Geoffrey Mills is a financial services executive. John Prendergast is co-founder of the investigative organization the Sentry.
As lifelong friends from opposite sides of the Atlantic, we’re united by our devotion to Arsenal: our favorite soccer club in the English Premier League. As it is for many other Arsenal fans around the world, rooting for the team is our shared escape.
Unfortunately, Arsenal and some other Premier League teams have a sordid secret: They are one step removed from human rights abuses unfolding in Africa.
The “Emirates: Fly Better” slogan emblazoned on the front of Arsenal’s jersey promotes the state-owned airline in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE regularly utilizes partnerships with athletic teams and leagues to “sportswash” their connection to human rights abuses. Most blatantly, the UAE reportedly provides arms and other support to the Rapid Support Forces, a militia responsible for widespread atrocities in Sudan’s brutal civil war — a relationship unaddressed by Arsenal and denied by Abu Dhabi.
The UAE royal family’s investment in soccer is not limited to Britain. They own teams across Europe, and New York City FC is primarily owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a deputy prime minister and member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, through his holding company. Beyond soccer, the UAE’s extensive commercial branding deal with the National Basketball Association is drawing increased pressure from human rights organizations.
Sportswashing, whether for domestic consumption or international reputation buffing, is not new. The Roman Empire relied on gladiatorial combat and chariot races. Twentieth century dictatorships hosted the Olympics and World Cups. Modern authoritarian states have learned the same lesson: Sports can distract from repression and war.
Alongside “Fly Emirates,” Arsenal’s jersey features another troubling partnership: the “Visit Rwanda” sleeve sponsorship. Rwanda is often cited as a miraculous post-genocide turnaround story. After the devastation of 1994, the government oversaw a dramatic rebound through disciplined investments, little tolerance for corruption and commitment to public services. In that context, it’s understandable why Arsenal accepted Rwanda’s money.
But there is a darker side to this story. Rwanda’s economic success has been underwritten in part by raw materials acquired through repeated incursions into neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Rwanda has invaded Congo multiple times, initially to pursue those responsible for the 1994 genocide, but increasingly to loot gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten. Its most recent invasion has led to one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises in eastern Congo.
An effective fan-led coalition named Gunners for Peace (Arsenal fans call themselves Gunners) has worked to educate supporters about this unsavory relationship. Their belief was straightforward: Removing “Visit Rwanda” from the jersey’s sleeve would end Arsenal’s association with human rights abuses in Congo, and the logo could be easily replaced with another sponsorship. And Arsenal has shown that change is possible. Last November, the club decided to end its relationship with the Rwandan organization at the conclusion of this season. The decision followed similar action by German club Bayern Munich and demonstrated something long dismissed as unrealistic in modern soccer: Sustained fan pressure can make a real difference.
Which brings us back to the UAE and its reported support for the Sudanese militia. The Emirati royal family has an ownership stake in Manchester City, one of the world’s most famous clubs. And 85 percent of Newcastle United is owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. Saudi Arabia is backing the other side in Sudan’s war, the Sudanese Armed Forces, which has also been accused of committing atrocities.
There are encouraging signs of accountability on this front. In 2022, Roman Abramovich — a Russian oligarch with financial ties to President Vladimir Putin — was forced to sell Chelsea Football Club in the Premier League after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That decision established an unmistakable standard: Ownership and sponsorship are not morally neutral when mass violence is involved.
In March 2023, Premier League clubs unanimously approved an expansion of their “Owners’ and Directors’ Test” to include disqualification of any owner found to have committed human rights abuses. Yet glaring double standards persist. Financial and strategic relationships appear to shield certain actors, like the Emirati royal family, from the accountability imposed on others.
Given the lack of consequences for Premier League teams with deep ties to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and the precedent of Arsenal, under fan pressure, ending its relationship with Rwanda, it is left then to supporters to demand that their teams hold to basic standards of human decency in their financial affairs.
This pressure is just beginning. Sudanese activists recently gathered outside Manchester City’s stadium, holding soccer balls signed by Sudanese refugees with messages calling for an end to the war. They’re collecting fan signatures to petition the Premier League to hold Mansour accountable for his country’s role in prolonging and profiting from the conflict. Gunners for Peace are considering pivoting from its successful Rwanda campaign to one focused on the UAE. And Newcastle United Fans Against Sportswashing has taken aim at Saudi ownership.
Ending Arsenal’s relationship with Rwanda removed a thorn from the consciences of fans like us, signaling that complicity in abuses in Congo should not be tolerated. The role of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in sports like soccer and basketball is a much bigger thorn. But change is possible with fan pressure and a stiff backbone.
The post The sordid backstory behind this soccer jersey appeared first on Washington Post.
