making bank, and they wouldn’t have to say anything or issue self-righteous statements to a cynical public. Then, they could replace Emirates or PIF or what have you with slightly less awful corporate partners. Still awful, mind, but on the other side of that human massacre-collaborating line.

It would be the bare minimum, but it’s surely reasonable to expect that bare minimum — that sponsors won’t actively assist in killing people.

In the meantime, the FA Cup’s third round begins a month from now, the NBA Cup resumes next weekend, Arsenal visits Sunderland Saturday, AC Milan travels to Parma and Real Madrid faces Rayo Vallecano on Sunday.

None of them needs Emirates to survive, but until enough people care, until reputational damage is a very real risk, they won’t change a thing.

Which begs the ultimate question: What if we started caring?

jerradpeters@gmail.com

@jerradpeters.bsky.social