One year before President George Weah awarded Arsene Wenger, Liberia’s Order of Distinction and was conferred with the Knight Grand Commander of the Humane Order of African Redemption, President Weah said of Arsene Wenger:
“He was a father figure and regarded me as his son. This was a man, when racism was at its peak, who showed me love. He wanted me to be on the pitch for him every day.
“One day, I was quite tired of training and told him that I was having a headache. He said to me: ‘George, I know it’s tough but you need to work hard. I believe that with your talent, you can become one of the best players in the world.’ So, I listened and kept going on. Besides God, I think that without Arsène, there was no way I would have made it in Europe.”
Wenger himself has recognized the role he played in breaking down the wall of racism which prevented black players from reaching the highest levels in Europe. During a Q&A session in Malaysia just prior to the 2011/12 Arsenal season, Wenger was asked how he spots and promotes talent, he replied:
“It’s my job to know when something is there. First you need the talent, but also you need to meet someone who believes in you and gives you a chance. You can imagine though, that plenty of people have talent in life but they do not meet someone who gives them a chance. Can you name one Formula One driver from an African country, apart from South Africa? And can you really imagine that there is not one guy in Africa with the talent to be a Formula One driver? Why are they not there? Because no one has given them a chance. So in life it’s important to meet someone who will give you a chance, and when I can do this in football, I do it.”
Wenger saw himself as a champion, someone who stood up for people who were never given a chance to play football, and because of his visionary, anti-racist, attitude Arsenal put out one of the most perfect football teams ever assembled. And did so with Francophone Africans. Something that endeared him and Arsenal to an entire generation of African players.
So, it’s hard to reconcile that Arsene Wenger, the one who stood up for the oppressed, with the Arsene Wenger of today, a man who works for Qatar and stands up against political protests. During a FIFA briefing with the Technical Study Group, Arsene Wenger made the demonstrably false and offensive claim that:
“Going to the World Cup, you know you have to not lose the first game. Other teams who have experience, they have results in former tournaments like France, like England, like Brazil – they played well in the first game. And the teams as well who were mentally ready … [and] had the mindset to focus on competition and not on political demonstrations.”
First, this is an easily disprovable falsehood. He is referring to Germany but it’s notable that also Australia were very vocal with their protests against the anti-LGBTQ+ laws in Qatar and that they had, by every account, a highly successful World Cup campaign.
It wasn’t “the protests” which hurt Germany, it was the fact that they don’t have an outright goalscorer in that team. A fact which has dogged them at tournaments since 2014.
The thing about Wenger’s statement is that he doesn’t need to make it. Not only is it false, its only purpose is to support the Qatari regime and their frustration with countries which have pointed out that they jail, torture, and mentally abuse gay men in Qatar. Spokesmen for Qatar have continually stated that “people should respect their culture”, which is a false equivalency; human rights are not “cultural.” Things that are cultural are clothes that people wear, food they eat, and languages they speak. A human being born gay has just as much right to exist in that culture as one born straight. Just like African players have a right to play football at the highest level.
Sadly, it’s not a surprise that Wenger is coming out in defense of the Qatari regime. In fall 2015, he made the shocking revelation that he no longer believed in Financial Fair Play. Six months later, he joined BeIN sports (owned by Qatar). According to Philippe Auclair on the Guardian Football Weekly Podcast (date 4 December 2022) Wenger has also long had ties with PSG (also owned by Qatar). And of course, when he left Arsenal, he joined FIFA (also owned by Qatar).
It’s disappointing from Wenger. At a time when queer footballers are just starting to come out of the closet, Wenger’s words will encourage them to jump back in. There are without any question queer footballers at this tournament. There are tons of queer footballers in world football as well. It’s statistically impossible for there not to be literally hundreds. But we don’t hear about it because they are stigmatized, because being gay is still seen as a “problem” rather than just a fact of life. And Wenger’s stance in favor of a repressive regime will only make those players wary to be themselves.
I hope he clarifies his stance and stands up for LGBTQ+ folks. But I won’t hold my breath. He’s too well paid by his Qatari masters to risk angering them.
Great article. Clear, reasoned, tactful and respectful (in terms of Wenger and Arsenal relationship) but absolutely right as well. About time somebody distinguished and explained the use of cultural idiosyncracies to excuse and defend attacks upon notions of humanity as a whole and the true concepts of human rights and freedom.
It makes me proud to be a Gooner when I read this kind of articulated and thoughtful writing from a fellow Gooner.
Thank you Nick!
Hear hear!
Well done and well written. Facts first, not emotion. Wenger is an emotional subject for so many of us, so a clear headed approach is appreciated.
I don’t think that Guardian article can be interpreted as him not believing in FFP – it’s just him accepting publicly that it’s a weak regime that’s never going to get stronger, and Arsenal have to live with it.
Agree that there was no reason for his comments. Turning the weaselly separate-politics-from-sport argument on its head – he’s on a technical committee, so why should he comment on stuff outside of the technical? I’m not sure why the only recorded evidence of him saying it seems to cut off exactly after that sentence. My (hopeless) hope is that he said something after that mitigates it.
It would have been nicer, obviously, for him to proactively say something along the lines that if Qatar’s culture is to be respected, so is the culture of protest, given that it’s a World Cup where cultures inevitably collide and find ways to co-exist. That might stretch the meaning of the word culture, but would at least come off as ambassadorial.
I read what he said with a heavy heart. I can’t believe he’s been completely compromised but his comments were unworthy of him, and seemingly out of (past) character.
Maybe it’s not culture per se, but it is founded in religion, and religion is a big part of culture. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality, and so is the Qar’an. Antiquated? Yes. But still relevant today because of the many people who hold those words to be sacred. I don’t think that can be lightly dismssed, no matter how wrong it seems to us. I think there has to be a balance between respect for traditional beliefs and the promotion of progressive ideals.
The bible is far from clear on homosexuality – even if you use the Old Testament which is superseded by the teachings of Jesus Christ – and frankly I don’t care if it was listed as a deadly sin. Slavery was justified by the bible. Incest, taking child brides, all justified in the bible and Quran. 9/11 justified by the Quran. Murder, annihilation, genocide, sexual assault, rape, child molestation, all justified by those religious texts and your position seems to invite us to just use some moral relativism to understand them.
These are human rights and any religion that denies human rights is a bad religion and should be trashed or at least amended.
My position is simply that we should respect the beliefs of other people, even if we disagree with them. I think that’s simple human decency. Some people hold the word of the Qar’an as a holy truth, and they are not of lesser worth because of that. It is up to them to work through the moral conflicts that that inevitably raises in this modern world for themselves.
Casting aspersions their way is only likely to drive them to become more tribal and more extreme. We are seeing that in the US as well with the growing divide between left and right. Nobody listens to each other anymore, so wrapped up are we in our own righteousness. We just look to score points, not to understand, not to come closer together.
The person who chooses to commit violence is a criminal, regardless of their beliefs or reasons. The Crusaders, the suicide bombers, and so forth; these are not figures of religion, never were and never will be.
We’re not talking here about Crusades though. We’re talking about a World Cup that Qatar voluntarily bid for, and for which they have repeatedly said they want to be “welcoming”. But in fact turns out they aren’t quite so welcoming to rainbow symbols, or alcohol in stadiums(unless you fork over $10K for a suite). How many gay couples have dared show any PDA?
They certainly have rights to their own views. But if you want to host a voluntary event like this and be viewed as welcoming, you should be prepared to be tolerant of those who have other views.
Note…the US has no shortage of issues as far as discrimination goes. By hoping for better in Qatar, I am not excusing us or our history.
I use that as an example of religious or ideological fervor leading to violence, and that it is separate from the religion itself. Jesus would have been horrified at the very idea of the Crusades.
If you ask the Qataris, I bet they would tell you that they have been very welcoming and tolerant, from their point of view.
Wrong is wrong and should be exposed, the disrespect we show is a drop compared to the barbary they espouse. It’s our duty as educated progressive people to aggressively question every canard of tradition, who else will? I don’t want to believe arsene has turned coat over the last decade and hope some context is missing from his comments, I’ve long idolised him as the voice of sardonic reason. Read as a passing hot-take analysis rather than a parry for his paymasters it is quite a Wenger thing to say, in a vacuum. Grasping here for sure but I damn hope so
Wrong is in the eye of the beholder. We must respect differing views and educate but not patronize, build bridges and not destroy them.
Nope. There is right and there is wrong. The pure moral relativism you’re espousing is wrong and is a failure. There’s a famous paradox of tolerance. See if you are tolerant in the extreme, what happens is that your tolerance is seized on by the intolerant and used to eventually subjugate the tolerant.
And it’s happening as we live and breathe. We’ve been trying to “build bridges” with right wing wackos for 30 years, we’ve been extremely tolerant, and I’m not sure if you’ve noticed what’s going on but they literally are trying to overthrow the US government and install a fascist dictator while also sending out pepe memes and asking us “why are you so intolerant”?
The tolerant must draw a line somewhere and say no. I will not tolerate intolerant cultures and politics. People who are trying to destroy gay people cannot be tolerated or we will lose the ability to be tolerant completely.
Boundless tolerance is dangerous because it opens the door for bad actors to do bad things. That’s why there are no utopian societies. I’m not advocating for that. We need laws, and it’s the province of the law to enforce commonly held minimal standards of behavior. Qatar is not like the US in its attitude to gay people but neither are they committing crimes against them (to my knowledge). To me that’s very firmly in the realm of moral relativism, and it is not boundless. The very real boundaries are those set by national and international law. Did Qatar commit a crime against gay people? If so I am right there in condemning them with you. Short of that, I urge caution.
If we want to set absolute thesholds of tolerance outside of what is allowed by law, we tread on dangeous ground. Moral absolutism, or absolutism of any kind, is the true breeding ground of autocracy. In a world of moral absolutes, who gets to be the arbiter of right and wrong? An elite few thought leaders whose authority cannot be questioned, whose ideological purity is above reproach (Think: the medieval Catholic church. Or Bolshevism. Or Cromwell. Or the Sans Coulottes. Etc.). They become the ruling class under such a system, and they will protect their power, as authority figures always do, in whatever way they can. And it always ends in bloodshed.
In a more tolerant, relativistic society, that kind of ruling elite cannot form because they cannot claim any ideologic supremacy. When all arguments are judged based on their merit and everyone has a voice, it is much more difficult for autocracy to take hold. Conversely, autocratic figures and speech hold much more allure in a society where people feel like they can’t speak freely, and that’s much more likely to be the case in a society where moral absolutes exist outside of the law. Ordinary people feel stifled and oppressed and they are more likely to turn to extremists who give voice to their suppressed grievances. I believe that is what we see happening on the right of US politics.
i honestly believe that people are entitled to their opinions. Wenger has every right to say what he said, he didn’t say anything against anyone or target any group.
Americans think themselves as custodians and gate keepers of human rights and also how everyone else should live, there’s this weird and honestly hilarious high horse approach to issues that the rest of the world see as what it truly is, hypocrisy.
Qatar says they don’t allow something? respect their choices! its saddening to see the LGBTQi community become so militaristic in their bullying. you want freedom respect and equal rights? give it too!
“It’s our duty as educated progressive people to aggressively question every canard of tradition, who else will?”
Oh wow! Where have I read that before?
The irony!
Having opinions and criminalizing an identity are two very different categories. Qatar is not unique in doing so, but honest critics are not saying it is.
The world moves and leaves static people behind. Your views may be revolutionary and radical in their day, but if you don’t keep evolving and moving with the times, you get left behind. Wenger is a single example among millions.
I don’t normally comment and really like your blog Tim. But I have to disagree with you here. Just because you view queer/gay etc as not cultural that is by your own definition. Culture is complex with a mixture of religion, history etc. You can’t simply dismiss and say that one thing is culture and another thing is not.
You can even say racisim is culture, slavery is culture. Which is in fact true. You may not like it, I may not like it (or agree, which I don’t BTW). But this does not alter this fact. Wars have been waged over some of these ‘cultural’ differences – this is called a clash of culture or a clash of civilisations.
LGBTQ issues are viewed very differently across the world, with deeply held beliefs. To be intolerant to LGBTQ issues is bigotry, but ironically to be intolerant of views of this bigotry is bigotry in itself.
No, intolerance of intolerance is not bigotry.
“Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
I shouldn’t even really need to say this but here are some real life examples of why we can’t tolerate intolerance and why we can’t accept “it’s just cultural” (which is both an insult to that culture and to our intelligence).
We could imagine a society where they become increasingly hostile to Muslims, outlawing Islam, jailing and torturing Muslims, and forcibly converting them to Christianity. Would we just say “oh that’s just their culture” Gotta accept their culture. And in fact, saying anything about how they treat Muslims is racist.”?
Of course we wouldn’t.
I am not saying that I would put it down to ‘just cultural’. That isn’t the point. The point is that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is right and wrong. History is long. Longer that your life, longer than mine. Longer than the country that you live in. Longer than the current culture that you live in.
Not tolerating intolerance as you say, is a form cultural imperialism. But even that is besides the point. The point is, unless you can convince them it leads to violence as your quote rightly points out. Your muslim example is very apt. If anything I can could make the same argument that progressive sensibility is equally hostile and ‘racist’ to muslims. 20+ years ago, in the USA and most western countries might be ‘racist’ to muslims. But realistically, can a muslim now openly denounce LGBT (as per their beliefs) and not be shut down? How long will it take society to start outlawing Christian beliefs or muslim beliefs? If anything, Christians are the soft ones, it is the muslims who are stridently against it.
I understand its something close to your heart, and having someone you love not accepted is difficult in that part of the world. But it is a dangerous road once you start down the path to declare that your belief is so obvious, so righteous that anyone opposing it must be defeated (to the point of physical conflict). This sounds very much like blind religious ideolgy, not enlightenment.
The fact of the matter is, most of the world does not agree with the western liberal views. We should start with convincing arguments, not strawman ones.
No, you’re trying to equate basic logic with a number of illogical and ugly things in order to make the same point you’ve been making all along and which I flat out do not accept.
Here’s the basic logic for you:
All people deserve equal rights
LGBTQ people are people
Therefore LGBTQ people deserve equal rights
What your argument is is
Some people deserve certain rights when some religious people decide that they want to give them those rights and until then anyone who questions it is (insert insult, usually it’s racism).
You can try to gussy it up all you want but in essence your argument is that people don’t have equal rights, that not all people deserve to have rights. And I’m sorry but that is unacceptable to me.
Yup, that is correct. People don’t have equal rights across the world. That is reality. Rights are defined within the boundries of the society that they live it.
Country 1 has a set of rights that country 2 doesn’t have. That is reality. Life is unfair, that is reality.
When you say equal rights, I think you are actually referring to some sort of universal human rights – and if a country/culture doesn’t accept it then it is evil and must be made to change its ways. This is false.
This universal right is nebulous. I probably agree with you on most of it. But this list is expanding with no end in sight.
How about universal health care? is that a universal human right? Bernie thinks so.
How about education?
How about LGBTQ?
How about clean air?
How about clean water?
How about electricity?
How about shelter?
How about food?
There is no end to what you believe is a Human Right. Or equal right. Its not about religious or non religious person deciding. We all decide, but when you start labeling another evil and imposing your views by any means necessary to achieve your desired outcome that is the scary part.
“But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;”
This is the part that I fear, and is polarising America. In many parts of the western world. This is the part that leads to the gulags and devastation of communism.
Just FYI the system you’re describing – where people are labeled as evil, views are imposed by any means necessary where people are thrown into gulags, have body parts chopped off (such as breast tissue), tortured, and the entire country is a police state where communications are monitored and people who don’t agree with the ruling class and their dictates are jailed, tortured, and murdered – that’s Qatar.
That’s the country you’re saying is just acting out their culture. That’s what happens when you DON’T fight for tolerance. Because see, the intolerant are the ones who want to wipe out the others. The tolerant only want to fight intolerance. And if you don’t stand up against the intolerant you get Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Jefferson, etc.
As for your list of things that some people have apparently said to you are human rights, I think we could have that as a separate discussion. The thing you seem to be missing here is that LGBTQ+ isn’t something people have control over. It’s not like folks get to choose their gender identity or their sexual orientation. Even in Iran, one of the most intolerant regimes on earth, they’ve had gender affirming care since 1987 and they have had it that way because even those Imams who are the deciders know that transgender is something you’re born with. There are ends to what I believe are human rights and they are that people shouldn’t be tortured, murdered, or treated like they are inhuman because of the randomness of their birth. That means LGBTQ+, black, white, asian, hispanic, male, female, non-binary, and so on.
The other thing you seem to be missing entirely is that tolerant societies aren’t the ones who are perpetrating the evils that you’re worried about. You’ve glommed onto the “even by force” part of the quote but completely ignored the preceding 200 words. The “even by force” section refers to fighting against fascist regimes. You have sat here and argued with me passionately IN FAVOR of fascist regimes and keep worrying that some how I’m in favor of “gulags” while Qatar is actually putting LGBTQ people IN GULAGS. All I’m saying is that we need to stand up to them and say that we don’t agree with this and we won’t tolerate it and won’t support it by hosting our world cups there. And wheen we see what’s happening to people we will tell everyone about it and denounce it. No one is calling for an invasion of Qatar. I don’t see what you would have a problem with. You say you’re in favor of free speech and yet your position is that I shouldn’t even criticize them because it’s just their culture.
What you seem to be advocating for is the exact thing you also say that you’re afraid of. You seem to want people not to talk about the brutality of these states which are literally acting the way you say that you’re afraid others are going to act.
Odd that.