Blistering report exposes Premier League complicity in Israel’s genocide

A blistering new report from War on Want, an organisation fighting poverty, has exposed just how complicit the Premier League is in Israel’s genocide of Palestine.

Football is supposed to be a refuge from politics. A place where the roar of the crowd drowns out the world’s worst headlines. But when club sponsors profit from or enable state violence, that refuge becomes a stage for sports washing: the deliberate use of sport to launder reputations and normalise injustice.

War on Want’s report, ‘Red Card: English Premier League Sports washing of Israel’s Atrocities against the Palestinians’, pulls the curtain back on how corporate sponsorships tie Premier League clubs to companies linked to Israel’s occupation, apartheid and alleged genocide.

War on Want found the following evidence of complicity:

Premier League: who’s guilty

War on Want’s research identifies at least 15 corporations sponsoring Premier League clubs that it links to Israel’s actions, naming familiar global brands such as AXA, BP, Cisco, Coca‑Cola, Expedia/Hotels.com, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Oracle and Sony. These are not obscure backers; they are household names whose logos appear on shirts, stadium hoardings, and broadcast graphics, the very places fans look to for identity and trust.

The detailed report also ranks clubs by what it calls complicity, listing teams from Liverpool and Arsenal down to Burnley. That ranking reframes a familiar debate: it’s not just about individual corporate behaviour, but about how clubs amplify corporate reputations and, by extension, political narratives.

What sportswashing looks like

Sportswashing is simple in practice and powerful in effect. A sponsor’s logo on a shirt or around a stadium turns a football match into a marketing moment. Millions of viewers see the brand; the brand’s controversies fade into the background. War on Want argues that this visibility helps normalise and legitimise companies implicated in human rights abuses. Which by extension, the states those companies are linked to. The report is blunt:

Football should not be used to normalise genocide and apartheid.

This is not theoretical. Sponsorship deals are multi-million‑pound contracts that buy sustained exposure. When a club accepts money from a company tied to contested state policies, it hands that company access to a global audience and a veneer of social acceptance. Fans who buy shirts, attend matches, or watch on TV become unwitting participants in a PR campaign.

Clubs often claim neutrality: sport is separate from politics. But neutrality is a choice with consequences. Accepting sponsorship from a company linked to human rights abuses is an active decision that communicates values, whether intended or not. War on Want’s report forces clubs to confront that reality: sponsorship is not a neutral transaction; it is a public alignment.

The briefing also calls on the Premier League, clubs themselves, and the UK government to act. We must show apartheid and genocide the red card. That demand reframes responsibility beyond individual corporations to the institutions that enable them: leagues that approve sponsorships, governments that regulate corporate conduct, and clubs that sign the deals.

What action need to be taken

The recommendations are clear, practical, and uncompromising. The report urges clubs to end sponsorships with companies linked to the occupation and to adopt human rights‑aligned sponsorship policies. They call on the Premier League to publish transparency about sponsorship deals and to adopt rules that prevent clubs from partnering with companies implicated in serious human rights violations. They also press the UK government to use regulatory levers to prevent sports-washing.

These are not cosmetic fixes. Transparency and policy change would shift the balance of power: clubs would have to weigh reputational risk against short‑term revenue, and sponsors would face real consequences for harmful conduct.

Fans are a force

Fans are not passive. Boycotts, protests and public pressure have forced corporate and sporting change before. Essentially this report is a rallying call to fans to recognise the stakes and to act now, not to silence the game, but to demand that the game not be used to sanitise suffering. When supporters ask hard questions about who pays the bills, clubs and sponsors feel it in the market and in the media.

The power of fans is simple: attention. Sponsors crave it. Remove or redirect that attention, and the calculus changes. This is about more than football. It’s about how global brands operate in a world where corporate power often outstrips democratic oversight. Sportswashing is one tactic among many but it’s effective because sport is emotional, visible, and culturally central. The briefing uses football’s visibility to expose a broader pattern: when corporations profit from or enable state violence, they should not be allowed to hide behind the spectacle of sport.

Final word

War on Want’s Red Card is a compact, urgent briefing: it names sponsors, ranks clubs, and issues a clear moral challenge. The message is short and sharp. Football should not be used to normalise genocide and apartheid. Regardless of if it comes with a demand for accountability from clubs, leagues and governments. F

ans, too, have a role: attention is influence, and influence can force change. The pitch is no place for silence when human rights are at stake. If football means anything, it’s that the the fans views matter. War on Want’s Red Card hands the fans further reason to stand on the right side of history.

Featured image via Getty/Marc Atkins

By Faz Ali

Source link