Op-Ed / / 02.27.26
Note: This op-ed was originally published in Washington Post and was authored by John Prendergast, Co-Founder of The Sentry, and Geoffrey Mills.
As lifelong friends from opposite sides of the Atlantic, we’re united by our devotion to Arsenal: our favorite soccer club in the English Premier League. As it is for many other Arsenal fans around the world, rooting for the team is our shared escape.
Unfortunately, Arsenal and some other Premier League teams have a sordid secret: They are one step removed from human rights abuses unfolding in Africa.
The “Emirates: Fly Better” slogan emblazoned on the front of Arsenal’s jersey promotes the state-owned airline in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE regularly utilizes partnerships with athletic teams and leagues to “sportswash” their connection to human rights abuses. Most blatantly, the UAE reportedly provides arms and other support to the Rapid Support Forces, a militia responsible for widespread atrocities in Sudan’s brutal civil war — a relationship unaddressed by Arsenal and denied by Abu Dhabi.
The UAE royal family’s investment in soccer is not limited to Britain. They own teams across Europe, and New York City FC is primarily owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a deputy prime minister and member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, through his holding company. Beyond soccer, the UAE’s extensive commercial branding deal with the National Basketball Association is drawing increased pressure from human rights organizations.
Sportswashing, whether for domestic consumption or international reputation buffing, is not new. The Roman Empire relied on gladiatorial combat and chariot races. Twentieth century dictatorships hosted the Olympics and World Cups. Modern authoritarian states have learned the same lesson: Sports can distract from repression and war.
Alongside “Fly Emirates,” Arsenal’s jersey features another troubling partnership: the “Visit Rwanda” sleeve sponsorship. Rwanda is often cited as a miraculous post-genocide turnaround story. After the devastation of 1994, the government oversaw a dramatic rebound through disciplined investments, little tolerance for corruption and commitment to public services. In that context, it’s understandable why Arsenal accepted Rwanda’s money.
But there is a darker side to this story. Rwanda’s economic success has been underwritten in part by raw materials acquired through repeated incursions into neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Rwanda has invaded Congo multiple times, initially to pursue those responsible for the 1994 genocide, but increasingly to loot gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten. Its most recent invasion has led to one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises in eastern Congo.
An effective fan-led coalition named Gunners for Peace (Arsenal fans call themselves Gunners) has worked to educate supporters about this unsavory relationship. Their belief was straightforward: Removing “Visit Rwanda” from the jersey’s sleeve would end Arsenal’s association with human rights abuses in Congo, and the logo could be easily replaced with another sponsorship. And Arsenal has shown that change is possible. Last November, the club decided to end its relationship with the Rwandan organization at the conclusion of this season. The decision followed similar action by German club Bayern Munich and demonstrated something long dismissed as unrealistic in modern soccer: Sustained fan pressure can make a real difference.
…
Read the full op-ed in the Washington Post.
Facts Only
John Prendergast and Geoffrey Mills, co-authors of the op-ed, are lifelong Arsenal fans and critics of the club’s sponsorship deals.
Arsenal’s jersey features the "Emirates: Fly Better" slogan, promoting the UAE’s state-owned airline.
The UAE is accused of supporting the Rapid Support Forces, a militia involved in Sudan’s civil war.
Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a UAE royal family member, owns New York City FC through his holding company.
The UAE has a commercial branding deal with the National Basketball Association (NBA).
Arsenal’s sleeve sponsorship features "Visit Rwanda," a partnership with the Rwandan government.
Rwanda has been accused of invading the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to loot natural resources, contributing to a humanitarian crisis.
Gunners for Peace, a fan-led coalition, campaigned to end Arsenal’s partnership with Rwanda.
Arsenal announced it would end its "Visit Rwanda" sponsorship at the conclusion of the 2025-26 season.
Bayern Munich, a German football club, also ended its partnership with Rwanda.
The op-ed was originally published in the Washington Post on February 27, 2026.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that sports sponsorships can serve as a tool for authoritarian regimes to launder their reputations, and fan activism can be an effective counterforce. The authors credibly link Arsenal’s sponsorships to human rights abuses in Sudan and the DRC, while acknowledging Rwanda’s post-genocide economic recovery as a complicating factor. The piece effectively highlights the tension between commercial interests and ethical responsibility in global sports.
Pattern scan: The narrative employs moral framing to critique sportswashing, but it avoids exaggeration or emotional exploitation. It presents a clear case without resorting to distortion or bad faith tactics. The focus on fan-led activism as a solution is constructive, though it assumes that corporate entities will respond to moral pressure—a premise that may not always hold.
Root cause: The paradigm here is the intersection of global capitalism and geopolitics, where sports become a battleground for reputation management. The unstated assumption is that fans, as consumers, have the power to influence corporate behavior—a belief rooted in the idea of ethical consumerism. Historically, this echoes past movements where public pressure forced corporations to sever ties with controversial regimes, such as the anti-apartheid divestment campaigns.
Implications: For human agency, this narrative empowers fans to hold institutions accountable, but it also raises questions about the limits of such activism. The beneficiaries of this dynamic are arguably the fans and human rights advocates, while the costs are borne by the clubs and sponsors who face reputational risks. Second-order consequences could include increased scrutiny of sports sponsorships globally, potentially leading to more transparent partnerships.
Bridge questions: How effective is fan activism in driving systemic change beyond individual sponsorship deals? What other levers of influence exist to address sportswashing beyond consumer pressure? Would the same standards of ethical sponsorship apply to all clubs equally, or is there a risk of selective outrage?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook might involve amplifying moral outrage to pressure clubs into severing ties with specific regimes, potentially serving geopolitical interests. However, the content does not exhibit signs of a structured attack pattern. It presents a well-reasoned critique without undue manipulation or hidden agendas.
Patterns detected: none