The NSNO Everton Forums

At least this means I don't have to watch Newcastle win the Conference League.

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 4:56 pm Yes, that is a difference and it's absolutely a fair one to point out. I mean in terms of the health of football, they are equally harmful.

I often wonder how much people really care about human rights records too, in all honesty. I think a lot of that narrative in the Western media is quite performative and virtue signally. I mean we say we care massively about human rights, and there will be some people who absolutely stick to their principles with that in everything they do and full respect to them, but I would wager that most/all people on here (myself included) give money to companies who run sweatshops and have appalling human rights records, and we know about it and still do it.

Also, many of the US billionaires have acquired their wealth through different forms of exploitation. Just feels a bit like one devil vs another devil, and neither is all that great and yet somehow we make this big distinction.

Agreed. In one breath, people bang on about the atrocious human rights record in the Middle East, but then would not hesitate in dropping a couple of hundred uid on a new pair of Nike trainers, knowing full well they've probably been manufactured ising child labour in the far east.

In a way, we're all just as guilty. When Moshiri was chucking the cash around at Everton, not one of us gave a.flying fuck that that cash was straight oit of the pocket of a very shady ogliarch.

Even beyond who owns the clubs, I just can't buy this narrative that Man City have an unfair financial advantage over the likes of Liverpool, Man United or Arsenal which makes those clubs some sort of underdogs. It simply just isn't true.

74Blue wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:41 pm Agreed. In one breath, people bang on about the atrocious human rights record in the Middle East, but then would not hesitate in dropping a couple of hundred uid on a new pair of Nike trainers, knowing full well they've probably been manufactured ising child labour in the far east.

In a way, we're all just as guilty. When Moshiri was chucking the cash around at Everton, not one of us gave a.flying fuck that that cash was straight oit of the pocket of a very shady ogliarch.

Yeah, I'm not blaming people either. It's very hard to exist in the world without being some degree of hypocrite, and without in some way being party to or indirectly helping some form of exploitation. People just want their footy team to be good. They don't want anyone to suffer anywhere.

And I'm certainly not intending to defend sportwashing, or any of these horrendous groups that buy up football clubs to cover their atrocities or exploitation, wherever they are from. I'm just pointing to a bit of a double standard in how we narrativize it. I might even be totally wrong about what I'm saying.

Gave that a like because on reflection, who are we (Everton) ? we’re happy enough to take Usmanovs money despite his history of abuse.

(Meant in response to BD to me)

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 4:42 pm One thing I don't get is why Middle Eastern owners are necessarily worse than US consortiums and hedge funds owning clubs in the eyes of fans?

It was overwhelmingly US owners who came together to form the Super League, and tried to end the football pyramid and the concept of competition, and you absolutely know they want to do that again if/when they can. They want an absolutely closed shop with guaranteed incomes and no relegation, similar to the US model.

I think they are just as harmful and dangerous to football, if not more. Feel like it's a very Western centric POV to just think the Middle East owners are completely the devil.

Not sure if this was directed at my comment or not (apologies if the latter) but, just in case, I have no issue with M-E owners but I have huge issues with owners that are guilty of the state sponsored murder of journalists they don’t like as well as of their own people to who happen to be in the way of their latest shiny new vanity project. I think there is a difference between that and rampant capitalists who have no real commitment to our game, vile as they may be.

Saddens me to see football fans defend what’s happening at Man City.

Mouse wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:51 pm Not sure if this was directed at my comment or not (apologies if the latter) but, just in case, I have no issue with M-E owners but I have huge issues with owners that are guilty of the state sponsored murder of journalists they don’t like as well as of their own people to who happen to be in the way of their latest shiny new vanity project. I think there is a difference between that and rampant capitalists who have no real commitment to our game, vile as they may be.

No, it wasn't directed as you. I'd have replied to you if it was addressing your point specifically. More just a general talking point.

I think there probably is still a difference as you say, but it's not all that big in reality. I suppose that's the horror of the modern game. You either get backed by one devil or another, and it's not always easy to moralise the way a lot of Western journalists do.

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 4:42 pm I think they are just as harmful and dangerous to football, if not more. Feel like it's a very Western centric POV to just think the Middle East owners are completely the devil.

I agree, hedge funds and asset strippers are definitely more dangerous to football.

Authoritarian regimes' reputation laundering however is more dangerous to the world in general and their own people in particular.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is why most football fans rail against one but not the other. But it's a thing that is also true.

biziclop wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:17 pm I agree, hedge funds and asset strippers are definitely more dangerous to football.

Authoritarian regimes' reputation laundering however is more dangerous to the world in general and their own people in particular.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is why most football fans rail against one but not the other. But it's a thing that is also true.

Yes, that seems like a fair distinction to make.

I don't have a fixed viewpoint on all of this. I have argued the opposite side to what I'm arguing here for most of my life, just for clarity. The sands are always shifting. I'm more intending to pose the question, rather than give a definitive statement.

I suppose I'm saying that there are freedoms that we have ''in the West'' (for shorthand) that have been incredibly hard-earned and should not be easily glossed over or taken for granted. They are massively preferable to the alternative. Murderous authoritarianism is objectively worse than rampant exploitative capitalism, but probably not that much worse in actual numbers and harm caused. Our freedoms are still directly built on the suffering and blood of many, many people, often from parts of the world that we now preach and moralise to. And we now have other more complex, sophisticated methods of exploitation hidden beneath the surface of our supposed civilisation.

It's just all doesn't feel quite as clear cut as is often talked about in the football media. Not a staggeringly original thought, I know.

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:31 pm It's just all doesn't feel quite as clear cut as is often talked about in the football media.

Oh, the football media can thoroughly fuck off. I could probably list all the people who are paid to talk about this topic who shouldn't fuck off.

For me this hits a bit closer to home because Orbán is doing his own version of reputation laundering/sportswashing, call it what you will. He's poured eye-watering amounts of tax money into it and yeah, it hasn't done Hungarian football any harm. It hasn't done it all that much good either but admittedly it's more fun watching my national team in a modern stadium than one that had several sectors closed due to crumbling concrete.

What he has bought with this money are attention and acceptance. He absolutely craves them, denial of that to him is the one thing he fears more than anything.

But at the same time capitalist stripmining of the country hasn't stopped, if anything, it has increased under his watch. The country has become the centre of high environmental impact, low regulation battery manufacturing in Europe for example. Even the racist, anti-immigation rhetoric takes a backseat when it comes to keeping the corporate juggernauts happy. Not that I lament his actual policies aren't as racist as his words, it's just an illustration of how authoritarian regimes will work together with, and even amplify the harms of large corporations.

It's just a shit world but I will shut up now cos this really hasn't got anything to do with today's football anymore.

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 4:56 pm Yes, that is a difference and it's absolutely a fair one to point out. I mean in terms of the health of football, they are equally harmful.

I often wonder how much people really care about human rights records too, in all honesty. I think a lot of that narrative in the Western media is quite performative and virtue signally. I mean we say we care massively about human rights, and there will be some people who absolutely stick to their principles with that in everything they do and full respect to them, but I would wager that most/all people on here (myself included) give money to companies who run sweatshops and have appalling human rights records, and we know about it and still do it.

Also, many of the US billionaires have acquired their wealth through different forms of exploitation. Just feels a bit like one devil vs another devil, and neither is all that great and yet somehow we make this big distinction.

My fucking man

Who do people want to win today Leeds or Southampton?

Southampton.

I don't want Leeds anywhere near the Prem

Toffee1 wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 11:31 am Who do people want to win today Leeds or Southampton?

Which one makes it more likely we don't sign Harrison?