They’re a tiny Island nation in the Persian Gulf with about 200k actual citizens (the rest are migrant workers), so it’s a small sample size of net worth per capita. The fact that all of their wealth happens to come out of the ground makes it even less consequential.
Have there been any previous instances in recent history where migrant workers have executed a revolution?
A recent example would be Abramovich, whose money is tacitly tied to Putin (Russian Oligarchs don’t actually own their own money. Instead it is owned by Putin and “deployed” to specific Oligarchs home and abroad to advance his interests). We all know what happened once Putin invaded Ukraine.
The Abramovich/Chelsea situation would actually support my point rather than yours. During that affair, the reputations of Roman Abramovich and Chelsea were very much distinguished from each other by media and public alike - nobody was claiming that Chelsea FC were active supporters of Russia simply because they were owned by someone who was perceived to be. Indeed, Chelsea were seen as victims within the whole situation, their reputation and status ultimately emerging untarnished.
There’s always a massive risk in state ownership, much less that of an autocratic regime. Beyond the obvious moral depravity of it, United would do well to steer clear of the risk associated with the behavior of the Qatari government.
I’d also disagree with your assertion that there’s a “massive risk” in state ownership. You cite the extraordinary circumstances of Abramovich/Chelsea (again, from which Chelsea emerged unscathed), yet I can’t think of any instance where a state-owned club has faced a similar situation.
In fact, state ownership of a sports club is primarily motivated by that state’s desire to boost their reputation, these huge stakes being entirely tied up in the success of that club. This immense driver for success is not something you could also say is applicable to virtually any other type of owner, therefore the risk factor is comparatively minimal.
It's not a different one, you simply misunderstood the point of the video.
The fact you then immediately dismiss the feelings of United's LGBT+ community is telling. Just because you think it shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. The evidence that it does is right in front of your eyes.
And of course Man Utd matters more, no LGBT+ individual has grown up dedicating their time to supporting Harrods.
Seems like we’re going round in circles slightly. All I shall say is that feelings - almost by definition - are regularly illogical and unconstructive. Therefore, I would entirely defend my right to critique the feelings of the LGBTQ+ community, just as I would for any other group.