Everton, for example, have stadiums and training facilities sponsored by USMparent company founded by a Russian billionaire and currently operating under sanctions from the United States Department of the Treasury; or Chelsea, banked by a financier named by a British lawmaker as a possible target of sanctions earlier this week; or Manchester United, was very silent in its sponsorship deal with Aeroflot, the state-backed Russian airline, until suddenly dropped it on friday.
However, what do you expect, when the very agencies that are supposed to represent the game have refused to do so? UEFA has, at least, Petersburg has revoked the right to participate in this year’s Champions League finalsomething it has found easier than canceling its own lucrative sponsorship deal with Gazprom.
And then, of course, there’s FIFA. Oh, FIFA, which the president once approved Friendship Medal from Putin and claimed that the 2018 World Cup highlighted Western misperceptions about the ruthless rule he presided over. On Thursday, the president, Gianni Infantino, can’t even say the words “Russian” or “Ukrainian” on their own when asked about the crisis.
Even so, even putting those teams, those agencies under scrutiny, could still be an injustice. The idea that any of these institutions must have a synonymous response to a major ongoing global crisis is, in essence, somewhat absurd.
The problems that have driven the world to this point, their underlying causes, their long-term ramifications, are not just beyond their area of expertise – start streaming with Frank Lampard now , as he took over the Minsk contracts of 2014 – but the limits of their world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/sports/soccer/fifa-russia-uefa-putin.html Russia, football and a drawing line too late