The announcement of the merger between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf, a Saudi-funded organization, has caused a seismic shift in the world of professional golf. This surprising development comes after a prolonged period of hostility between the two rival organizations, marked by legal disputes, player tensions, and ethical debates.
For those who are not familiar with the controversy, LIV Golf was established in 2021 as a challenger to the dominance of the PGA Tour in professional golf. It is financed by the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund, controlled by the Saudi crown prince, and is led by former PGA Tour star Greg Norman. Since its inception, LIV Golf has enticed top PGA Tour players like Phil Mickelson and Brooks Koepka with multi-million dollar deals, causing a divide within the sport. Those who chose to join LIV Golf were suspended from all PGA Tour events, as well as those of its European counterpart, the DP World Tour.
Throughout this tumultuous period, PGA Tour officials have consistently condemned LIV Golf, with Commissioner Jay Monahan even referencing the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Critics have labeled the players’ significant salaries as “blood money,” highlighting Saudi Arabia’s history of human rights abuses and its connection to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Although Mickelson acknowledged the country’s “horrible record on human rights” in 2021, he described the potential involvement with LIV as a chance to reshape the PGA Tour’s operations, for which he later apologized.
Now, with the recent merger involving the DP World Tour as well, the PGA Tour will receive substantial investment from the PIF, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the head of the fund, will become the chairman of the combined organization. Supporters of LIV Golf and the PIF, including former US President Donald Trump, have celebrated this news. However, many fans and players of the PGA Tour, some of whom learned about the merger through Twitter, have expressed disappointment. Assuming the agreement is finalized, vocal critics of LIV such as Rory McIlroy will seemingly have no choice but to work for an organization they strongly opposed if they want to continue their careers as professional golfers.
The organization 9/11 Families United released a statement expressing shock and offense in response to the “hypocrisy and greed” of PGA Tour leaders. Amid the media coverage and passionate responses from golf fans, one term that keeps surfacing is “sportswashing.” Many view this merger as a prime example of sportswashing and the increasingly dangerous phenomenon it represents.
What exactly is “sportswashing”?
According to Alan McDougall, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who has extensively studied the global history of sports, sportswashing refers to the practice of using sports to clean up a country’s reputation on the international stage. This is typically done through hosting major international sports events like the Olympics or World Cup, as well as investing large sums of money in esteemed sports clubs or organizations. Sportswashing is often associated with authoritarian regimes and countries with a history of human rights violations. The term is used to describe how it promotes a positive public image for a government or organization while diverting attention from other activities considered unethical, illegal, or controversial, as stated by the Oxford English Dictionary.
The concept of sportswashing can be seen as a form of “soft power,” where countries use positive attraction and persuasion rather than coercion to achieve their desired outcomes. However, for many people, the deceptive nature and moral implications of sportswashing differentiate it from more accepted diplomatic strategies.
How long has sportswashing been ongoing?
While the term “sportswashing” gained popularity in the early 2010s, the practice itself has existed for much longer. Alfred Archer, an assistant professor of philosophy at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and co-author of the paper “Sportswashing: Complicity and Corruption,” points out historical examples such as Italy hosting the 1934 Soccer World Cup under fascist leader Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany hosting the 1936 Olympics, and Argentina hosting the 1978 Soccer World Cup during a military dictatorship. The British colonial government’s use of professional sports visits to South Africa in the early 20th century is another example. Simon Chadwick, a professor of sport and geopolitical economy at Skema Business School in France, even draws a comparison to ancient Roman times, where political leaders used superficial entertainment like chariot races and gladiatorial contests to divert attention from their government’s failings. Jules Boykoff, a professor of politics and government at Pacific University in Oregon, highlights how Athens strategically used the success of its chariot teams in the ancient Olympics to distract attention from its losses in war.
How does sportswashing differ in modern times?
The recent surge in discussions around sportswashing suggests that the concept has gained more attention in the past decade. However, McDougall believes that while the prevalence of sportswashing may not necessarily be higher than in the past, the scale of ambition and funding associated with sportswashing projects, particularly from Gulf States like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, has significantly increased. McDougall argues that the staggering amount of money involved creates competitive imbalances that are impossible to overcome, leading to a sporting landscape prone to financial irregularities and corruption.
Saudi Arabia’s extensive spending has raised eyebrows, with significant investments made not only in professional golf but also in other elite sports. In 2021, the PIF led a consortium that acquired English Premier League team Newcastle United F.C. for over $400 million. The Saudi Pro League is also undergoing a transformation, attracting high-profile players with lucrative salary offers. Qatar, on the other hand, owns Paris Saint-Germain, hosted the Men’s Soccer World Cup in 2022, and has expressed interest in acquiring Manchester United. These investments appear to be strategic moves to improve the international reputations of both countries, redirecting attention away from their record of human rights abuses.
Looking beyond the Gulf States, Russia’s hosting of the 2018 World Cup and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi also aligns with the concept of sportswashing, aiming to enhance the country’s image during President Vladimir Putin’s regime. The London 2012 Olympics could also be seen as a plausible case of sportswashing following significant reputational damage to the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, sportswashing is the practice of utilizing sports to enhance a country’s reputation on the global stage while diverting attention from controversial activities. It has historical roots but has gained increased attention and scale in recent years. The substantial investments and ambitions of countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have raised concerns about the integrity and fairness of the sporting landscape. Discussions around sportswashing shed light on the complexities and moral implications of using sports for political or reputational gains.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
