Skip to main content

Football needs a longer spoon for these particular devils

Alisher Usmanov is a pretty "controversial figure". In fact the Russo-Uzbek tycoon initially made his money through acquiring control of large parts of the Russian metal industry at a time when that industry was one of the most murderous in the gangster world of 1990s Russia. He has gone on to acquire a very diverse set of holdings in Russia and increasingly outside Russia. In the UK he recently acquired Sutton Place, the former home of JP Getty. He has also acquired a large stake in Arsenal football club.


Usmanov has been extremely close to the regime of Vladimir Putin, and although his Kommersant newspaper has not been entirely slavish to that regime, it has -in general- fully served the interests of both Putin and United Russia. Indeed earlier this week, Kommersant fired two editorial staff who has allowed the publication of stories that were highly critical towards the conduct of the disputed elections and the statements of the regime. Usmanov is and remains a loyal ally of the Kleptocracy.


Usmanov, like other Russians, has sought to use the positive publicity of being involved in football in the Premiership, or the Scottish Premier league in order to provide a certain amount of international influence and potential protection.


The fact that the British authorities still see fit to deem these individuals "fit and proper" is increasingly controversial. Mr. Usmanov's clear alliance with Putin marks him out as being no friend of Britain. In fact it also marks him out as being no friend of Russia either.



Comments

Richard T said…
I find it impossible to avoid remarking that the present corruption of football (and cricket) can be traced to the authorities succumbing to the temptation from the Murdoch Empire which promised them riches beyond the dreams of avarice. The results are there for us to see (or not any more in my case).

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...