His Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Scriven called on the government to address and potentially ban foreign ownership of English football clubs and sports organisations.
Lord Scriven also accused Formula 1 chief executive Stefano Domenicali of being arrogant and damaging the sport’s reputation by failing to address issues around sports washing in a debate in the House of Lords on Thursday.
“This debate has put a lid on the murky waters some have been swimming in when it comes to sports washing and the government will now take action,” he said. “I hope that, following this debate, the UK government will take action to regulate their own role in due diligence on human rights issues and will also consider foreign ownership of Saudi Arabia’s Newcastle United and Bahrain’s McLaren F1 team in the new bill here. “It is before the parliament to ban clubs and teams from remaining under foreign state ownership.”
Relating to: Lewis Hamilton: FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem never had my support
Lord Scriven, deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf, had brought up the debate in the House of Lords to draw attention to the issues of “countries using sporting events to ‘sportswash’ their own lives”. human rights record and the role of sports organizations in assisting with this implementation”.
In a letter shown to the Guardian, he revealed that he had written to Domenicali on March 11. In it, he harshly criticized the CEO for repeatedly failing to contact him about human rights violations in Bahrain.
In the House of Lords, he referred to the case of Sayed Hashem Alwadaei, who the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy alleged was arrested during F1 testing this year and later “tortured and interrogated blindfolded without a lawyer for allegedly participating in an unauthorized race”. peaceful protests”. Lord Scriven suggested he was targeted as part of a concerted effort to silence protests around the grand prix in March.
Lord Scriven said he made repeated attempts to contact Domenicali but to no avail. He said his emails and letters demanding proof that F1 was truly a force for good and was doing due diligence on human rights in the countries it visited were not accepted.
“It is Mr Domenicali’s arrogance, lack of professionalism and commitment that leaves me no alternative but to seek this debate and further regulation for F1 and other UK-based sporting bodies when it comes to training.” said. during the discussion. “His leadership of F1 is damaging the reputation of his sport as he refuses to engage with issues surrounding F1 and human rights.”
In his letter to Domenicali, he made clear his dissatisfaction with the general manager’s attitude. “Your choice not to contact me makes clear that you do not have solid evidence of F1’s positive impact on human rights and that due diligence has not been done in mitigating risks.” he wrote.
“I believe you think it is appropriate for F1 senior leaders to ignore those concerned about F1 activities that will allow Bahraini authorities to continue to commit human rights abuses and erase its appalling human rights record.”
The debate also raised the issue of sports washing and ownership of football clubs in England. On Tuesday the government published its football governance bill, which suggests English football’s regulator could strip bad owners of their rights to run clubs and force them to sell assets.
But despite a ruling last week aimed at blocking Abu Dhabi’s takeover of Telegraph Media Group, the law did not contain a provision that would ban foreign states from owning English clubs.
There were several Lords who indicated their intention to amend the football regulation bill to ensure that foreign ownership of sporting events and English clubs is addressed.
Relating to: Saudi takeover of European football isn’t about sport, it’s about power
But Lord Parkinson, the parliamentary undersecretary for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, insisted the government did not expect the regulator to prevent foreign ownership of English clubs.
“We do not think it would be appropriate for a football regulating body to make unilateral assessments of human rights concerns,” he said. “The regulator’s primary focus is the financial sustainability of clubs and the industry. “Clubs have many different types of ownership, including state ownership or owners who may be close to foreign governments.”
F1 also released a statement. “For decades, Formula 1 has worked hard to be a positive force, including economic, social and cultural benefits, wherever it competes. Sports like Formula 1 cross borders and cultures to bring countries and communities together to share the passion and excitement of incredible competition and success.” “We take our rights-related responsibilities very seriously, set high ethical standards guaranteed by contracts for counterparties and those in our supply chain, and are very careful to comply with them.”