Peter Anderson ⚽ The recent "Stand with Ukraine" protests at the start of last weekend's EPL games threw up some interesting issues in regards to sport and politics. 

Before every game in the EPL there was a minute's silence and a "stop the war" moment. It is hard to criticise the EPL for what was clearly a popular cause for the paying public attending the games. I have stated in the past my dislike of mixing sport and politics, be that poppy day shows or naming GAA clubs after PIRA/INLA men, for example. So, what about the "Stand with Ukraine" protests? 

Firstly, I abhor Russia's actions in the Ukraine and support the right of the Ukrainian people to decide their own affairs, to expel the invaders and the international community's sanctions. However, why do we not have "Stand with Yemen" demonstrations at EPL games? Who decides which war is of interest to EPL supporters and which aren't? Why are Russian sports men, women and teams banned but Saudi ones aren't? Can we, or should we, make a case for banning Russians but not Saudis? Who decides? This is the crux of the issue.

The "Stand with Ukraine" protests were not universally popular. Chelsea fans sang their support for Roman Abramovich during the minute's silence after he announced that he was selling the club due to the war and the ill feeling against him. Clearly the Chelsea fans think highly of Abramovich and his handling of the club and its great success in his hands. The Chelsea manager, Tuchel, denounced the Blues' support after the game saying that this was "not the right moment" to sing his support. 

This also brings up the uncomfortable subject of oligarchs in sport. The British government has courted Russian oligarchs for years to line their pockets and increase inward investment. Now, they are to be derided as having stolen their riches from the Russian people and are to be sanctioned. Abramovich has had to walk a narrow line between not offending his political masters in Moscow and not making enemies of the British people. Now he is bailing out and Chelsea will be sold. Which oligarchs should be allowed to invest in British sport, if any? Should Saudi sheiks be allowed to, given Saudi's actions in Yemen?

This ignited a nasty little spat between ex-Chelsea captain, John Terry, and the Labour MP Bryant. Terry tweeted his thanks to Abramovich for all he did for Chelsea. Bryant then denounced Terry for doing that while the people of the Ukraine were suffering. Terry responded that Bryant had voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq and claimed thousands of pounds of tax payers money from Parliament. Neither came out of this spat well. Everton then cut all ties with their oligarch Alisher Usmanov, leaving a black hole in their finances. 

It seems oligarchs were acceptable for many years, during the invasion of Georgia, the poisonings of Litvinenko and the Skripals and the annexing of Crimea, but now they are not. How do we square that?

The fact is that the Russian state ran a doping program for all their sports teams and the I.O.C and FIFA turned a blind eye. Russian Olympians were still able to compete under a "neutral" banner, while Russia were able to host a World Cup despite having many serious racist incidents at their UCL football games. When does something acceptable become no longer acceptable? Who decides that? This latest war has thrown up so many questions to which I have no answers. 

Is a complete separation of sport and politics possible given that nations' use of sport to project soft power? Given the shock in the UK at the plight of Ukraine could the EPL have ignored the war and played games as usual, or would that have seemed crass and insensitive? Was it right to acknowledge the events in Ukraine but ignore Yemen? Should the EPL recognise every conflict? It seems sport, politics and money are impossibly entwined whether we like it or not, and pure sport is a figment of the imagination.

Peter Anderson is a Unionist with a keen interest in sports.

Sport & Politics ✑ The Fault Lines

Peter Anderson ⚽ The recent "Stand with Ukraine" protests at the start of last weekend's EPL games threw up some interesting issues in regards to sport and politics. 

Before every game in the EPL there was a minute's silence and a "stop the war" moment. It is hard to criticise the EPL for what was clearly a popular cause for the paying public attending the games. I have stated in the past my dislike of mixing sport and politics, be that poppy day shows or naming GAA clubs after PIRA/INLA men, for example. So, what about the "Stand with Ukraine" protests? 

Firstly, I abhor Russia's actions in the Ukraine and support the right of the Ukrainian people to decide their own affairs, to expel the invaders and the international community's sanctions. However, why do we not have "Stand with Yemen" demonstrations at EPL games? Who decides which war is of interest to EPL supporters and which aren't? Why are Russian sports men, women and teams banned but Saudi ones aren't? Can we, or should we, make a case for banning Russians but not Saudis? Who decides? This is the crux of the issue.

The "Stand with Ukraine" protests were not universally popular. Chelsea fans sang their support for Roman Abramovich during the minute's silence after he announced that he was selling the club due to the war and the ill feeling against him. Clearly the Chelsea fans think highly of Abramovich and his handling of the club and its great success in his hands. The Chelsea manager, Tuchel, denounced the Blues' support after the game saying that this was "not the right moment" to sing his support. 

This also brings up the uncomfortable subject of oligarchs in sport. The British government has courted Russian oligarchs for years to line their pockets and increase inward investment. Now, they are to be derided as having stolen their riches from the Russian people and are to be sanctioned. Abramovich has had to walk a narrow line between not offending his political masters in Moscow and not making enemies of the British people. Now he is bailing out and Chelsea will be sold. Which oligarchs should be allowed to invest in British sport, if any? Should Saudi sheiks be allowed to, given Saudi's actions in Yemen?

This ignited a nasty little spat between ex-Chelsea captain, John Terry, and the Labour MP Bryant. Terry tweeted his thanks to Abramovich for all he did for Chelsea. Bryant then denounced Terry for doing that while the people of the Ukraine were suffering. Terry responded that Bryant had voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq and claimed thousands of pounds of tax payers money from Parliament. Neither came out of this spat well. Everton then cut all ties with their oligarch Alisher Usmanov, leaving a black hole in their finances. 

It seems oligarchs were acceptable for many years, during the invasion of Georgia, the poisonings of Litvinenko and the Skripals and the annexing of Crimea, but now they are not. How do we square that?

The fact is that the Russian state ran a doping program for all their sports teams and the I.O.C and FIFA turned a blind eye. Russian Olympians were still able to compete under a "neutral" banner, while Russia were able to host a World Cup despite having many serious racist incidents at their UCL football games. When does something acceptable become no longer acceptable? Who decides that? This latest war has thrown up so many questions to which I have no answers. 

Is a complete separation of sport and politics possible given that nations' use of sport to project soft power? Given the shock in the UK at the plight of Ukraine could the EPL have ignored the war and played games as usual, or would that have seemed crass and insensitive? Was it right to acknowledge the events in Ukraine but ignore Yemen? Should the EPL recognise every conflict? It seems sport, politics and money are impossibly entwined whether we like it or not, and pure sport is a figment of the imagination.

Peter Anderson is a Unionist with a keen interest in sports.

15 comments:

  1. Peter,

    However, why do we not have "Stand with Yemen" demonstrations at EPL games? Who decides which war is of interest to EPL supporters and which aren't? Why are Russian sports men, women and teams banned but Saudi ones aren't


    Saudi wont be banned, they have too much money and oil. You could throw into the mix why isn't Israel banned from world sports because of how Palestine is treated...


    I hope it's nothing to do with skin colour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a great piece.

    Terry was hardly out of line in his behaviour regardless of what people might think of Abramovitch - what a great return of serve.

    Peter pressed a lot of buttons in the piece and Like Frankie I too sensed the hypocrisy of Palestinian colours not being on full display each time The Israelis launch a Putin-like assault on Gaza. Then as Peter says about Yemen and the appalling treatment by the Saudis.

    There is a lot of hypocrisy but at the same time we never know why a spark catches and ignites the public imagination. The Ashling Murphy and Sarah Everard killings did that yet so many other women are murdered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AM
    Thanks.
    Terry was well within his rights, just the optics didn't look good. Picturing himself with one of Putin's billionaires while the TV screens are full of images of civilians getting bombed. As you say a good return of serve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such political sophistication from a low life who called Anton Ferdinand "a fucking black cunt"; mooned in front in front of distressed American tourists at Heathrow Airport on 9/11; who parks his SUV monster in blue badge parking bays. What you would expect with his wrong un background; father a cocaine dealer and a mother who is a shoplifter.

      Delete
    2. But nowhere near as low as the Labour MP who backed Blair's Putin-like war on Iraq.
      Mooning, parking in the wrong place, racist comments - none of it comes remotely near the depths of depravity of Blair's war crimes.

      Delete
  4. We were doomed before Roman took us over. By all accounts he is a humble bloke and nice to all his staff. Doubtless he had ties to Vladdy but it was a nice touch giving the proceeds of the sale of the club to the victims of Ukraine. He will always hold a special place in the heart of the Bridge faithful.

    Sad he had to go but it pales into nothing next to the suffering in Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its not looking good for Chelsea fans or away fans wanting to watch their team at the Bridge (at least until the end of the season).........

    ReplyDelete
  6. Being seen in the company of a man who bankrolled Chelsea's successes with the colour of the blood of Chechens, Syrians and Ukranians and praising him for it in the full knowledge of it to me is far lower than the Labour MPs who agonised over and voted for the mistaken venture in Iraq (and those who agonised over and mistakenly voted not to sanction the Assad regime in 2013 for its flagrant use of chemical weapons.)

    When comparing Iraq and Ukraine, it is worth pointing out that that the former was led by a genocidal crime family who had form for using chemical weapons whereas Ukraine is a modern democracy with no record of serial violations of international law.

    Yes Bush and Blair have been rightly excoriated for their supreme act of folly; their war of choice but Blair did have a point when he said that Western accommodation of Saddam's regime in the 1980s for reasons of realpolitik created a monster that the world eventually had to confront when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The smashing of the Shia uprising in Southern Iraq in 1991 (50,000 dead) after its encouragement by Bush Senior and the oppressive sanctions regime which then followed for the next twelve years had disastrous effects on the Iraqi people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt it would Barry in your inverted moral universe. Those poor Labour MPs who agonised over whether or not to commit mass murder and wage an illegal and unjust war: let's pity them and elevate them to a higher moral plateau than a mindless idiot. No doubt the victims of that horrible footballing scoundrel would just love to swap places with the people massacred by the war the poor agonising Labour MPs supported. Terry's victims after all suffered so much more. Seriously, if we compare those people he mooned at with those bombed to smithereens by Labour Party war criminals, the victims of the mooning suffered horrendously.

      Israel was led by a genocidal crime family whose bombing of Gaza incidentally was supported by Zelenskyy but massacring its people would be no more just than massacring the people of Ukraine or Iraq.

      Blair and Bush rightly excoriated? Why are they not in jail? Or is that something only for non-Western war criminals?

      Blair's war on Iraq is as unjustified as Putin's war on Ukraine, even if Ukraine is the only country in the world with a full on Nazi regiment incorporated into its armed forces. Blair's war on Iraq caused much more harm that Putin's up to now. But both are irredeemable war criminals which we should not allow to get in the way of jailing that horrible rogue John Terry.

      Simple question: who should be before the International Criminal Court - Blair or Terry?

      Delete
  7. Anthony

    I have never sought to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (welcomed by the Kurds of Northern Iraq btw for their own reasons rooted in the genocide known as the Anfal in the late 1980s). Perhaps if Saddam Hussein had made a full declaration that he had scrapped his WMD programme then then the neo-con war would have lost any fig of legitimacy. But candour was never part of that regime's armoury.

    The problem with bringing Blair and Bush to the ICC is that the crime of waging aggressive war as cited at Nuremberg was never codified in international law (something which I gather Keir Hardie advocates). They could be charged with torture of prisoners, failure as occupying powers to provide proper services to the occupied populace; failing to prevent the looting of Iraqi antiquities and, of course, deliberate killing of civilians. I stand corrected but I am surprised no one has ever put together a dossier of such evidence.

    I do know that regime change is illegal under international law which is the reason why Vietnam was isolated internationally for liberating Cambodia from the Pol Pot regime. in 1979. Talk about inverted moral universes. I have to be honest in saying that I welcomed the fall of Saddam despite the circumstances.

    I do not recall the Zelensky government firing rockets into Russia or any other neighbouring country. Nor is Ukraine led by a regime committed by its constitution to the eradication of its neighbour. The other way around I reckon.

    So to answer your question, neither. And I am not calling for the imprisonment of John Terry just his banning from any footballing role until he fully accepts responsibility for his racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand and fully takes on board antiracism

    Glad to see his former club finally paying the price for winning all those trophies with blood money and the looted money of the Russian people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barry - when when you rob peter to pay Paul, you will always be thought of as doing the right thing by Paul. Of course the Kurds might see it as a good thing. The Palestinians might see blowing up Tel Aviv as a good thing but that would hardly justify it.

    There are lots of war crimes Blair could be prosecuted for. Has Hardie ever once called for it? No. He would rather silence critics of NATO and Israel.

    In the case of Vietnam, its invasion along with that by Tanzania of Uganda, have been referred to as the only two invasions to constitute humanitarian military intervention.

    The Zelensky government did not fire rockets into Russia but was willing to allow its territory to be used for NATO to place its military hardware on the border with Russia. There is a much greater existential threat posed by NATO weapons to Russia than there is to Israel by Hamas weapons, and the threat becomes amplified in the minds of the Russians against whom, when it was the centre of the Soviet Union, the greatest atrocity of WW2 was perpetrated.

    John Terry is an obnoxious idiot but a saint in comparison to those Labour MPs who backed the war in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Threats to Russia only exist in the paranoid mind of Putin; the threat of the good examples of modern liberal democracies.

    Keir Starmer opposed the invasion of Iraq. Blair was put back to rights by the Chilcott Report. The No 1 international priority is the defeat of Putinism. Therefore Keir Starmer was right to ask the dozen odd useful idiots of far left Labour MPs who were endorsing the Stop the War Coalition moral equivalence of Putin's aggression and NATO to row back.

    If Keir wished to silence critics of Israel then he would sanctioning virtually the whole of the PLP as they oppose the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. it is those who will not accept the findings and recommendations of the EHRC Report on Labour Antisemitism (a minority of one I gather) who are not welcome in the Labour Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More nonsense induced by wearing your Neo Liberal blinkers. The good example of liberal democracies is that the hegemonic force in NATO is the most belligerent state in the international arena post WW2. It has been involved in more wars than any other; it has committed atrocity in all of them; its actions in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos make Putin look like a ballerina by comparison; it is the only nation in the history of humankind to have used nuclear weapons to perpetrate mass murder against a civilian population; it arms and supports the war crime regimes of Saudi Arabia and Israel both of which habitually launch Putin like assaults. And it is all in Putin's imagination. You are having a laugh aren't you?
      Sir Keir may have opposed the war in Iraq but it means nothing if he does not demand the prosecution of the war criminal that caused that war. This war criminal with Sir Keir's approval walks this world selling his wares.
      I wish to see Bibi Putin defeated but on what grounds can he prosecuted if Netanyahu and Blair are not? And if people genuinely feel that there is equivalence between NATO and Russia, given that the leader of NATO has engaged in more wars than Russia, why should Sir Keir be allowed to silence their opinion?
      There is absolutely no reason for anybody in this world to accept the edicts of a propaganda machine such as the ECHR which seeks to suppress describing the Nazi-like war crimes of Israel as Nazi-like war crimes. If people feel Israel has no right to exist, let them be free to say it - much as they should be free to say Pakistan or Bangladesh has no right to exist and should really be part of India.

      Delete
  10. Bashar Putin wishes to remake Europe and maybe even the world in his own image in the same way as Hitler did; only he has a full spectrum WND capability including 2,000 + nuclear weapons. Reading off al list of all the wars that the US/UK haver been involved in (most of which I have opposed) since 1945 does not alter the reality that Putinism is currently the most dangerous form of imperialism in the world topday

    People can voice the opinion that Ukraine should really be part of Russia; that Israel has no right to exist; that Islam is evil etc, etc. They can express those opinions in whatever crank far left or far right outfit floats their boat. Unfortunately the Putin view of the world was mainstreamed by Brexit and the Brexiteer takeover of the Tory party and, to a lesser but damaging extent, by the Corbyn leadership of the Labour party. But they have no business being in parties such as the Labour party that are committed to liberal democracy and a rules based international order inconsistent though and at times hypocritical though its application has been sometimes been. But if the rules based system breaks down or is constantly violated by a Hitler or Putin what are we left with.

    Your description of the ECHR is frankly rubbish. Its bar for investigation of discrimination and institutional racism is very high. it did not seek to suppress any criticism of Israeli government policies but to establish the veracity of the harassment of Jewish party members over, but not exclusively, their views on Israel/Palestine and the extent of antisemitic imagery on pro-Corbyn social media accounts and the failure of the Leader's Office to properly deal with the complaints of Jewish members. This poison has now been removed from the BLP under its new management. I hope that Muslim members of the Conservative party make similar progress in referring them to the EHRC (a statutory independent body set by Labour in 2010 to ensure the promotion of equality not a propaganda agency).

    I get that you are a passionate supporter of the Palestinian cause. I have no issue with that. I too believe that Bibi is a crook and a racist and very likely a war criminal Hopefully the Israeli courts will do everybody a favour by sending him down but perhaps we should not hold our breath. But I find your constant association of Israel with child murder alarming; I recall your description of IDF soldiers as Myra Hindley and Ian Brady types in a piece you wrote on the Gaza conflict last May which I found quite inappropriate bearing in mind the nature of those horrific murders. Such language can have consequences as evidenced by the 600% rise in antisemitic incidents in Britain during that conflict. There is an ancient prejudicial association between Jews and child homicide just as their is between black males and rape. A lot of the language used in Israel/Palestine debates is toxic, inflammatory. and demonising. This was never the case, for example, during the anti-apartheid struggle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bashir or Bibi - if the hat fits Putin can wear it. I think he is very like both in his penchant for atrocity. It seems now you do too.

      Putin's imperialism is currently the most dangerous form but that changes. It was not the most dangerous form in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. It was not the most dangerous form in Iraq.
      He is an aggressor but that does not mean he has some grand imperialist project on a par with Hitler's. He has not suggested putting nuclear devices in Mexico. That would be truly dangerous expansionism. Do you think the US would allow that?

      A rules based system rules in the interest of who? Russia has observed the rules based system more than the US - how many wars has the US being involved in? How does the rules based system work for Palestinians against Israeli breaches? Where did the rules based system work in Iraq? Blair still walks the streets so what sort of rules are they?

      And why should people not be free in a democracy to express views that Islam or any religion is evil? Is Dawkins now to be banned for his documentary on religion being the root of all evil? Are people to be hounded by the thought police for believing that Ukraine is part of Russia? I don't believe it is part of Russia but respect the right of others to hold a different view. People who hold those views have every business being in any party in a democratic society. Or are we all to have the one Orwellian view where thought traffic control will ground us if we don't think the way it tells us to?

      I should have said IHRA not ECHR. Let's look at its attempt to suppress criticism and freedom of inquiry

      Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

      It was and is a racist endeavor. It is currently an apartheid endeavor which is racist. Or is Sir Keir going to ban Amnesty International as well?

      And this one: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

      Which means you are free to compare the nation that was subjected to the single most egregious crime of WW2 - the war of extermination in the East to the Nazis but others are to be labelled for comparing war crimes of Israel to the war crimes of Nazis. Show me one war crime that is not Nazi-like. Just one single solitary war crime that Israel has perpetrated that is not Nazi-like. But you would rather suppress and marginalise people who think all war crimes are Nazi-like.

      I don't regard myself as a passionate supporter of Palestine, just someone very much opposed to the Nazi-like atrocities perpetrated against them, much as I am opposed to the Nazi-like atrocities inflicted on the Ukrainians. It is quite legitimate to oppose Nazi-like atrocities and describe them as such even if you don't think so.
      How can you find a constant association of Israel with child murder alarming when Israel has a constant association with child murder? Israel murdered 500 children in Gaza in 2014. The UN Secretary General condemned Israel for targeting children and their schools. Brady and Hindley killed five. Compare that against 500 to get a sense of your own warped moral compass. That vile pair would have every reason to balk at being compared to Israeli child murderers.

      Delete