Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Premier League · 2020–2025

Not the Saudi State, It's PIF: The Newcastle United Takeover

In October 2021, Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) led a £305m takeover of Newcastle United. The Premier League approved the deal after receiving "legally binding assurances" that the Saudi state would not control the club, even though the Crown Prince chairs the PIF. In 2023, a US court filing described the PIF as a "sovereign instrumentality" of the kingdom and the club's chairman as a sitting Saudi minister. The league then tightened its owners' test, and Newcastle won its first domestic trophy in 70 years. The case asks how a league should judge state-linked owners and whether fans share responsibility.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. A deal is first agreed for the PIF-led consortium to buy Newcastle.
  2. The PIF withdraws, citing an "unforeseeably prolonged process" over who would control the club.
  3. The Premier League settles the dispute and approves the takeover on "legally binding assurances."
  4. Other clubs vote in rules on related-party sponsorship deals.
  5. A PIF filing in the US describes it as a "sovereign instrumentality" of Saudi Arabia.
  6. Clubs voice anger and Amnesty calls for the assurances to be re-examined.
  7. Clubs approve a new owners' test that disqualifies for human rights abuses.
  8. Newcastle win the Carabao Cup, their first domestic trophy since 1955.

The ethical issues

  • State ownership versus legal separation.
  • Sportswashing and human rights.
  • How credible league oversight is.
  • The fans' dilemma of loyalty.
  • Competitive balance and financial power.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Newcastle fansInvestment and success for their club.
PIF and the Saudi stateInvestment returns and reputation.
Premier LeagueIntegrity, legal certainty and revenue.
Rival clubsCompetitive fairness.
Human rights groups and victimsAccountability for abuses.
BroadcastersProtecting their rights from piracy.

The case

On 7 October 2021, the Premier League said that it, Newcastle United and the club’s previous owner had “settled the dispute” over the club’s takeover. The buyers were a consortium of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), PCP Capital Partners and RB Sports & Media. After completing its Owners’ and Directors’ Test, the league said: “The Premier League has now received legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control Newcastle United Football Club.”[1] The BBC noted that the PIF, which supplied 80% of the £305m, “is seen as separate to the state,” even though Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is listed as its chair.[3] The case asks whether that line between fund and state was ever meaningful, and who must decide.

Background

A deal was first agreed in April 2020. The buyers walked away four months later, when the league offered arbitration over who would control the club.[3] The PIF cited an “unforeseeably prolonged process.”[4] The BBC reported a widespread belief that the 2021 resolution followed Saudi Arabia settling an alleged piracy dispute with the Qatar-based broadcaster beIN Sports. However, BBC sources said the league and the consortium had reached agreement before that news emerged.[3]

Western intelligence agencies believe the crown prince ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, which he denies.[3] Amnesty International UK called the takeover “an extremely bitter blow for human rights defenders.” It asked whether “these great clubs are being used to sportswash human rights abuse” and urged the league to add human rights to its owners’ test.[3] Consortium leader Amanda Staveley said the partner “is not that Saudi state, it’s PIF.” Asked whether the deal was sportswashing, she said: “No, not at all.”[3]

What happened

The Guardian reported that, when the deal was approved, the other 19 clubs demanded an emergency meeting. They had believed it was blocked. They then voted in rules to stop Newcastle striking high-value sponsorship deals with Saudi companies related to the owners.[5]

In February 2023, the PIF challenged an order to produce documents in a US lawsuit involving the PGA Tour and LIV Golf. Its filing said the fund and its governor, Yasir al-Rumayyan, who is also Newcastle’s chairman, “are a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a sitting minister of the Saudi government.”[4] The Guardian reported “dismay from the majority of clubs,” which planned to write to the league.[5] Amnesty called for the assurances to be re-examined.[5][6] The league’s chief executive, Richard Masters, had said in 2021 that if the league found evidence of state involvement “we can remove the consortium as owners of the club.”[4] In 2023, he told MPs he could not comment on whether the league was investigating.[6]

The rules and governance

On 30 March 2023, clubs unanimously approved changes to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test. They added disqualifying events for people subject to government sanctions and for human rights abuses based on the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020. They also extended the list of disqualifying offences and gave the league power to block prospective directors who are under investigation.[2] Amnesty called it “a step in the right direction” but asked whether a future sovereign-fund bid would be blocked: “It’s far from clear that they would.” A former sports minister called the changes “smoke and mirrors.”[6] The changes apply to future owners and directors; the league did not say it was reopening the 2021 approval.[2][6]

Aftermath

On 16 March 2025, Newcastle beat Liverpool to win the Carabao Cup. It was their first domestic trophy since the 1955 FA Cup. Al-Rumayyan attended, and the shirt sponsor was the PIF-owned company Sela.[7] The group Newcastle United Fans Against Sportswashing said the win “will also be seen as a victory for the human rights-abusing regime.” One of its founders said he could “feel little joy.” Other fans told the BBC: “We have no control over who owns our club.”[7]

The core dilemma

Should a league approve a state-linked owner on legal assurances of separation? And once the evidence complicates those assurances, does the league have a duty to revisit its decision?

Competing values

Legal form stands against real control. Fans’ hopes stand against human rights. Investment stands against competitive fairness.

Strongest arguments

For the approval: The assurances were legally binding, the PIF is a commercial investor, and the fans and the city benefit. Other clubs also have controversial owners.[1][3][7]

Against: The crown prince chairs the PIF, and its own court filing called it a sovereign instrumentality. The approval lends prestige to a government accused of serious abuses.[3][4][5]

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights view asks whether the league’s approval gives standing to a regime accused of human rights violations, and whether ownership tests should protect those rights.[3][6]

Utilitarian

A consequentialist weighs the benefits to fans and the region against harms to the league’s credibility and the risk of normalizing state ownership.[5][7]

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks what integrity requires of the league’s leaders, and what a loyal but critical fan looks like.[7]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? The 2021 assurances, the 2023 filing and the new owners’ test.[1][2][4]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? Fans, the PIF, the league, rival clubs, human rights groups and broadcasters.
  3. What are the options? Accept the assurances; investigate control; or bar state-linked funds.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Legal form against substance; investment against rights.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? The rights view and virtue ethics point to scrutiny; utilitarians are split.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as the league’s board.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The approval, the wording of the filing and the rule changes.[1][2][4]

Contested: Whether the Saudi state controls the club, and whether the takeover is sportswashing.[3][5][7]

Why this case matters

Compare with LIV Golf and the PIF, the Saudi Pro League’s recruitment and Manchester City’s 115 charges.

Key terms

Sportswashing
Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.
Multiple points of view
Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Was the Premier League right to accept the assurances?
  2. Should state-linked funds be allowed to own clubs?
  3. Do fans bear any responsibility?
  4. Is sportswashing effective, or counterproductive?
  5. Should a league apply human rights criteria?

Sources

  1. Premier League statement (Newcastle United takeover) — Premier League
  2. Premier League statement: Owners' and Directors' Test — Premier League
  3. Newcastle United: Saudi Arabian-backed takeover completed — BBC Sport
  4. Court document describes Newcastle chairman as 'sitting Saudi minister' — The Guardian
  5. Angry Premier League clubs to demand talks over Newcastle ownership — The Guardian
  6. Premier League tightens ownership rules to stop human rights abusers running a club — BBC Sport
  7. Newcastle United: Carabao Cup win and Saudi Arabia examined — BBC Sport