Review Article
Volume 9 Issue 4 - March 2022
DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports
Copyright © All rights are reserved by Kieran James
The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of
Newcastle United Football Club
Stuart Marshall, Malundi Theophil Christian, Gregor Matheson, Joseph McDonagh and Kieran James*
University of the West of Scotland, Paisley campus, Scotland
Submission: February 23, 2022; Published: March 17, 2022
*Corresponding author: Kieran James, School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley campus, Scotland
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sportsl 9(4): JPFMTS.MS.ID.555768 (2022)
001
Introduction
Earlier this year, it was announced that ownership of
Newcastle United Football Club had changed hands - ending
Mike Ashley’s 14-year ownership of the club. The new owners
of the club are a Saudi-led consortium comprising of the Public
Investment Fund (PIF), PCP Capital Partners and RB Sports &
Media [1]. Mike Ashley bought the club in 2007 with promises of
bringing back the glory days to the Tyneside club. However, over
the years, his relationship with Newcastle fans soured because
of the way he ran the club -from renaming the stadium for some
cheap Sports Direct advertising and leading the club to multiple
relegations from the Premier League to his treatment of club
legend Alan Shearer and many poor managerial decisions [2]. The
state of Ashley’s relationship with the fans led to calls for him to
sell the club, which he stated he would do on multiple occasions
[2]. However, he refused to sell for years which, partnered with his
lack of investment in the club for new on-the-pitch signings, the
academy, or the training ground, only made his reputation in the
northeast worse. Finally, Newcastle fans began to see light at the
end of the tunnel in 2020 as it looked likely the club would be sold
as a deal was initially agreed, but the buyers walked away after
the Premier League allegedly blocked the deal. It seemed at this
point that Newcastle United would be stuck in the vice-like grip of
Mike Ashley for years to come. The same buyers returned in 2021
and completed the takeover, which spawned scenes of celebration
across Tyneside [3]. The takeover has given fans of the club hope
that the glory days, once promised by Ashley, could return since,
thanks to these new wealthy owners [4], they can compete once
again with the biggest clubs in England (and perhaps Europe). It
must be said, this takeover isn’t all as positive as it may sound.
There has been mass controversy around the deal since it was
announced for many reasons. This article will dive into the issues
surrounding the takeover and how ethical, or indeed unethical, it
really is. The issues which have arisen surrounding the takeover
concern the link to Saudi Arabia - there is human rights issues
related to Saudi Arabia which must be addressed along with the
idea that this is essentially a state owning a football club - despite
the Premier League receiving assurances that this isn’t the case [1].
Also, there is the argument that the amount of money Newcastle
now have at their disposal will lead to an unfair competitive
advantage being gained over other clubs.
Concerns around Saudi involvement
Without a doubt the biggest question around the ethics of
the takeover deal is the human rights issues surrounding Saudi
Abstract
United Football Club by a Saudi-backed investment fund. Major concerns are the human rights record of Saudi Arabia, whether a foreign
government in effect owns an English football club, and the risk that an unfair competitive advantage will accrue to Newcastle due to the
amount of funds at their disposal. We remained concerned about the sporting ethics of the takeover, but we accept that it has been greeted with
enthusiasm by most Newcastle United supporters. This article has long-term relevance since other clubs may be inspired to seek out similar
deals to increase their prospects of success in the English Premier League and in European competitions.
Keywords:
How to cite this article: Stuart M, Malundi T C, Gregor M, Joseph M, Kieran J. The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club.
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2022; 9(4): 555768. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
002
Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine & Treatment in Sports
Arabia. There is no doubt about how unethical the Saudis’ record
years around the Kingdom’s human rights record - none more
so than surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi
was a US-based Saudi journalist who publicly criticized the Saudi
government. In October 2018, he was killed after entering the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul - accused of ordering this killing is
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman [5]. Although
he has denied any involvement, his reputation has obviously been
tarnished. As previously mentioned, the consortium who now
own Newcastle United are led by PIF, which is chaired by Salman
(BBC,2021b). With this information, it’s clear to see why there
are concerns around the ethical responsibility of Newcastle’s new
owners and why people are uncomfortable with the takeover in
out against the deal, going as far as to call it “heart-breaking” [6].
There are multiple other cases of poor human rights activities
on the part of Saudi Arabia which have only made concerns about
the takeover worse. The Kingdom’s standing around women’s
rights is far from perfect, with campaigners being imprisoned and
allegedly tortured and sexually harassed by interrogators [6]. It is
also still illegal in Saudi Arabia to be homosexual and “the death
penalty is a possible punishment for same-sex sexual conduct”
[6]. Although there is an argument to be made that this takeover
is a possible opportunity to incite change, as has been argued
by some LGBTQ+ organisations since the deal was announced,
it is still very understandable that people are unsure about the
involvement of people with these beliefs in the English game.
Aside from the humanitarian concerns, there are also concerns
about the Kingdom having a stake in a football club. Although
the Premier League have received assurances this isn’t the case,
there is still a lot of concern that behind the scenes, they are much
more involved than they want to let on. This can be compared in
some ways to the ownership of Paris Saint Germain (PSG) and
Manchester City, who are in similar situations with Qatar and Abu
Dhabi respectively. There is an argument that this is just entirely
unfair as other football teams across Europe simply cannot
it is the PSG comparison which is most interesting to us. This is
because the situation regarding humanitarian issues is also very
similar here, with Qatar having their own very public human rights
issues, which were highlighted after their winning bid to host the
2022 FIFA World Cup. PSG often have criticism levelled toward
them due to their involvement with Qatar but what is important
to highlight is how the noise made by people who oppose Qatari
involvement in football has progressively gotten quieter over the
years. The more of a footballing superpower PSG become, the less
controversy there seems to be around the ethical responsibility
of their owners. Could this be the case a few years down the line
with Newcastle?
Financial doping concerns
Financial doping can be described as when “the owner
of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth
into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on
the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself” [7].
clubs such as Chelsea, Manchester City, and PSG in recent years
which, before they were taken over by oligarchs and Crown
Princes, weren’t anywhere near the heights of UEFA Champions
Javier Tebas who claimed it is only clubs like Manchester City
and PSG who can pay the money required to sign the best players
because “they sign with oil or gas money” [8]. This huge spending
is highly criticized in the footballing world as fans believe it gives
these richer clubs an unfair competitive advantage over others.
It becomes essentially impossible for smaller clubs to compete
on any front with the largest clubs as they don’t have anywhere
Leicester City’s 2016 English Premier League (EPL) title win – but
there’s a reason that achievement is held in such high regard and
today. This leads to the question, is it ethical to use outside means,
such as money from outside of the club, to gain an advantage
on the football pitch? Is it fair that fans of clubs like Burnley or
Norwich City know that their clubs, no matter how long they stay
in the league, are so incredibly unlikely to compete at the top? Or
is it fair that fans of lower league teams know that their clubs can
may be expelled from the Football League like Bury FC was? [9].
Justice
are treated” [10]. The justice ethical theory is one which is critical
to mistreatment and unjust treatment of persons in organizations
[11]. Justice has been widely used as a reference to the standard
of rightness, while fairness provides closure to judgment without
referencing one’s feelings or interests (Velasquez et al., 2014).
by Aristotle when he said, “equals should be treated equally and
unequal’s unequally” [12]. Employees and civilians constantly
seek justice and fairness across all forms of living including
in professional and social lives [11]. The provision of equal
treatment is provided regardless of people’s racial background
or professional ranks of their social classes. Fairness condemns
acts of favouritisms, prejudice, and segregation [11]. Therefore,
individuals should be treated according to what they deserve. It
is inevitable that justice and fairness will be questioned “when
people differ over what they believe should be given, or when
How to cite this article: Stuart M, Malundi T C, Gregor M, Joseph M, Kieran J. The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club.
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2022; 9(4): 555768. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
003
Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine & Treatment in Sports
be distributed among a group of people” [12]. Therefore, it’s
important that we can all accept principles of justice as reasonable
and fair standards for what people deserve.
The principle of justice can also be explained as “individuals
should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are
relevant to the situation in which they are involved” [12]. The
following example elaborates further on this. If two people both
do the same work without any relevant differences between them
or the work they are doing, they should earn the same wage.
However, if one were to earn more than the other because of their
gender or race, then injustice arises as a form of discrimination
because race or gender should not be relevant in a working
environment [12].
There are three types of justice explained in detail as follows:
a) Distributive justice includes the distribution of the
presumption that those institutions should be changed. For
example, the Southern American institution of slavery was
condemned for treating people differently based on their race
[12].
b) Retributive justice refers to the extent to which
punishments are fair and just. Punishments are based on relevant
criteria such as the intent of the criminal or the seriousness of the
crime. Irrelevant criteria such as race are discounted. An example
of unjust punishment would be chopping off someone’s hand for
stealing a dime [12].
c) Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which
a person is fairly compensated for what they lost by those who
wronged them. There is a moral obligation to compensate an
injured party if three conditions are met:
i. The action which caused the injury was wrong.
ii. The action was the cause of the injury.
iii. The action was carried out voluntarily, e.g., it was not an
accident.
As previously mentioned, the Saudi PIF is chaired by Saudi
crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who is believed to have
been involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Salman however,
denied that he ordered the murder of the journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, but admitted taking full responsibility because the
act was committed by individuals from the Saudi government.
deliberately premeditated execution where the Saudi state, led
by Salman, was responsible [13]. Additionally, U.S. intelligence
agencies’ assessment found that the prince has absolute control
of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations and
this fact made it highly likely that the prince approved the
assassination of Khashoggi [14]. Salman has also been accused
of a serious crime such as a military campaign in Yemen which
reportedly left more than 110,000 people dead [14]. He is also
suspected of allegations of detentions of the activists who are
against the Saudi Arabia regime. Recently, the U.S.A. stepped in
as Joe Biden’s administration approved to impose visa sanctions
on the individuals who act on behalf of foreign governments
surveillance, and threats against journalists and activists. Biden’s
administration provided retributive justice where punishment
was given to the Saudi government by imposing visa sanctions
crimes, including the assassination of Khashoggi [14].
Further justice was actioned when the U.S. Treasury issued
sanctions against former deputy head of Saudi Arabia’s General
Intelligence presidency known as Ahmad Hassan Mohammed
Al Asiri, who was the leader of the operations and other several
members who were assigned to assassinate Khashoggi the
journalist [14]. Full justice was not provided since Salman would
not face personal accountability for authorizing the assassination
of Khashoggi. This highlights how important it is that the Premier
League keeps up their concerns around the involvement of the
Saudi government in the running of Newcastle United Football
Club since the chairman of the PIF is allegedly heavily involved in
all of these actions which undermine and threaten human rights
activists. This shows the injustice within our political systems,
the Saudi’s prince which is practiced negatively leading to the
breaching of human rights standards, bypassing the fair justice
system, and monopolizing the world political systems through
of Salman’s involvement in Newcastle United in order to protect
justice within the running of English football. Someone with
his background should not be allowed to have too much power
- as if he doesn’t have too much already. There are, however,
still unanswered questions on the fairness and justice of the
assassination of Khashoggi by the Saudi prince, which still leave
people with concerns about the Saudi Arabian state as a whole.
Ethics of care
Ethics of care believes that “context can sometimes overrule
justice and our universal code of conduct,” and “focuses more
on the interconnectedness of humanity and places a moral
receivers” [15]. Within a business environment, there are two
moral demands on the ethics of care which are:
a) “Preserving relationships with all stakeholders,” and
b) “Exercising special care with stakeholders by attending
to their needs, values, and desires.”
Within these demands, there are four elements of care ethics:
How to cite this article: Stuart M, Malundi T C, Gregor M, Joseph M, Kieran J. The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club.
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2022; 9(4): 555768. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
004
Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine & Treatment in Sports
i. Attentiveness is required to recognize stakeholders’
needs and to respond to them.
ii.
gender roles and class structure and ties responsibility to those
iii. Competency means providing care, not just
acknowledging the need to care, but accepting the responsibility
to provide it, and
iv. Responsiveness refers to understanding vulnerability
inequality by understanding what has been expressed by
stakeholders.
During his own tenure as Newcastle owner, Mike Ashley
failed to maintain the relationships with the fans and other
stakeholders. Although he initially promised to bring back the
glory days and appointed club legend Kevin Keegan as manager,
his relationship with the Newcastle faithful wasn’t all positive
thereafter [2]. Ashley took the personal decision of renaming
St James’ Park which has been the home of Newcastle United
Football Club since the formation of the club in 1892, renaming
the ground to “The Sports Direct Arena.” Mike Ashley took this
initiative, not in the interests of the football club, but for his own
gain - leading to the deterioration of his relationship with the fans.
Fans were not happy with the renaming of the stadium because
it showed Ashley’s lack of interest in the importance and history
of St James’ Park to the fans. Therefore, fans began to feel their
were once optimistic about the club’s future due to promises of
investment into the playing squad, the academy, and the training
ground. However, these promises proved to be false, and the
club was relegated three times from the Premier League under
Ashley’s ownership which affected the relationship with the fans
as the club struggled to make any progress towards competing in
the Premier League, never mind in European competition. Since
Ashley bought the club, he failed to maintain a good relationship
attending to their needs since he did not bring footballing success
to Tyneside and failed to protect the club’s values and history. Mike
Ashley’s lack of a good relationship with Newcastle’s stakeholders
has left them clamouring for an owner who shows any element of
care. It remains to be seen whether the new owners can provide
this, but it can’t get much worse than it was before. If they can
live up to any promises made to the fans, and deliver some form
of success, it will stand them in good stead to be seen as an
improvement on the previous owner.
Deontology
“Deontology is a theory that suggests actions are good or bad
according to a clear set of rules” [16]. This theory is closely linked
to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant who believed that
every person has an inherent dignity which creates an “ethical line
in the sand that prevents us from acting in a certain way” toward
other people or ourselves [16]. Ethical concerns have been raised
by the takeover deal of the Newcastle Football Club by a Saudi
Arabia private investment fund chaired by Prince Mohammed bin
Salman who is involved in the ongoing issues including the murder
of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the treatment of
the women, and the Saudi Arabian intervention in Yemen. Also,
in Saudi Arabia, they have lifted a ban preventing women from
driving, but the women who campaigned for that still face twenty
years in prison, tortured and abused in detention, which is against
the ethics of deontology [17]. All these actions allegedly conducted
by Salman and the Saudi state could and should be viewed as
wrong as they undermine established and accepted human rights’
standards. People can make an informed decision about lending
their support to the takeover of the Newcastle United Football
Club. They are making an ethical choice of their own, it is a moral
decision. However, due to the very strong feelings of loyalty that
football engenders among people, it can be expected that many
Newcastle fans may try to ignore the questionable ethics behind
the deal and, by so doing, they will blur the line between right and
wrong.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a theory that bases ethics on a thinking
of right and wrong. An action is considered right if the result of
that action is happiness, and an action is considered wrong if the
result of that action is unhappiness or the opposite of happiness.
Happiness and its counterpart are used as two ends on a scale of
right and wrong [18]. An individual using this theory can base
right and wrong on whether an action increases or decrease the
general happiness and wellbeing of society. However, businesses
using this theory see any actions as right if they create the largest
of or affects any individuals or groups of people, involved in the
business or the action, positively [19]. When it comes to looking
at the Newcastle United takeover, from the point of view of this
theory, the decisions made were ultimately the wrong actions
taken as they left many parties involved in the club distressed
and troubled about the state of the club and the new ownership
due to their criticisms and human rights violations. Although the
decision is still seen as right by certain groups such as the club
itself as it has been promised an investment of £600m from the
PIF that has an estimated wealth of around £315 billion. There
will also be board members such as Amanda Staveley, the founder
of PCP Capital Partners, with an estimated net worth of £110m.
These new investors and stakeholders will offer the club new
opportunities to purchase new players to improve their squad
in a hope to climb the ranks in the league, pay off their existing
loans and interests, pay staff better salaries, and allow them to
refurbish their stadium and training grounds. All these possible
How to cite this article: Stuart M, Malundi T C, Gregor M, Joseph M, Kieran J. The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club.
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2022; 9(4): 555768. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
005
Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine & Treatment in Sports
new developments are also exciting for the fans of the club, most
of whom choose to ignore the accusations towards their new
owners, as their priority is to see their club doing well. With all
the new investments and money being brought into the club, they
see it as their opportunity to bring the club out of the hole they
have been in for the last few years, and so they see the decision as
a positive outcome for themselves and the club.
However, not all parties are pleased by the new ownership as
the new owners. The larger football community as a whole and the
U.K. public is concerned about the takeover due to Saudi Arabia
and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s aforementioned
accusations of numerous human rights violations. They are
infamous for their suppression of government reformists, free
thinkers and for their outdated views on women and same-
sex marriage. This has the public concerned as there is a belief
that the Premier League is allowing questionable individuals to
take control of large organizations and businesses within the
country, giving people a bleak outlook on the future of football
and club ownership. The new takeover is also unfavourable to
the U.K. government, even though they deny any involvement in
the takeover. Evidence has emerged that when the takeover was
initially blocked by the League, Prime Minister Boris Johnson
received a text message from Prince Mohammed warning him that
relations between the countries would deteriorate if he did not
situation for the government to be in as they were essentially
blackmailed into turning a blind eye and allowing the takeover
to occur. This has left the government and public concerned as it
serves as an example that no matter a person or groups’ previous
crimes or exploits, they are able to take control of a major sporting
the greatest happiness principle, which shows the problems
associated with applying utilitarian theory in practice. If anything,
the takeover is against utilitarianism theory as Newcastle United
fans are a small minority of the total number of football fans in the
U.K. But the increase in their happiness per capita may exceed the
loss in happiness per capita among other football fans. Therefore,
we need to look beyond utilitarianism, as indeed we have done so
in this article.
Conclusion
No matter which ethical theory you prefer to use or how you
want to interpret it, the ethics behind this takeover deal and the
people involved are questionable at best. From a non-footballing
standpoint, there are few reasons to believe that Newcastle’s new
owners are “good people.” With accusations ranging from poor
human rights’ practices to outright murder, it becomes hard to
that they won’t be involved intimately in the running of the club.
However, it’s not entirely fair to only look at the new owners as
football club too. From this standpoint, there are some signs
that there is good to come from this takeover, especially for the
fans of Newcastle, as these people can experience their football
team achieving success, which is all any fan can ask for, but this
isn’t the only side to the takeover. The wider sport must also be
considered and there must be an element of sporting integrity.
The more money available to top clubs, the more the game’s elite
separate from the pack. Newcastle United are simply joining other
elite super clubs in abandoning the rest of the game. When the
European Super League concept [20] rears its head once more,
they will no doubt be offered a seat at the negotiating table, not
due to their footballing success but purely due to the abundance
of funds available to them. Where is the sporting integrity there?.
References
1. Sky Sports (2021a) Newcastle takeover completed: Saudi-led
consortium end Mike Ashley’s 14-year ownership.
2. White M (2021) ‘Why do Newcastle fans hate Mike Ashley? 10 of his
worst moments as owner’, FourFourTwo.
3. Salt N (2021) ‘Party time! Newcastle fans celebrate wildly outside St
James’ Park after the £305m
14-year reign of unpopular owner Mike Ashley’, Mail Online.
4. Fordham J, Gallagher S (2021) Loaded Richest Premier League owners:
Newcastle in top spot after takeover is completed ahead of Man City,
Glazers at Man United below Roman Abramovich at Chelsea.
5. BBC (2021a) Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi
journalist’s death.
6. BBC (2021b) Newcastle United: Why is Saudi Arabia-led takeover
controversial?
7.
8.
doping” – La Liga president Tebas.
9. Rowan C (2020) Bury Football Club – Is this the end? A football story.
10.
11. IvyPanda (2019) Business Ethics: Utilitarianism, Rights, Justice,
Caring, and Virtue Theories.
12. Velasquez M, Andre C, Shanks T, SJ, Meyer MJ (2014) Justice and
Fairness.
13. BBC (2020) Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, power
behind the throne.
14.
Khashoggi murder but does not sanction him’, The Guardian.
15.
Examples.
16. The Ethics Centre (2016) Ethics Explainer: Deontology.
17. Havery G (2020) Ethical question for Newcastle United fans over Saudi
takeover talk’, The Northern Echo.
18. Mulgan T (2014) Understanding Utilitarianism. Routledge, New York.
19. Hamington M, Sander-Staudt M (n. d) Applying Care Ethics to Business.
New York. Springer.
20. Sky Sports (2021b) European Super League - the key questions: What
is it? Who is involved? How likely?
How to cite this article: Stuart M, Malundi T C, Gregor M, Joseph M, Kieran J. The Ethics Behind the Recent Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club.
J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2022; 9(4): 555768. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
006
Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine & Treatment in Sports
Your next submission with Juniper Publishers
will reach you the below assets
• Quality Editorial service
• Swift Peer Review
• Reprints availability
• E-prints Service
• Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding
• Global attainment for your research
• Manuscript accessibility in different formats
( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio)
• Unceasing customer service
Track the below URL for one-step submission
https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php
This work is licensed under Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 Licens
DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2022.09.555768
