- What happened to Folarin at Monaco, and the fate of other young players at Arsenal
- How clubs are using a gap in the rules to allow them to ignore young players’ injuries
By Tony Attwood
I have often thought that the problem with having clubs in England run by people who are not British, or at least have not lived and worked in Britain for quite a while, is that they might not be fully familiar with the way in which the British tend to do things.
That thought continues – but reading of late about the problems facing Newcastle United’s chairman, I am starting to realise that there is a totally different issue which can be added to the scenario; that of a club owner who is not a UK citizen, being chased down by the authorities in his own country, while that country claims immunity from British laws, and simultaneously denies owning the club in the first place!
Welcome to the case of Yasir al-Rumayyan, chairman of Newcastle United, and the governor of the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, which bought Newcastle United, and chair of the state-owned petroleum company Saudi Aramco who is being sued for “harming, silencing and ultimately destroying” the family of Dr Saad Aljabri, the kingdom’s former intelligence chief Dr Saad Aljabri, (who has taken up residence in Canada for the last seven years).
Now of course in the UK we are used to changes of government happening, but generally speaking these happen in a fairly orderly way when a general election comes around and the ruling party gets kicked out by the electorate and the opposition is voted in.
Such niceties however don’t happen in Saudi Arabia, and as a result, it seems that Saudi Arabia may not be as stable and secure as the League and the media sometimes suggest. For example, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef himself was deposed as heir to the Saudi throne by Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2020, and he himself has been held in prison ever since.
But to return to the Chairman of Newcastle United, he is not only in charge of the club he is also the governor of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which decided to put all that money into buying an 80% stake in Newcastle in October 2021 in the first place.
Now the Athletic has run a challenging article under the headling Are Newcastle United’s PIF owners separate from Saudi Arabia? And that is important because there can be no possible doubt at all that if it could be shown that Saudi Arabia itself is the owner of Newcastle United, then the country would fail the “fit and proper persons” test on the grounds that in Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is a crime, executions of people under the age of 18 take place, there are virtually no rights for women, and there is also the matter of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018.
Indeed the Fit and Proper person’s test includes quite an important clause which in essence says that the Premier League is banned from dealing with any organisation that has engaged in conduct outside of the UK that would constitute an offence if such conduct had taken place in the UK. On that basis, the takeover of Newcastle United would be illegal if it was conducted by the state, rather than by independent individuals.
The Premier League has said that it has received assurances that Saudi Arabia does not own Newcastle United, but it won’t tell us what assurances. But as the Athletic points out, “That claim of separation appeared to be undermined by PIF itself when lawyers representing it claimed sovereign immunity in a court case involving LIV Golf… in the United States.”
Furthermore, an investigation by The Athletic revealed emails from the UK government that tied the success of the takeover to the country’s relationship to Saudi Arabia.
So why won’t the Premier League take action over the breaking of its own rules?
One problem is Manchester City, who are owned by Abu Dhabi United Group which is closely connected to the government of the United Arab Emirates of which Sheikh Mansour, is the vice president and deputy prime minister.
Also Sheffield United are controlled by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, of the ruling family and the Premier League often say they have “legally binding assurances” that each club is not controlled by the country.
That argument held sway until in 2023 the Saudi government said that Yasir al-Rumayyan, who you’ll recall is the chairman of Newcastle United AND the governor of the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, should be protected from giving evidence in a legal case concerning a golf series “due to sovereign immunity laws.”
It is a mess, and messes like this have a habit of exploding at some time or another. And when this one does, it is going to be pretty big. Especially for Newcastle United, Manchester City and Sheffield United.
Dear Lord. You are sponsired by the UAE for heavens sake! And why no mention of Man Utd who have been taking Saudi money for more than a decade?
You will be interested to know that this isn’t the first nor will be the last court case brought to Saudi reps, most of which if not all, have been thrown out. Fact is this fella has been accused of stealing billions from the Saudi state and had a court case against him first. If you’d done your research you’d know this. The court case against the Newcastle chairman is a counter claim and very common when trying to defend and/or divert attention away from wrong doings. You’re welcome.
City ownership will never be questioned and they will escape any punitive action on the charges no matter how guilty.
The PL is close to be being a waste of time and money to watch.
It’s a good thing to have an injection of money in the prem by wealthy owners, as long as it doesn’t put the club in debt by pretending to lend the money to the club by the owner and then expecting the club to pay back the owner the money as a borrowing debt rather than an investment. If that does happen then it is Easily solved with the FA, by a points deduction or relegation if rules are not followed.
Shaveyd, yes I would be interested to know about other cases that have been thrown out. But what I don’t understand is why you state that point but then don’t provide any evidence. Not even the titles of the cases so I can look them up.
Saudi Arabia have sponsored Man Utd for years, why has it taken you all this time to find them objectionable. How do you feel about the petroleum industry and the host of other businesses they have shares in?
Sickntired. When you say “you” I suspect you mean Arsenal FC rather than “Untold Arsenal” or myself, and yes we have noted that Arsenal Stadium has a sponsor’s name. Sadly there is little we can do about, other than continue to refer to the ground as “Arsenal Stadium”. But there seems to be an attempt by you to suggest that because the club I have supported from my youngest days, following the family tradition, has sold its stadium rights to UAE, that I won’t criticse the UAE. And I find that rather curious.
We’re receiving a lot a copycat comments about Arsenal and its sponsors, and why has it taken so long for Untold to say anything about Saudi Arabia.
Rather than answer each one here are just a few of the recent articles on Saudi Arabia and footbal from recent months,
SAUDI ARABIA PREDICTED TO BUY THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FRANCHISE RIGHTS FROM UEFA
ONLY TWO OF THE SAUDI ARABIAN TEAMS HAD A HIGHER NET SPEND THAN ARSENAL
HOW FOOTBALL IS STARTING TO REGRET BECOMING DEPENDENT ON SAUDI ARABIA
IT’S NOT JUST GOING TO SAUDI ARABIA THAT’S THE ISSUE, IT IS STAYING THERE. LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY
WILL SAUDI ARABIA TAKE OVER UEFA? IT LOOKS LIKE THAT COULD WELL HAPPEN.
WHERE IS FOOTBALL ACTUALLY HEADING? WELL, SINCE YOU ASK, SAUDI ARABIA.
WHAT DOES THE PURCHASE OF NEWCASTLE BY SAUDI ARABIA MEAN FOR ARSENAL
SUDDENLY SAUDI ARABIA IS BEING ALLOWED INTO NEWCASTLE
SAUDI ARABIAN QUESTIONS AS WE HAVE BEEN CELEBRATING LIBERATION
SAUDI ARABIA NATIONAL TEAM REFUSE TO OBSERVE MINUTE’S SILENCE FOR THOSE KILLED IN LONDON, BEFORE MATCH.
WHERE DOES ARSENAL STAND IN THE BATTLE BETWEEN UAE, SAUDI ARABIA AND QATAR?
WHEN IT COMES TO ARABIA ARSENAL HAVEN’T LOST ANYONE
PLANS ARE BEING LAID TO OUTLAW PROTESTS AGAINST SAUDI INVOLVEMENT IN NEWCASTLE
AS THE LEAGUE STARTS TO REIGN IN SAUDIS: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR ARSENAL?
WHO IS SUING WHOM OVER THE NEWCASTLE / SAUDI AFFAIR? ANSWER: EVERYONE
Tony, did you have such concerns – as legitimate as they are – when the oligarch Usmanov owned such a big chunk of Arsenal? Certainly, much of the Arsenal fan base wanted him in to replace Stan Kroenke because the latter wasn’t deemed to be spending enough money. I could be wrong, but there didn’t seem to be too many objections to the Russian’s dirty money. Sadly, greed has taken over the game, it started off with the formation of the Premier League (of which Arsenal was one of the five clubs to push for) through to the aborted European Super League (to which Arsenal, the club, not the fans I may add, where such rabid enthusiasts of).
Obviously, the Saudi ownership is another level again, and states should not be allowed to own
our clubs, but football in England long sold its soul, driven by greedy clubs like Arsenal. Sad, but true.
Richard that is a valid question. At first I did not have concerns about Usmanov, as most of the reports I could find on him, recognised his achievements in the sporting field (notably fencing in which sport he competed for the USSR). In fact in the early days at Arsenal it was his sporting activities in the past that reports focussed on. It was only later that other concerns arose, and indeed it now appears that the Kroenke family held back on fulsome investment until Usmanov was out of the way.
So the answer is at the start when Usmanov came in, no I did not have concerns, since I simply did not have any insights into his past beyond those as a person who had spent 6 years in a Soviet prison in the 1980s with a conviction then overturned with the court in Uzbekistan ruling no crime had been committed.
And of course this is the problem in trying to write about such matters without there being information of the type we now have. All I can say in my own defence is that I did the research that I could, using public sources of information, and they did not point to wrong doing.
But seemingly Kronke knew, and thus bought Usmanov out when he could, and then started investing more fulsomely in Arsenal.
Newcastle’s ownership will be questioned when NUFC break FFP regulations, or commit some similar infraction.
I don’t understand why you’re comparing them to MCFC? Are you merely projecting?
NUFC haven’t operated outside of FFP boundaries thus far, so you have nothing to complain about. The article claims to be about ‘foreign’ owners – but seems to focus on the Middle East. There are other foreign owners, not from the Middle East, that are equally un-British…
Is this all not just fear of oil money? Don’t worry, FFP has now very obviously been tailored to protect your very club.
Thanks for the considered reply Tony.
That’s a very interesting accusation at the end Ric. Please post again with the evidence, or at least grounds for that supposition
@ Richard
You seem to have totally missed the point. The article is about ownership by (or closely linked to) a sovereign state. Are you suggested that Arsenal are owned by the USA? If not, I can’t see at all what you’re inferring……..rather, you are merely seeking flawed excuses to deflect from the guilt of your own club based upon the facts stated in the article.