One of the problems about the discourse about the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United is that many of the key ideas remain under-defined. This is only natural: on the one hand, it seems such an ethical slam dunk to say that the Saudi regime shouldn't be able to own a football club

On the other hand, the actual implications of PIF owning a football club are so intangible to football fans in the North East that it seems moot. What effect will it actually have? they might think. And rightly so. It's not particularly tangible.

The result is that people throw around words that fail to have any real meaning and certain ideas are taken as granted without any theoretical grounding. This is a Bad Thing and worsens the discourse imo.

Here are some questions that I would like to see more discussion on:
* What does sportswashing actually mean? What are the processes that it proceeds by?
We all sort of know what sportswashing means: buying a club to manipulate your image somehow. But beyond that, it's not

simple at all. Prima facie, PIF buying out Newcastle United isn't just going to make people forget that the Saudi state mandated the death of Jamal Khashoggi e.g. This isn't about primary-level discourse but secondary-level discourse: it's about subtlety changing the conversation

On top of that, this is as much about getting representatives of the Saudi government into contact with global power around the world as cleaning up their image.

As of yet, though, I've not come across any careful discussion of the term sportswashing and so it ends up doing a

huge amount of heavy lifting in any debate. If we were to define our terms, the conversation would be much clearer.

* Why is the idea that states shouldn't own a football club taken for granted but the idea that individuals can own clubs never questioned?
Perhaps I'm being slow but I have never really heard a good explanation on this point. The suggestion is given that the overt political

ramifications of state ownership naturally disallows the possibility. But then, the political aspect doesn't just disappear with individual ownership. Why is this? Does it reveal more about our attitude to the states involved than the principle cited?

* Why is there so little discussion about the socio-economic context that this specific instance emerges out of?
Middle Eastern wealth funds don't arise out of nowhere. The very fact that e.g. sportswashing can be a thing relies on the existence of certain economic realities

which extend beyond the remit of Mohammed bin Salman and remain ethically dubious regardless. The Premier League made certain monetary decisions which led up to this point. Why don't these decisions factor into the conversation

* Why do we not talk about how power perdures?
Why do Middle Eastern states feel comfortable mandating executions of citizens or locking up dissidents? Is it because they are somehow more primative? Or is it because they can?

This is the central idea to Michel Foucault's thinking: Western democracies moved from the 'primative model of subjection - public execution etc. - into a more 'liberal' system of carceration not because they became more moral

but because they could achieve subjection in other ways. Why do we not talk about this dynamic more when discussing club ownership. Yes it's easy talking about how evil the Saudi regime is - and it is - but are we not allowing an inverse form of sportswashing to occur by

equivocating about Western polity? Are the British state using the Saudi state as a mirror against which its own ugliness is made to look less ugly?

I am firmly against PIF buying Newcastle United. But I don't think my position is quite so prima facie as some people seem to assume. For me, the conversation will only be improved by careful consideration of these sorts of questions.