Thanks for your well-formatted message. The the gist of my response is that the identity of the politician in charge does not matter but the regime does. You don't have a Boris Johnson passport, I don't have a Narendra Modi one. It is of value to some interests to put out the idea that people and governments are different, but you and I could not choose one day to live in the same place, say France, and work of our volition - the agreements negotiated by our Governments would make it impossible for me to do that as an Indian and, post-Brexit, make it much harder for you as a British person.
What these agreements do allow, is the (relatively) free flow of capital within the legal structures they have created and my argument only amounts to us not doubting the source of that when it comes to the Saudis. I remember when Utd shares were floated and the uncertainty and risk associated with trying to guess what 2 white horse-traders (literally) would do with our beloved club. Similarly, having spent a lot of time in the US, I can say that the Glazers are a terrible example of sports ownership over there and have demonstrated their true colours in spades with Utd. Even if their main goal was sports washing (can US interests not do sports washing and, even so, how is that morally inferior to just making a buck?), the Saudis would be patient investors who would want long-term success and are just about the only people with the requisite resources who are likely to take on the daunting problem of getting us out of the hole into which the Glazers have shoved us.
Capital shouldn't have a color and, though this all may be moot since it looks like the Saudis have turned their interest to Newcastle United, I would like to believe that Man Utd fans are for Man Utd traditions and success and don't care what the people who own us look like.
I dont get why you bring race so much into it, people that I hear from have a problem with the regime, not the color.
How does your idea of Glazers and sportswashing come up? If that is the case, they're doing a horrible job and quite the opposite.
"And how is Sportswashing morally inferior to just making a buck?"
1) You do sportswashing to cover up horrible war crimes, murders, and oppression of the press. Money is just making money. Dont tell me that the Glazers have actually ordered killings, or that their country's actions in wars should be held accountable by the Glazers.
2) A sportswashing club takes the place of a historic club who have owned, earned and deserve their spot in the league through hard work and good commerce. When those great clubs become number 4 or 5, Imagine what other well earned smaller clubs that it pushes further back into the background.
3) If the money a sportswashing country put into say City, was used on actually bettering social issues and problems in their own countries, the countries might be better off. Sure it's good for tourism, and that's the income of the future for oil-states, but what does it matter if you're having a horrible regime? If you spend the money and power to actually be a good regime, there'd be no reason to paper over the cracks.
4) Sportswashing takes war and national interests into football. That's rarely a great thing, and it'd be strange to see a football war of interest in the middle-east take place 5000 km away in England. Football used to be just football - now it wont be only football, but a weird spinoff involving politics and national pride also. It just feels strange being a vessel of that. Of matters that didnt even brought you into liking football in the first place. Of course we can't be owned by a sportswashing state and pretend it's just football.
