English football has been forced to confront questions over who should be allowed to own its top clubs because of the sanctions against Roman Abramovich.
Football authorities and the government will face questions in parliament on Tuesday about the risk of letting clubs become involved in politics.
What can be done? Why did it take so long? Is it too late? What damage has been done?
These are bad days for the sport. The sportswashing derby that took place on Sunday was dubbed as such. It was seen as one of the worst episodes in the history of the league.
With the Club World champion in turmoil, sponsors deserting the club, and fears of financial ruin amid a block on merchandising and ticket sales, a section of their support continue to sing the name of the man whose fortune brought them almost two.
The government described him as a pro-Kremlin oligarch who had a close relationship with Putin and had gotten preferential treatment.
The government claims that one of the companies owned by Abramovich may have made steel for Russian tanks. The firm and Abramovich have always denied any links with the Russian President.
Many are appalled that so many fans of the club remain loyal to a man who has done terrible things to the people of Ukraine.
As if the sight of a pro-Abramovich banner at Stamford Bridge was not uncomfortable enough for the manager of the team, he was faced with questions over Saudi Arabia's human rights record.
Eddie Howe was asked about the executions that had just happened.
Howe insisted he would stick to football, and many of the fans of the other team seem to think that is unfair. It would be better if a representative of the club was available to answer the questions. There would have been more transparency and accountability at the club if he had granted interviews over the years where he could have faced questions about his motives.
Many feel such questions to Howe are both inevitable and legitimate, despite the club's insistence of separation between the club's majority owner and the Saudi state.
Or when - just as Chelsea executives have asked manager Thomas Tuchel to field questions about the sanctioning of the owner - no-one from PIF gives an interview or press conference themselves. Or when a Saudi flag was spotted among Newcastle fans at Stamford Bridge. And when Saudi Arabia is itself engaged in a war - in Yemen, in which, according to Human Rights Watch "all parties… have committed serious violations of the laws of war, many of which may amount to war crimes…"
The UK is one of the world's largest sellers of arms to Saudi Arabia, and many fans of the club point to that as a reason why football should be held to a higher standard.
They ask why investment into a club such as theirs should be blocked when the government is happy to do business with Saudi Arabia in other industries. Indeed, this week the Prime Minister himself is reportedly poised to visit Riyadh for talks on oil.
The way Russian finance was welcomed into London over the last two decades can be pointed to by fans of the club.
Did anyone really care when Roman Abramovich came to London? Is anyone really interested in what happened when Newcastle got taken over? Do supporters really care?
It is pretty obvious where the money is coming from, so football needs to think more about where the money is coming from. We accepted it even though everyone knew it. That is our fault. We accepted it because it is society's fault. We punish them because we cannot accept it anymore. It is not the fault of the team. Not at all.
Football clubs are vital cultural and community assets and should be protected more than other businesses. Because of the global profile and prestige they offer owners, there needs to be more recognition of the risk that they are exploited for sportswashing.
"We have to think about how we protect our assets now," says Simon Chadwick, professor of sport business strategy and marketing.
As a country we need to engage in a much more informed debate about what we want from football, to set aside personal interests and rivalries and decide as a community what we like.
The willingness of the country to open itself up to investors from across the world as a means of maintaining status, wealth and power is reflected in football club ownership.
English football has been slow to address unstoppable forces connected to globalisation, digitalisation and the environment, with countries in the East trying to use energy revenues as the basis for diversifying their economies and extending their political influence across the world.
This is a point in our history that we have to wake up from.
It is done to raise awareness that we are vulnerable to the advances of other countries.
It is not the only person who has been exposed by Russia.
Manchester United had a sponsorship deal with Aeroflot. Uefa had to do the same thing with Gazprom.
The Russian president was able to use the World Cup to project a positive image of his country despite the annexation of the peninsula.
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee will question senior executives from both the FA and the Premier League about the role of Russian money in both the ownership and sponsorship of English football.
Questions about the motivation of investors from other countries as well as a focus on the source of funds will be forced by the conflict in Ukraine.
There has been renewed scrutiny on the Abu Dhabi owners of Manchester City since the United States refused to back a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia.
The majority of the city is owned by the investment group of Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family.
Howe was asked to comment on the role of the United Arab Emirates in the Saudi-led military operation in Yemen. Or the country's human rights record?
Last week, when asked about his thoughts on the club, he said he would wait to be more informed before giving his opinion. There are subjects we don't know and don't have an hour lesson to speak about.
It looks like we have to know everything. I don't know if we are human beings.
City and other teams reject any suggestion of sportswashing.
City can point to the profit they made in their most recent accounts, and insist they are now a sustainable organisation, with Abu Dhabi's investment helping to regenerate the east of Manchester. The club has Chinese and American investors as well as the controlling stake from the United Arab Emirates.
The north-east of England region will be the focus of investment by the club.
The DCMS committee warned on Tuesday that it will ask the government if it is concerned about investments in UK sport from other nations with poor human rights records.
The government's response to the fan-led review of the proposed Super League and a number of clubs falling into financial difficulties is going to be asked by the sports minister.
He is likely to be asked if the events of recent weeks have made it more likely that the government will accept the recommendation for an independent football regulator with the power to rule on a beefed-up and Directors Test.
If the government is prepared to consider making a special case of clubs, barring potential owners with direct links to states, governments and rulers, and risk sacrificing the investment and jobs that have been created, it could also be asked how the government feels about football being used to improve a country's
With the government having to approve the new owner, should the model used for future takeovers be the same? The benefit of fan ownership could be discussed.
Helen MacNamara, the policy chief for the league, will be asked if the clubs who opposed the idea of an independent regulator have now accepted that something needs to change.
As the league conducts its own review of its regulations, it could include a human rights component being incorporated into its owners and directors test, as demanded byAmnesty, as well as whether owners should be mandated to engage with the media and fans in the interests of accountability and transparency.
Football - when challenged over its sustainability and governance - has proved resistant to change and outside interference. Even after the Super League controversy, the FA pushed back against an independent regulator, its chair Debbie Hewitt insisting it could be trusted to take on the role.
The unedifying mood surrounding Sunday's match, set against the appalling suffering in Ukraine, is a warning that must be heeded by the game, and that this time, something has.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
