I do wonder how much money would be left in sports if we removed anything which was linked to horrific abuses of human rights.
I’d say my favourite sports to watch are football, golf, snooker, tennis and combat sports. Every single one of them has taken the money, even the ones which moralised against it (the PGA Tour telling everyone how terrible PIF were for starting the LIV league only to cede control to them, tennis abandoning its China boycott despite nothing happening with the Peng Shuai case).
What? They’re unrelated
The point is that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a safe country (for the tories to deport immigrants too) due to human rights concerns, and as a result of said ruling, the consideration of the ethics of advertising such a country for tourism has been brought into the limelight.
To be clear, I’m not saying I agree with this equivalency, I’m just trying to point it out since a lot of people (somewhat understandably) seem to be missing that entirely.
Wikipedia also not planning to delete the page for Rwanda after this ruling as well.
Arsenal have no plans to cancel their sleeve sponsorship deal with Visit Rwanda following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that the government’s Rwanda immigration plan is “unlawful”.
No changes are anticipated to the four-year £10million-per-year ($12.5m) deal signed in 2021 with Visit Rwanda, which first appeared on Arsenal shirts in 2018.
When delivering the verdict, Lord Robert Reed, president of the court, said Rwanda “has a poor human rights record”, citing evidence from the UN’s refugee agency. Lord Reed added there was a “real risk” asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda to the places they fled from.
The written ruling stated that “most human rights violations were said to be linked to criticisms of the Rwandan government” with “constraints on media freedom and political activities” and questions about the country’s compliance with international human rights agreements.
Wednesday’s ruling comes following legal challenges to the UK and Rwandan governments’ Asylum Partnership Agreement, which was announced in April 2022. That plan, led by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, would see the UK send asylum seekers from their shores to Rwanda, where they would be processed under the African country’s asylum system.
As reported by the BBC, a Rwandan government statement said it “takes issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees” and that it “is committed to its international obligations”.
Arsenal maintain their deal is about promoting tourism in a developing country rather than supporting the country’s political leadership. However, Visit Rwanda is an arm of the Rwanda Development Board which is a government department.
Visit Rwanda also has deals with Paris Saint-Germain and Bayern Munich.
Last year, Arsenal told The Athletic it carried out “extensive research” before signing the deal, which is focused on boosting tourism in a developing country.
“Our partnership is focussed on promoting the country and helping the tourism sector recover from the pandemic,” a spokesperson said. “Prior to the pandemic, visitor numbers from key countries including the UK and across Europe had shown significant increases which coincide with the start of our partnership.
“In 2019, Rwanda experienced a 30 per cent year-on-year increase in visitors for tourism and MICE tourism (Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions) from across Europe, and an 18 per cent year-on-year increase from the UK.”
In 2021, the UK government criticised Rwanda at the United Nations Human Rights Council for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”.
“I think Arsenal fans should worry about their football club supporting one of the most repressive regimes in Africa,” author Michela Wrong told The Athletic last year. “Given what is going on in his country, the president has blood on his hands.”
While Rwanda was a fairly niche issue in the UK when Arsenal first signed the deal, that has all changed over the last year as the Conservative government has pursued its ‘Rwanda policy’ which has now been thrown out by the Supreme Court.
As Arsenal’s Premier League season continues, in the UK, Rwanda now may become synonymous with ongoing political battles as the right-wing of the Conservative Party proposes leaving the European Court of Human Rights which they blame for blocking the Rwanda deal.
Can’t read the article but relating the two for a story is so ridiculously forced. If you want to criticise the sponsorship more broadly like people do with Gulf sponsors, sure.
But relating this ruling to the sponsorship is dumb and just for clicks on a trending topic. The UKs role in this is just as gross, if not more so. We are the ones pursuing it! Should Arsenal cut ties with its own country?
Countries with a worse human rights record than Rwanda.
Emirates - Cancel the stadium and shirt sponsorship.
Egypt - No more songs about Salah.
Turkey/Qatar/Morocco - Ban these airlines advertising at all football games.
UAE - Ban City
Saudi - Ban Newcastle
Egypt - No more songs about Salah.
what did egypt do? legit asking
Newcastle fan posting this is just funny. This is not the dig you think it is at the club, the two things were never at all related
Your owner beheaded someone
Visit Rwanda is an example of reputation washing. Or maybe in this case reputation repair but obviously in the UK the country is now inextricably linked to a disgraceful Tory policy
Its kind of impressive how fixed the media are about the Rwanda sponsorship, a sponsorship that objectively has a positive side considering how much the Rwandan tourism is tied to wildlife conservation and how many conservationists support eco tourism in the region, because it makes the wildlife important and gives local governments and communities are reason to to try and protect the rainforest and the wildlife. Meanwhile, the entire league is sold to shady oligarchs and butcher princes who “don’t mind if you tell them that they do sportswashing”. Arsenal’s stadium is called Emirates ffs.
My cynical self would assume that this is because Rwanda had to be picky and doesn’t have enough to pay for everyone, unlike the rest of the shady sponsors and owners