The Guardian view on Özil, Arsenal and Liverpool: football with a conscience
|
Version 0 of 1. Editorial: The clubs have taken very different stances on human rights issues this week. Commercial interests do not absolve them of social responsibilities Two of England’s most prestigious Premier League football clubs, both owned by US investors, have been confronted by international human rights abuses in recent days, and responded with starkly contrasting positions. Liverpool, who as European champions are competing in Qatar in Fifa’s Club World Cup, produced a carefully diplomatic statement which nevertheless managed to be forthright in supporting improved conditions for migrant workers labouring in the Gulf. Campaigners had asked the club to consider using its reputational power to highlight the deaths of many young men working on construction projects in baking heat. Its chief executive, Peter Moore, challenged Qatar to seriously address the risks of heat stress for workers, reaching into Liverpool’s own heritage to say that any and all unexplained deaths should be investigated thoroughly and bereaved families should receive the justice they deserve. That call for accountability was woven into a more predictable corporate clarification: “We remain a sporting organisation and it is important that we are not drawn into global issues on the basis of where our involvement in various competitions dictates that our fixtures take place.” When the Arsenal midfield star Mesut Özil, a German Muslim, spoke out on Instagram against Beijing’s oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang, Arsenal’s response was all disclaimer and no support. The club released a statement via Chinese social media disowning Özil’s concern for his fellow Muslims, who are suffering persecution and mass incarceration in detention camps. Facing the fiercely defensive official and popular reaction in China, and doubtless conscious of its popularity and commercial interests there, it described the post as his personal opinion, adding that “As a football club, Arsenal has always adhered to the principle of not involving itself in politics.” Determined neutrality is a tenable position for a major sporting organisation, but only up to a point. Britain’s clubs all have strong anti-discrimination policies now and zero-tolerance approaches to racism by supporters, which once blighted the national game and is threatening an upsurge in the currently divisive political atmosphere. Modern footballers are not prepared to tolerate it, as their predecessors felt forced to; Raheem Sterling notably spoke out about media discrimination, and the whole England team came close to walking off due to racial abuse during their match against Bulgaria in October. This movement of athletes towards using their own positions and personal brands to promote progressive causes follows the landmark “take the knee” protests by NFL players in America, although their leader, Colin Kaepernick, effectively suffered a boycott by teams who suddenly declined to hire him. Liverpool considered the dreadful issue of young men dying in Qatar, particularly in the context of the bereaved Hillsborough families’ 30-year campaign for justice over the deaths of their loved ones at a Liverpool match, and decided they had to speak out. By contrast Arsenal’s exposure of their own player to vilification in China, and the club’s studied lack of interest in the horrors of Xinjiang, falls far short. At home, Premier League clubs have for years supported substantial community programmes, effectively as part of a settlement with successive governments which have declined calls to regulate the game’s commercial excesses. Nobody is calling on football clubs to devote themselves to politics – but when they have the opportunity to employ their power in a just cause, they should not miss the target. |