[Football] Are we heading towards Arab states running Elite football?

[Bakero]

The odd think is that whenever they are discussed they are called Arabs rather than Muslims. It seems a narrative has formed in some areas that Arabs are okay but Muslims are not. I guess Arabs are viewed as wealthy and Muslims viewed as poor.

Funny old world we live in at the moment!

Aren't they referred to as Arabs as they're from the Arabian peninsula. As far as I know, Iranians, Somalians, Indonesians, haven't started buying up European football clubs yet

 

[Robdinho]

Odd think is that whenever they are discussed they are called Americans rather than Christians

 

[Berty23]

Yeah - the confusion some people have over the definitions of ‘Arab’ and ‘Muslim’ is truly astonishing.

It seems the ‘narrative’ that has formed in some areas is anti-Islam.

Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of people, most of whom are Muslim in religion but many of whom are not.

Saudi Arabia, Quatar and UAE are Arab states whose GPD has largely been from exports of fossil fuels - Climate change and global shift towards ‘green’ energy has meant these oil producing Gulf states have been making a major economic shift from oil dependency to international and domestic sport, especially football.

The investment by Arab states in football and other sports has fcuk all to do with religion.

I know it has nothing to do with religion in that sense. The oddity comes when people refer to Saudi owners who are strict Muslims as Arabs but then the same people attack elements of extreme Islam that the Arabs they support also support. It is a case of turning a blind eye to some things but hating it for others.

For what it is worth I am not a fan of overseas ownership but the Americans is what I am most worried about. They will be taking premier league matches on a world tour.

 

[Zeberdi]

Aren't they referred to as Arabs as they're from the Arabian peninsula. As far as I know, Iranians, Somalians, Indonesians, haven't started buying up European football clubs yet

No - they are referred to Arabs because they are ethnically ‘Arabic’’. That includes those bordering the Persian Gulf (the ‘Gulf States‘ as well as countries in North Africa and the Levant.

It’s the Arabic Gulf States that have been heavily investing in international and domestic sport for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[Zeberdi]

I know it has nothing to do with religion in that sense. The oddity comes when people refer to Saudi owners who are strict Muslims as Arabs but then the same people attack elements of extreme Islam that the Arabs they support also support. It is a case of turning a blind eye to some things but hating it for others.

For what it is worth I am not a fan of overseas ownership but the Americans is what I am most worried about. They will be taking premier league matches on a world tour.

Saudis ARE Arabs!

You keep confusing religion with ethnicity.

Not all Arabs are Muslim.

Not all muslims are extremist fundamentalists.

 

[Berty23]

Odd think is that whenever they are discussed they are called Americans rather than Christians

But then Syrian refugees are nearly all Arabs. Why are they described at Muslims rather than Arabs?

That’s my point. The narrative in the media is virtually always those with wealth classed as Arabs and those without Muslims.

 

[Bakero]

No - they are referred to Arabs because they are ethnically ‘Arabic’’. That includes those bordering the Persian Gulf (the ‘Gulf States‘ as well as countries in North Africa and the Levant.

It’s the Arabic Gulf States that have been heavily investing in international and domestic sport for the reasons I mentioned above.

I wasn't saying they were the only Arabs. However, they are Arabs from Arabia, the homeland of the Arabic language and culture. Referring to them as Muslims is just less specific.

 

[Zeberdi]

But then Syrian refugees are nearly all Arabs. Why are they described at Muslims rather than Arabs?

That’s my point. The narrative in the media is virtually always those with wealth classed as Arabs and those without Muslims.

Syrians are largely Arab ethnically and culturally. Most are Muslim but also Kurdish and Christian.

I’m not sure I understand your point about the media exactly but I guess it depends on context and where you are reading this. If it’s in the context of boat people/irregular immigration, yes, those people will be destitte/dirt poor but they are not all Muslim - we have had plenty of Christian refugees from Syria.

In the context of this thread, we are talking about investment by the 3 main Arabic Gulf States in football so being Muslim (or poor obviously!) doesn’t come into it.

 

[Bakero]

But then Syrian refugees are nearly all Arabs. Why are they described at Muslims rather than Arabs?

That’s my point. The narrative in the media is virtually always those with wealth classed as Arabs and those without Muslims.

This is a fair point. I guess Arab conjures up a certain image that doesn't fit with Syrian refugees etc

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

The odd think is that whenever they are discussed they are called Arabs rather than Muslims. It seems a narrative has formed in some areas that Arabs are okay but Muslims are not. I guess Arabs are viewed as wealthy and Muslims viewed as poor.

Funny old world we live in at the moment!

I know. It’s weird. It’s like when fans refer to “Americans” while I always call them Lutherans

 

[Zeberdi]

I wasn't saying they were the only Arabs. However, they are Arabs from Arabia, the homeland of the Arabic language and culture. Referring to them as Muslims is just less specific.

I thought you said they were referred to ‘Arabs’ because they are from the Arabian peninsula.

Apologies, I obviously didn’t interpret what you meant by that.

Referring to Arabs as ‘Muslims’ is not only less specific but refers to a specific religion ie those that follow Islam rather than an ethnicity. It is probably less confusing in this context to refer to the football investors as the Arabic Gulf (oil producing) States (ie Qatar, UEA and SA) since Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen aren’t big investors in international football/sport.

 

[Triggaaar]

I suspect they will continue to finance the biggest clubs but I'm not sure their influence will extend much beyond the clubs they invest in as their domestic leagues are so poor.

Ivan Toney has lost his password, so he's asked me to reply for him: "You have to witness it and be there to realise what it's like. You can't have an opinion on something you've never seen. I suggest people have a look before they start making judgements."

 

[Berty23]

I think a few have misinterpreted what I said. I should have been clearer. It is merely an observation about how the media and political parties in this country make distinctions about religion when it suits their message. Nothing more than that.

 

[Comrade Sam]

Many Arabs are Christian.

 

[Comrade Sam]

I'm sure Netanyahu can be persuaded to bomb the football out of them.

 

[drew]

It's why I said "predominantly". Palace like Man Utd, have non-US part-owners, but US owners hold the bulk of the shares in each case. Most are wholly US-owned.

Palace's ownership seems to be roughly the below currently, although Textor is looking to sell, likely to another US entity.

John Textor - 45%
Josh Harris - 18%
David Blitzer - 18%
Steve Parish - 18%

Voting rights seem to be one each, with Parish having the deciding vote in case of a tie.

Thought Parish only had about 10% and there is another shareholder, Franco, who has the balance give or take but apparently no voting rights.

 

[Motogull]

The word 'ruining' would also fit in the thread heading.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

The word 'ruining' would also fit in the thread heading.

Bit late for that.

 

[Silverhatch]

In terms of ownership, the direction of travel in the Premier League is more US than Middle East. The following are US or predominantly US-owned:

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Burnley, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Everton, Fulham, Leeds, Liverpool and Man Utd.

That's 11 of 20. I think Premier League resolutions need 14 of 20 to pass, so we're not too far away from a position where US investors could, theoretically, effect significant changes to enhance the value of their holdings.

Not with an independent regulator

 

[Bozza]

Thought Parish only had about 10% and there is another shareholder, Franco, who has the balance give or take but apparently no voting rights.

Possibly - I saw various figures.

My point still stands, though: they are predominantly US-owned along with many others.