You must log in or register to see media![]()
Not sure if you've read Phil McNumpty's cringeworthy brown-nosing of Abramovich article in which he bends over backwards to wedge a divide between 'footballing matters' and 'moral concerns'.
I struggle to extricate the two. While I fully agree that sport and/or sports personalities should not be used to make political gestures or statements, the question of benefitting directly from someone whose success and support is founded on unethical practices is wholly different.
Although not as clear cut (and ownership tests urgently need updating and clarification to make things so much clearer), is there a world of difference between saying it's OK for Chelsea FC to gain or benefit from Roman Abramovich's blood money because they're "only" gaining in the realm of sport (which is McNumpty's argument), and saying that Siggurdson or Greenwood should be able to continue playing until they receive an actual guilty verdict and sentencing, because Everton and United ,"only" gain in footballing terms by their involvement?