FA accept Saudi assurances rejected by CIA

New ClaretandHugh blogger Brendan Cronin looks at the Saudi takeover at Newcastle United and recalls meeting a man allegedly murdered on the orders of the Magpies new owner.

It’s no surprise that the FA has managed to find a wafer-thin excuse for allowing the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) take effective ownership of a Premier League club. After all, their original reasoning when they decided this group wouldn’t pass a fit and proper test had nothing to do with human rights abuses. It was because a Saudi TV station was pirating Premier League matches.

What does surprise me, though, is just how many people have no problem with this new ownership – welcoming it in many cases as something Newcastle United deserve. There may even have been dancing in the streets!

People who are vehemently opposed to players taking the knee as they see it bringing politics into football seem to be turning a blind eye to politics actually owning football. But then there’s been a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this takeover, as Jonathan Wilson previously pointed out (https://www.si.com/soccer/2021/10/07/newcastle-saudi-arabia-takeover-premier-league.)

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in the Saudi capital Riyadh on October 23, 2018. Photo by FAYEZ NURELDINE / AFP) (Photo credit should read FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP via Getty Images)

I worked as a journalist and in 2005 met Jamal Khashoggi when he was in favour with the Saudis. He was working as the Media Advisor to the Saudi Ambassador in London. He shook my hand and welcomed me into his office in the Embassy. Thirteen years later, in a similar office in an Embassy in Istanbul he was brutally murdered. The CIA has concluded this was on the orders of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He is the Chairman of the PIF which now owns 80% of a Premiership football club. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-concludes-saudi-crown-prince-ordered-jamal-khashoggis-assassination/2018/11/16/98c89fe6-e9b2-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html)

The FA can argue that he doesn’t control it. After all, they say, we have “legally binding assurances” that the Saudi state won’t be in control of the club. US intelligence has found that the assurances given by the same state did not stand up to scrutiny in the Khasoggi case. But the FA appears to have no problem with this. What do they believe the fans think about it all?

The answer, of course, is that they don’t really care what we think. We’re only the fans. Before the influx of foreign investment and TV rights, our money was important. Now, not so much. The FA may say that the Saudi state don’t own the club. But do they think the PIF will say no if Mohammed bin Salman fancies a go at managing Newcastle himself?

I understand how much the Newcastle supporters disliked and tried to get rid of the old owners – but at what cost? Bit by bit, this change in football, where countries with dubious human rights records are deemed suitable owners of clubs is brutalising the beautiful game.

What next? If the Taliban gets poppy and heroin production under its control and decides to invest in a football club, will that be OK? Would Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad be acceptable as long as he didn’t sit on the board? Or Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán?

The other thing that has surprised me is comments from a few West Ham supporters equating Sullivan and Gold with the Saudis. There’s a difference between their businesses and a country with such scant regard for human rights that they threw a woman into prison for over three years for campaigning for the rights of women to drive a car (https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/11/saudi-arabia-new-details-alleged-torture-leaked).

I’m not sure where all of this is going. What happens when oil money dries up? What happens if these countries decide that the sportswashing has cleaned their country’s reputation enough and it’s time to get out? And how much money will Newcastle United actually get? The PIF has £320 billion, but that’s obviously not all destined for the club. Their next stop may be buying an American sporting franchise, and that’s an expensive business.

I’m glad that the best of my football supporting days were in the 60s, 70s and 80s when the game was more equitable. One of the things I like about David Moyes is that he seems to be a throwback to those days. He reminds me of Lyall and Greenwood. He seems to treat the club’s money as if it was his own and doesn’t want to throw it around – he wants value for it. He doesn’t go off on media rants. He doesn’t think he’s bigger than the club, or another “special one”. He’s dignified.

For me, the only positive about this is that the PIF targeted Newcastle and not West Ham. Our club is one with a fine history of decency. This is a club that was offered the best goalkeeper in the world at the time, but passed because Ron Greenwood had shaken hands on a deal to buy Bobby Ferguson. The club of Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst, Trevor Brooking, Billy Bonds and many others. Honest, decent, upright people. A club from a working-class background that never had any pretensions.

Most of the supporters I speak with seem to agree with me. Enough don’t agree though, that it worries me. Is there an age divide? Do younger supporters brought up solely on the Premiership want success at any cost? I’m glad that our club has English owners (even though I’m Irish!). There’s a sense of tradition about it. I’m not a particular fan of the board, but then I’ve never been a fan of any board we’ve had. The first lot I knew treated Bobby Moore appallingly. Then there was the bond scheme. And don’t get me started on the Icelandic lot!

Please let us always remember where we came from. And let’s move forward in the same spirit. There’ll probably be as many bad days as good ones – but that’s part of the fun of being a Hammer. Frustration and elation, hand in hand. And long may it remain so.