Pundit expects Arsenal to set aside politics to keep £10million per season deal

Arsenal has faced criticism for its ongoing partnership with Rwanda, prominently featuring the “Visit Rwanda” brand on its sleeves. While the collaboration provides visibility for Rwanda and generates around £10 million per season for Arsenal, concerns have been raised regarding human rights abuses in the African country.

Despite the controversy, financial analyst Kieran Maguire believes that Arsenal is likely to prioritise business considerations over political concerns. The partnership has financial benefits for the club, and Maguire suggests that the allure of revenue may outweigh the potential fallout from the association with a country facing criticism for human rights issues.

It’s a common dilemma for sports clubs and organizations when weighing the financial gains of partnerships against ethical considerations, and in this case, Maguire suggests that Arsenal may opt to continue the lucrative arrangement with Rwanda.

Maguire tells Football Insider:

“Arsenal will take the Jimmy Carr approach when it comes to their Visit Rwanda sponsorship – grin and bank the cheque.

“And it’s a large cheque of £10 million per season – it’s a large sum of money.

“Any diligent investigation into the rights of the people of Rwanda will raise a number of red flags.

“But Arsenal will argue that it helps to pay the wages and therefore insist that they will not get involved in politics.”

Just Arsenal Opinion

Our partnership with the Rwandan government is a financially good one for us, and we will hardly drop it because of the political situation in the country.

Football has to be separated from politics and we are focused on the one that pays us the most and concerns us, which is to make money.


CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link

Tags Kieran Maguire

4 Comments

  1. Maybe in this case Arsenal can have a impact to effect meaningful changes within Ruwanda, by having a presence as opposed to pulling out.

    Sports is an effective tool and football in particular, in reaching people every nooks and crannies of the world.

  2. Many football clubs in Europe are owned by people from Middle Eastern countries, and previously Russia, whose human rights records are highly questionable. Why didn’t those critics raise a finger? Is it because it is an African country involved, or is it because it is Arsenal? Whatever it is this is far over the top! The UK Government has been dealing with Rwanda on issues of refugees and other immigrants to UK until the recent Supreme court ruling which, in any case, is being challenged by the UK government. Why didn’t/ don’t the same critics raise human rights issues when British clubs are bought by oligarchs and sheikhs who are not known to respect human rights? Is it a case of double standards or hatred for the parties involved in the Arsenal-Rwanda deal or both? Please give us a break!

    1. DAVID, YOUR EMINENTLY CORRECT POST SHOWS GRAPHICALLY HOW MUCH HYPOCRISY IS PRESENT IN OUR COMMON HUMAN CONDITION.
      I say this on JA so very often, but few have the nous to see it or agree, even though it is blindingly obvious in almost all of our human race.

      Some folk dont observe human kind in detail, as others of us do.
      More fool them, as they miss out on so much easy to see knowledge of how we humans just are.

  3. This is the kind of Western hypocrisy that makes me cringe. Betting companies sponsor clubs, and we hear nothing. China and Chinese companies sponsor clubs in the league, and we hear nothing. Middle Eastern countries own clubs in the league and we hear nothing, but suddenly it’s Africa, and they become very vocal. lol
    The deal is profitable for both parties and I would suggest we leave politics and all-woke agendas out of our dear sport.

Comments are closed

Top Blog Sponsors