Since Cristiano Ronaldo joined Saudi Arabian side Al-Nassr in January this year, a host of top talents from various European leagues have followed suit. Amidst claims of ‘sportswashing’, disappointment from fans and a debate over ethics and money, what are the motives of the Saudi’s surge of investment in sport and why is it so controversial?
It is not a recent phenomenon that many aging football players choose to end their careers in leagues in the United States or China for lucrative financial deals, but Saudi Arabia’s recent investment in sport has created a buzz of conversation. Players such as Ronaldo, Benzema, Kanté and Henderson have received criticisms over their decisions to move to Saudi football teams, largely due to the human rights abuses that continue to take place within the country. Many headlines fail to delve deeper into the nature of the investments, the decisions made by the players and how this occurrence is a reflection of wider issues in football.
Aside from claims of “sports-washing” to attempt to legitimise the Saudi regime, there are a host of reasons for investment in sport in Saudi Arabia, many to do with internal demographics. 20% of the population are obese, thus investment in grassroots sport has become integral to a plan to curb this figure and better the health of the population. 67% of Saudi citizens are also under the age of 35, so sport not only provides a key source of entertainment, but also is likely to generate high returns on investments due to its commercial nature. Furthermore, this aligns with the goals of the Saudi officials to diversify the economy and reduce reliance on oil wealth.
Beyond the enormous financial benefits that transfers are greeted with, Omar Al-Ubaydli, a Senior Affiliated Scholar at George Mason University, has urged people to consider that for many players, there are numerous other factors that influence their moves. Many media sources fail to recognise that players such as Karim Benzema and N’Golo Kanté are Muslim, and thus by completing their transfers to Al-Ittihad, they are given the opportunity to be closer to key sites of their faith – Mecca and Medina. Al-Ubaydli statess that ‘My educated guess is that a few of the players considering Saudi Arabia are enticed by the prospect of not having to endure monkey chants and other racial epithets being directed towards them while they perform their job’. He further argues that many white Europeans cannot comprehend societies in which religion plays an integral role, suggesting that orientalist ideas and a perception of societies other than their own as being underdeveloped, play a role in the backlash of Saudi sports investment.
Kanté (L) and Benzema (R) on the bench for Saudi Arabian club Al-Ittihad
However, regardless of different ways of life, it is impossible to ignore the human rights abuses that are central to the controversy of Saudi Arabia’s investments. Freedom House, an annual global report of political rights and civil liberties, rated Saudi Arabia “Not Free” with a score of 8/100. Formulated using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the country scored 1/40 for Political Rights and 7/60 for Civil Liberties. Numerous activists have been imprisoned and some even executed in recent years under Saudi Arabia’s de facto leadership, and the key controversy surrounding Jordan Henderson’s move to Al-Ettifaq concerned LGBTQ+ rights in the country. Equaldex reports that homosexuality is still punishable by death in Saudi Arabia and in 2016 it was found that 49% of Saudis thought that being LGBTQIA+ should be a crime. However, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has recently stated that the death penalty is reserved only for those convicted of murder. Jordan Henderson had played a public role in the Rainbow Laces campaign in 2021, and previously stated that ‘The idea that any gay people would feel excluded from playing or attending a football match, simply for being and identifying as who they are, blows my mind’. LGBTQ+ fans such as Chris Deely argued that for many queer fans they felt as though Henderson ‘sold us out for money despite already being in the top 0.01% of earners in the UK’.
Henderson wearing the Pride armband
Following a Women’s World Cup where 14.8 million people tuned into the final in the UK, we also witnessed a World Cup with a record number of openly queer players – 96 out of 730 players. This leads us to pose the question, considering the state of LGBTQ+ rights in Saudi Arabia, will we see many high-profile women’s footballers follow their male counterparts? Saudi Arabia’s football investment has not only covered the men’s game – with a program committing 49.9million Saudi Riyal to the development of women’s leagues and clubs, which has helped to foster a 30% increase in players in the past year. There are also 49 female referees already registered and officiating matches, including Anoud Al-Asmari, who became Saudi Arabia’s first internationally FIFA recognised referee. Abaya’s in club colours have even become extremely popular since women were permitted to enter stadiums.
Arguably, women’s football comes much closer to social and charity causes such as LGBTQ+ rights not only because of a greater presence of queer players within the game, but because of the obstacles they’ve already had to power through. Amongst issues that persist today with commercial and media representation, equal pay and disparities in coaching qualities, it’s important to remember that until 1971, women were banned from playing football on FA affiliated pitches and stadiums entirely. Recently, the Lionesses have been committed to the OneLove armband campaign, which was later banned by FIFA. England’s Georgia Stanway stated before the ban that ‘no matter what the outcome is, whether it goes our way or not, we know that we still stand for exactly the same thing’. The Lionesses have also been outspoken about their struggles over payment for the World Cup. Joe White – co-founder of Three Lions Pride – suggested that as womens football hasn’t always had the funding, many players ‘bring their private lives with them’ when they become professional – bringing the women’s game closer to social causes. This suggestion was sustained by Dr Stefan Lawrence, who agrees that women’s football ‘has a different culture’ to the men’s game, due to the heteronormative environments seen in both football clubs and amongst fanbases.
Leah Williamson sporting the OneLove armband in the Arnold Clark Cup in February 2023
Whilst many would agree that for female footballers, the financial benefits offered by Saudi Arabian leagues are arguably more enticing considering existing pay gaps, would players sacrifice their commitment to social causes such as OneLove and potentially relationships with their teammates? The developments in sport in Saudi Arabia call into the question the environments that continue to exist within English football today – does football hooliganism, often tainted with racism and xenophobia, push top players out of the EPL? Are men’s stadiums truly a safe space for all football fans? And finally, will we see female footballers move to Saudi teams despite previously supporting pro-LGBTQ+ causes?