So people are not allowed to criticize any owners in the league, purely because at some point everybody did something bad anyway? That's the argument you're going with? It's like arguing that somebody from Britain can't be disgusted by human rights abuses in North Korea, because Britain once did horrible things too, right?
Also, how the feck is England having a colonial past decades ago the same as abuses taking place right now? What an odd equivalence to draw.
Nobody is committing abuses right now when people watch the Premier League on TV. We can't do anything about the past.
It's not about the country he's born in,
he's an active part of a disgusting system which is directly responsible for abuses within his country. It's not the fecking same as a US owner having to pay tax, or a British owner being born in a country which once conquered somewhere, not even remotely. Also, it's not irrelevant to the football world when you're directly being funded by the people committing atrocities, that's the definition of relevant. The entire club has been built on the Sheikh's money.
Honestly, the 'everybody is part of the system anyway so nobody can criticize' arguments are some of the worst around, in any scenario. They are utterly nonsensical, of course when a club is directly owned by a bunch of exploitative, dictatorial arseholes who are using City as a propaganda tool, fans are going to go ahead and have an issue with it. The owners of City are making it relevant to football, they're using them as a political tool ffs. Sorry if not everybody is cool with that and thinks it deserves a mention, but I guess I don't have the right to an opinion because one of my ancestors was born in the British Empire.