The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Scriven has called on the government to address and potentially ban the foreign ownership of English football clubs and sporting organisations.
Lord Scriven also accused the chief executive of Formula One, Stefano Domenicali, of arrogance and damaging the reputation of the sport by failing to address issues around sportswashing, in a debate held in the House of Lords on Thursday.
“This debate has taken the lid off the murky waters some are swimming when it comes to sportswashing and the government will now act,” he said. “I hope that after this debate, the UK government will act to regulate their role, in regard to due diligence on human rights issues and also think through foreign ownership of Newcastle United by Saudi Arabia and the McLaren F1 team by Bahrain in the new bill that is before parliament, in terms of banning foreign state ownership of clubs and teams here.”
Lord Scriven, who is the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf, had raised the debate in the House of Lords to highlight the issues of “countries that use sporting events to ‘sportswash’ their human rights record, and the role of sporting bodies in aiding this practice”.
He explained he had written to Domenicali on 11 March in a letter shown to the Guardian. In it he strongly criticised the chief executive for repeatedly failing to engage with him over the issue of human rights abuses in Bahrain.
In the House of Lords he cited the case of Sayed Hashem Alwadaei, whom the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy alleges was arrested during F1 testing this year and subsequently “tortured and interrogated while blindfolded without the presence of his lawyer on allegations of participating in unauthorised peaceful protests”. Lord Scriven maintained he was targeted as part of a concerted effort to silence protests around the grand prix in March.
Lord Scriven said he had made repeated attempts to engage with Domenicali, to no avail. Stating that his emails and letters, where he had requested evidence that F1 was indeed a force for good and did due diligence on human rights in the countries it visited, had not been acknowledged.
“It is Mr Domenicali’s arrogance, lack of professionalism and engagement that has left me with no alternative than to seek this debate and to seek further regulation of F1 and such other sporting bodies based in the UK when it comes to their practices,” he said during the debate. “His leadership of F1 is damaging the reputation of his sport as he refuses to engage with the issues around F1 and human rights.”
In his letter to Domenicali he set out a clear dissatisfaction with the chief executive’s stance. “Your choice not to engage with me makes it clear you do not have robust evidence of F1’s positive impact on human rights and a lack of due diligence on mitigating risks has been carried out if at all,” he wrote.
“I am led to believe that you think it is appropriate for F1 senior leadership to ignore those concerned about F1 activities, which will allow the Bahraini authorities to commit human rights abuses and continue to sportswash their dire human rights record.”
The debate also raised the issue of sportswashing and the ownership of football clubs in England. On Tuesday the government published the football governance bill which proposes the regulator for English football would be able to strip bad owners of their right to run a club and to force them to sell up their holdings.
However it did not include a provision which would ban foreign states owning English clubs, despite a decision last week intended to prevent an Abu Dhabi takeover of the Telegraph Media Group.
There were several Lords who stated their intent to make amendments to the football regulation bill in effort to ensure it addresses sportswashing and the foreign ownership of English clubs.
However Lord Parkinson, the parliamentary undersecretary of state for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport insisted the government would not expect the regulator to prevent foreign ownership of English clubs.
“We don’t think it would be appropriate for a football regulator to make unilateral assessments of human rights concerns,” he said. “The regulator’s primary focus is the financial sustainability of clubs and the industry. Clubs have many different ownership types including state ownership or owners who may be close to foreign governments.”
F1 also issued a statement. “For decades Formula 1 has worked hard to be a positive force everywhere it races, including economic, social, and cultural benefits. Sports like Formula 1 are uniquely positioned to cross borders and cultures to bring countries and communities together to share the passion and excitement of incredible competition and achievement. We take our responsibilities on rights very seriously and set high ethical standards for counterparties and those in our supply chain, which are enshrined in contracts, and we pay close attention to their adherence.”
