How Premier League’s new ownership rule will affect Man Utd bidders following concerns over Qatar’s Sheikh Jassim
THE Prem’s clampdown on rogue owners has been dismissed as “toothless” by angry human rights groups who have demanded action against Newcastle’s Saudi overlords.
Club chiefs voted in favour of new rules that will see a Government banned list used to determine who can own clubs.
Further measures that would have seen the automatic expulsion of Roman Abramovich when he was sanctioned by the Government last year were approved by the 20 club chiefs.
But the Saudi ownership of Newcastle or Qatari Sheikh Jassim’s potential takeover of Manchester United, are not affected.
And the new rules, which also include an extension of the criminal ownership “disqualifying” offences to include “violence, corruption, fraud, tax evasion and hate crimes” were slammed by human rights organisations.
Jeed Basyouni, of Middle East group Reprieve, stormed: “Where was this resolve to keep the world’s worst human rights abusers out of the Premier League when Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund took over Newcastle United?
“Since that takeover in October 2021, the Saudi regime has executed more than 160 people, including scores of people whose only crime was to demand fundamental freedoms.
“If that isn’t counted as a disqualifying human rights abuse, then this new rule has no teeth and is just for show.”
Basyouni pointed to the ongoing court case in the USA between the PGA Tour and Saudi-owned LIV Golf.
Saudi’s Public Investment Fund and Toon chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan are arguing their status as an “instrument” and minister of the Gulf state government mean they should not be forced to give evidence.
HOW TO GET FREE BETS ON FOOTBALL
He added: “According to court documents, the chairman of the club is ‘a sitting minister of the Saudi government’. It is hard to see how he can continue as chairman under the new rules.”
Amnesty International said: “It’s a step in the right direction that human rights and hate crimes are now being considered.
“But it will make little difference unless powerful individuals linked to serious human rights violations overseas are definitively barred from taking control of Premier League clubs and using them for state sportswashing.”
Prem clubs “unanimously” agreed they will use the Government’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations, a list of rogue individuals including Afghani warlords, the Taliban and Vladimir Putin.
Amnesty’s Peter Frankental added: “Merely checking whether people are on an existing UK sanctions list is a very low bar.
“The sanctions list reflects the Government’s foreign policy priorities rather than any objective assessment of human rights issues.
“We proposed a detailed new human rights-compliant test that would prohibit football ownership where individuals were complicit in acts of torture, slavery, human trafficking and war crimes.
“The acid test of whether this new rule is fit for purpose is whether it would involve serious efforts to assess the involvement of prospective buyers in human rights abuses.
“English football still risks becoming the sportswashing toy of authoritarian figures around the world.
“The Premier League needs to adopt an active screening process and not just outsource its due diligence to others.”
Among other new elements to the owners’ and directors’ test, approved “with immediate effect”, League chiefs agreed to publish the names of any individuals on a new banned list, updated every season.
The Prem Board will have the power to prevent any new directors or owners being appointed if they are under investigation for a “disqualifying event”.
And potential owners will also face an obligation to meet a published list of “Acquisition Materials” that must be provided to the League as part of the due diligence process.
Any individual with a 25 per cent stake in one club will be forbidden to hold more than 9.9 per cent of another Prem outfit, with the threshold for what is deemed “control” of a club reduced from the current 30 per cent.
Club chief executives will also have to comply, while League chiefs can also boot out directors involved in insolvency actions or banned from bodies including the Charity Commission.