First Ronaldo, now Messi: The West Scorns at Football Superstars Making a Move to the Middle East

• Barcelona and Al Hilal engage in a tug of war for Lionel Messi as his two-year contract at PSG comes to an end this summer.

• The prospect of Messi joining Al Hilal sparks backlash similar to the one Cristiano Ronaldo faced during his move to Al Nassr.

In the wake of Lionel Messi’s two week suspension from Paris St-Germain (PSG), for embarking on an unsanctioned journey to Saudi Arabia, western media outlets have unleashed a torrential outpouring of acrid censure aimed at Messi, seemingly with the aim of reprimanding him and dissuading him from entertaining the prospect of affiliating with the Saudi Arabian club.

The Argentine World Cup victor had been prohibited from participating in any team activities, including training and games, and was reported to have had his salary docked during the period of suspension. Additionally, it has been reported that the optional third-year clause in Messi’s contract, which he signed upon his initial arrival in 2021, will not be activated by PSG. Becoming a free agent, Messi has presently emerged as the centrepiece of a fervent tug-of-war between two teams: his former club, Barca, and Saudi Arabia’s Al Hilal.

Once again, the bitter venom that was spewed during the Qatar World Cup 2022 rears its ugly head.

Reports of Messi’s potential transfer to the Saudi Arabian team have resulted in a deluge of negative media coverage, castigating the Argentine for merely contemplating a move to a country with a widely recognised history of human rights violations. This is a recent phenomenon where the Western media has suddenly evinced a concern for human rights violations when sports events are linked with the Middle East, as was witnessed during the World Cup hosted by Qatar in the preceding year.

Last year, when Messi was named as a tourism ambassador for Saudi Arabia, it sparked considerable criticism, with some media outlets using hyperbolic headlines such as The Athletic’s: ‘He sold himself to the devil’ – Messi, 2030 and a very uncomfortable deal with Saudi Arabia’.

Bringing on board Messi as their tourism ambassador came ahead of Saudi Arabia’s objective of hosting the 2030 men’s World Cup, which is a component of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 strategic plan. This plan aims to decrease the nation’s reliance on oil, broaden its economic base, and enhance public service sectors such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, leisure, and tourism.

Is the reaction of Western media towards Messi’s potential move to Saudi Arabia steeped in hypocrisy and rooted in hatred?

On May 6th, The Athletic released an article which upheld their disapproving position concerning the speculated move of Messi to Saudi Arabia with the headline: ‘Have Messi and Ronaldo tarnished their legacies by accepting money from Saudi Arabia?’

It is curious for The Athletic, a sports-oriented news website, to meander into the realm of sports and morality by producing such articles, meriting closer examination.

The writer of the piece is Carl Anka, a journalist who covers Manchester United for The Athletic. As a journalist who was suddenly overtaken by the urge to cast ethical reproaches upon athletes of sport who dare to journey to the Middle East, notwithstanding the hashtag #AllBlackLivesMatter emblazoned upon his Twitter profile, he remains unencumbered by similar qualms when publicising sports in the United States, a country that is the very cradle of black suffering, as demonstrated by his tweets extolling everything from the UFC to NBA.

While engaging in the promotion of WWE in the United States through tweets, Anka chooses to cast a dark shadow of insinuation over WWE events in Saudi Arabia with the following comment: ‘WWE will host its Night of Champions pay-per-view event this month at the Super Dome stadium in Jeddah.’

Leaving aside the journalists’ hypocrisy, let us probe further into the article and scrutinise the cogency of some of the criticisms levelled against Ronaldo and Messi.

The article highlights the lucrative contracts the Saudi’s have offered, citing Ronaldo’s two-and-a-half-year deal worth £173 million per year and Messi’s notable agreement as Saudi Arabia’s tourism ambassador, even though he has not yet signed a contract with Al Hilal. This is the Saudi money that the article implies may have sullied the legacies of Ronaldo and Messi.

The article states: ‘Critics can (and should) rightly point to Saudi’s controversial human rights record and how the country has used sport to reinvent its public perception.’

As we delve into this matter, the first thought that should come to mind is, why does Saudi money bear more stain compared to that of America, England, or France? Must Saudi Arabia resort to drone-striking men, women, and children before its currency becomes acceptable for consumption? it is worth noting that no amount of morally jarring events, such as drone strikes, has ever rattled the moral consciousness of western journalists or commentators and spurred them to discourage international athletes from moving to the United States.

In the spirit of moral integrity, has any journalist urged footballers to abstain from joining Premier League teams in England, and avoid being utilised as a tool of ‘public perception’ to whitewash atrocities committed by that nation such as the murder of one million people during its illegal war in Iraq?

In criticising Messi for even contemplating a move to Saudi Arabia based on human rights concerns, it should not be lost on us the irony that he currently plays for PSG, a club situated in France, a nation that is openly Islamophobic and has been implicated in human rights violations against French Muslims.

Amnesty International, in a 2019 publication titled “The State Must React: Discrimination Against Muslims,” condemned the prevailing climate of hostility and bias directed towards the French Muslims. The report highlights a speech by the Interior Minister, in which he listed essential religious practices such as prayer, fasting, and beard-growing as indications of “radicalization.” In 2021, the French government persisted in their transgression against the human rights of Muslim individuals by passing a bill that forbids girls from wearing the hijab in public spaces.

As you may have already observed, there were no cries for boycotting French football teams as unfortunately it appears that the moral consciousness of sports journalists and commenters have selective awakenings. With such flagrant displays of hypocrisy, one scarcely requires additional instances to exemplify the patent double standards on display.

Certainly, the Saudi government bears responsibility for numerous human rights violations, including the humanitarian catastrophe that has befallen Yemen. What is worthy of our contemplation is the curious observation that humanitarian violations committed by Western nations do not carry the same social and economic implications for their respective countries’ economies, sports, arts, and entertainment industries. This state of affairs is a testament to the unequal treatment and double standards that continue to pervade international relations.

It is a curious phenomenon indeed that in the Western world, individuals who participate in the realms of sports, arts, and entertainment are exempt from punishment for the transgression of their heads of States. Yet in contrast, citizens of Arab nations are subjected to punitive measures that deprive them of the opportunity to witness the growth and development of their own countries’ sporting endeavours, particularly in football, which is held in high esteem by the Arab populace.

In truth, the situation should be entirely reversed. The citizens of Saudi Arabia, living under the rule of a monarchy, have no real say in the governance and decision-making of their country, and therefore should not be penalized or deprived of their sporting pursuits for the actions of their rulers. By contrast, the democratic societies of the West should be subject to punitive measures, such as sporting boycotts, for it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions, including any human rights violations that their government may commit.

To gain insight into the cognitive dissonance of those who espouse double standards, one may examine the words of Samuel Huntington, as expressed in his widely known treatise entitled “The Clash of Civilizations.” Though it was first made available to the public in 1993, its relevance was rejuvenated in the aftermath of the calamitous events of September 11, 2001.

Within this thesis, Huntington delves into the issue of Western hypocrisy as observed by Muslims, in the following passage:

‘Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West’s failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they alleged, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.’

In Huntington’s candid exposition, we come to understand that the Western world views the Muslim world with a wary eye, as an adversary in a violent ‘Clash’ of cultures. Hence, in their perception, if one is deemed an enemy, the rules they abide by are not applicable to you.

Let us not waste our precious time as Muslims, pondering the idle chatter of hypocrites who harbour nothing but enmity towards us. Such vexatious company is unworthy of our attention and unwarranted of our concern.

It is a most distressing spectacle to witness such virulent hatred and blatant hypocrisy, particularly when we consider that, despite the unspeakable misconduct of Western powers, the Muslim world demonstrates an admirable capacity for differentiation. Indeed, Muslims can recognise the distinction between the nefarious actions of Western leaders and the innocence of their populations. This is exemplified by the eagerness with which the Muslim community engages in and ardently embraces Western sports, art, and entertainment, despite the Western powers’ heinous infractions, which include war crimes and gross violations of human rights.

But do not lament dear Muslims, instead seek solace in the blessed words of your Lord, particularly ayah 119 of Surah Al-Imran which presently comes to mind:

هَـٰٓأَنتُمۡ أُوْلَآءِ تُحِبُّونَهُمۡ وَلَا يُحِبُّونَكُمۡ وَتُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱلۡكِتَٰبِ كُلِّهِۦ وَإِذَا لَقُوكُمۡ قَالُوٓاْ ءَامَنَّا وَإِذَا خَلَوۡاْ عَضُّواْ عَلَيۡكُمُ ٱلۡأَنَامِلَ مِنَ ٱلۡغَيۡظِۚ قُلۡ مُوتُواْ بِغَيۡظِكُمۡۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمُۢ بِذَاتِ ٱلصُّدُورِ

This is how it is: here you are, you love them, but they do not love you; you believe in all the Scriptures and when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe,’ but when they are alone, they bite their fingertips in rage at you. [Prophet], say, ‘Die of rage [if you wish]!’ Allah knows exactly what is in everyone’s hearts.