About the geopolitical shift of power in global sport business - part 3: City Football Group, LIV golf and the Olympic Games in India.
This (long!) posting is the third in a series of three. If you haven’t done so already you can still read Part 1 and Part 2.
IOC President Thomas Bach will hand over the reins to the world’s most powerful sport governing body in 2025. Seven candidates were announced to contend for the role, where jockeying for position started a long time ago. The 6 male candidates and 1 female candidate come from the UK, Spain, France, Sweden/UK, Japan, Jordan and Zimbabwe and it will be very interesting to see who will be most convincing and reward(giv)ing in making promises to voting members. Whomever wins will also provide an insight into which (country) power blocks remain in place and are most formidable. Will the remnants of European sport governing dominance outlast the growing influence of ‘the East’?
Irrespective of who wins, the context of global sport is quite dramatically different even compared to when Thomas Bach was voted in as IOC President in 2013. As I argued in part 2 of this 3-episode blog, the international system is progressively directionless, chaotic and volatile. Autocrats such as Trump and Putin show little regard for international rules and institutions – including those in sport. First world Western countries are plagued by ageing populations and slower economic growth, extreme right- and left-wing movements are widening societal divisions and paralyse political progress. With disintegrating Western global leadership and emerging Eastern ambition and impact, economic prowess once again eclipses other global challenges. See for a justification of my simplified West versus East narrative the previous two blog posts. Considering the changing international context leads me to believe that a global scenario for the future of sport business that can be called ‘Winners are Grinners’ is most likely to eventuate.
In ‘Winners are Grinners’, the ugly reality of the winner takes all principle takes shape. With an international system that is on the brink of collapse in which the rulings of previously respected institutions such as the United Nations in New York or the International Court of Justice in The Hague are ignored, we can see the most powerful sport organisations align with those countries (or companies!) that exude most power and influence. This may well lead to a return to a predominantly male-dominated autocratic-driven governance of the most powerful international sporting bodies, as they join forces with dictatorial leaders of countries or companies.
Those sports that best express dominance and importance on the world stage, will also (continue to) thrive in the Winners are Grinners scenario, as they will be appealing platforms for leaders to shine in the sport’s reflected glory. In this scenario, popularity of esports and more broadly ‘gaming’ competitions may accelerate as the universal digital reach and massive popularity of online gaming among younger generations will be politically salivating and commercially incontestable. In Winners are Grinners, the top-end of sport is (now!) rapidly becoming the playground of the rich and famous. The NBA, NFL, Premier League, and Formula 1 are examples of sports, already unaffordable for the millions of people who used to be the ones cheering in the stands and passionately longing for the weekend break from monotonous lives. Benefits of sport investment will be limited to (and protected by) a small selection of global sports, their corporate supporters and masters, and increasingly, wealthy individuals including former sport superstars.
Although corporate ownership of sport in the USA has long been the norm, this is now widely spread across the rest of the globe, and it is driven by those people, corporations and countries that have excessive resources to do so. There are also clear signs that non-Western countries are leading this charge.
The first overt challenge to Western sport business power became apparent with the influx of wealth from Russian and Middle Eastern oligarchs and sovereign funds into Western sports properties, changing the international dynamics. Notable examples include Roman Abramovich’s purchase of Chelsea FC in 2003. Abramovich’s ownership transformed the club into a global powerhouse, both on and off the field. Similarly, the UAE’s Sheikh Mansour’s acquisition of Manchester City in 2008, through the City Football Group, has revolutionised English football. This acquisition brought substantial financial investment across clubs in various countries, altering the competitive landscape of the Premier League, the European and even global football industry.
This was followed by the acquisition of Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) by Qatar Sports Investments in 2011. This investment not only elevated PSG to the forefront of European football but also positioned Qatar as a significant player in global sport. The Qatari ownership was instrumental in bringing star players like Neymar and Lionel Messi to the French club, further cementing its international status. Qatar then, of course, (controversially) hosted the FIFA World Cup in 2022. The changing power structures in global sport are also exemplified by who sit on governing boards. The appointment of Husain Al Musallam as President of the International Swimming Federation (FINA) is an example of a growing number of leaders from the Middle East in international sport.
In 2018, Russia hosted the FIFA Men’s World Cup, despite international condemnation over its annexation of Crimea and the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in Salisbury. On the UK Parliament’s ‘House of Lords Library’ website, it is noted that the war in Ukraine has since drawn further attention to how Russian President Vladimir Putin has utilised major sporting events to bolster his regime’s legitimacy and extend soft power. Sportswriter Barney Ronay, among others, has argued that these global events have served to enhance Putin's influence on the international stage.
Karim Zidan, writing in The Guardian, described 2022 as potentially sportswashing’s biggest year, noting that both the Beijing Winter Olympics and the FIFA Men’s World Cup in Qatar – two of the most globally watched events – were hosted by nations with highly criticised human rights records. Zidan further highlighted Saudi Arabia’s 2021 purchase of Newcastle United Football Club, which, he suggested, allowed Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to distract from ongoing abuses, including the war in Yemen and the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Despite assurances from the Premier League that Saudi Arabia would not exert direct control over the club, concerns of sportswashing persist. However, the West remains quick to comment on such practices by nations in the East without necessarily taking a long and hard long in the mirror themselves. As noted in previous blogs, it would be naïve and misdirected to imply that ‘the leaders of the free world’ and other Western nations are free from human rights abuses. To that end I want to reiterate that the purpose of this series of blogs is not to position the West against the East, or even to suggest that one is better than the other. Rather, my point is merely that powers, impacts and influence in world sport are shifting.
To that end we can look at the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) as being at the forefront of the acceleration of this power shift. In recent years, it has become the largest investor in global sport properties. The PIF’s acquisition of a 75% stake in four of Saudi Arabia's top football clubs, including Al-Nassr and Al-Hilal, has elevated the profile of Saudi football. The impact was immediate: players like Cristiano Ronaldo and Karim Benzema joined these clubs, not only enhancing their quality but also attracting global attention.
The PIF's influence extends beyond football. The Saudi Arabian government has acquired significant stakes in Formula 1, including the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, which has become one of the sport's marquee events. The PIF is also eying to buy its way into (women’s) tennis and the country’s recent venture into LIV Golf, a rival league to the PGA Tour, and the subsequent merger with the PGA has solidified Saudi Arabia's foothold in the sport, demonstrating its strategic approach to gaining influence. It also shows that powerful sport organisations such as the PGA will shamelessly align with those countries or corporations that are most powerful and pay the highest price. Winners indeed are grinners.
China, similarly, is increasingly using sport as a lever to enhance its global standing. The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games signified a major turning point regarding China’s involvement in Europe’s centrepiece Olympic sport movement. Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, China's investment in football reflects a multi-dimensional strategy to further elevate its international profile. Xi's administration has launched numerous initiatives to develop football in China, aiming to transform the country into a football powerhouse by 2050. This includes significant investments in youth academies, infrastructure, and top-tier football clubs, both domestically and internationally. Although major club ownership by Chinese firms has waned a bit, five Chinese firms were among the 13 major UEFA partners delivering the Euro 2024 tournament exposing China’s wider business interests on the European stage.
China’s pursuit of football prowess also aligns with its broader geopolitical goals. The country’s investment in the sport is part of a larger strategy to leverage soft power and enhance its global image. By fostering national pride through sporting success and positioning itself as a major player in international football, China aims to project a positive image and assert its influence.
Amidst these developments, the West has also been working diligently to maintain its influence on the global stage. The 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris serve as a prime example of how the West continues to leverage its historical and cultural strengths to assert authority. Paris, with its rich sporting history and global appeal, hosted the Games in a city that epitomises elegance and tradition. The Olympics were a showcase of Western excellence, not only in athletic achievement but also in organisational prowess. North America, with the upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup hosted by the US, Mexico and Canada, is poised to reaffirm its position in global sport. The USA's focus on leveraging its lead-hosting of the World Cup as a strategic asset highlights the ongoing competitive dynamics between East and West.
What may well have been a defining moment in the changing power structures of global sport happened in October 2023, when the city of Mumbai in India hosted the 141st meeting of the IOC. Ms Nita Ambani, the IOC member for India, and wife of Mukesh Ambani, together represent one of the richest families in India (and the world) through their majority private ownership of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). They hosted the IOC meeting at the RIL owned Jio World, and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seated on stage with IOC President Thomas Bach, proudly announced that India soon would host the Olympic Games. It is widely expected that India will be the host in 2036 or at the latest in 2040. India has the largest population in the world having overtaken China in 2022. Almost 18% of all people on planet Earth live in India.
The competition between East and West in the business of sport is not just about who can garner the most medals or host the most prestigious events. It reflects deeper geopolitical shifts and national aspirations. The East’s growing influence in global sport is both a response to past subjugation and a strategic move to assert themselves as major players on the world stage. In this evolving geopolitical arena, the question is not simply who will be the dominant power but how East and West will navigate this increasingly contested terrain. Sport has proven to be too lucrative a business to share the love. Winners will be Grinners. The pendulum is swinging, and the global sport landscape is a vivid illustration of the broader power struggles that define our era.