When Qatar hosted the FIFA World Cup, western media was flooded with reporting on Doha’s ‘sportswashing’ as a spotlight was shone on alleged human rights abuses, mistreatment of migrant workers and poor LGBT rights.
But, after the tournament ended, attention moved elsewhere.
Now, after a Champions League final involving Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), a club backed by not one but two states, there is worryingly little discussion about ‘sportswashing’ surrounding the game, when it should be front and centre.
Does this comparative silence suggest that ‘sportswashing’ is working?
Qatar and other states’ deepening involvement in football have become familiar and, in effect, normalised.
When PSG, owned by Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, first reached a Champions League final in 2020, the British newspaper The Independent was outraged that “a state-run club in the Champions League final is a landmark low for football.”
Since then, another “state run club,” Manchester City, owned by the UAE’s vice-president, has won the competition and Saudi Arabia has been awarded the 2034 World Cup.
Given such criticism, you would expect clubs and organisations to be wary of manipulation by states for their own agendas and exercise greater caution. Instead, sportswashing seems to be on the rise across the board.
As well as Saudi Arabia following Qatar and the UAE, another autocratic state involved with PSG, Rwanda, is pursuing the same strategy.
The ‘Visit Rwanda’ logo was displayed proudly on PSG’s training kit before the final, as Kigali seeks to promote itself as a reliable western ally and tourist destination.
Yet, like Qatar before it, Rwanda is accused of using football to distract from human rights abuses at home and sponsoring a violent insurgency in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
That Kigali is looking to emulate Doha is understandable, with the latter being a ‘sportswashing’ trailblazer.
Rwanda, in contrast, is comparatively new to the geopolitical football game.
Since 2018, the Rwanda Development Board has sponsored Arsenal, adding PSG in 2019, Bayern Munich in 2023 and Athletico Madrid in 2025.
Compared to the Gulf states, Rwanda is a relative minnow.
The PSG deal is reportedly worth between $8.7m-$10m [€7.6m-€8.8m], a fraction of the amount lavished by Qatar.
Indeed, some have marvelled how a landlocked African state with a GDP per capita below $1,000 can afford to spend millions sponsoring western football clubs.
But this shows how much Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame values sport.
Rwanda is close to Qatar, with Qatar Airways owning 49 percent of Rwanda’s national airline and 60 percent of a new Kigali airport Doha is building, and Kagame may well have noted how its ally has utilised football.
Like Qatar, Kagame is promoting his country as a sports destination, hosting the 2025 Road World Cycling Championship and exploring bringing in Formula 1.
Moreover, like Doha, Kagame has regional ambitions. Long-heralded as a development success story, especially after recovering from the horrors of the 1994 genocide, Kigali now positions itself as a powerful African actor.
But like Qatar, Rwanda is no liberal democracy, with Freedom House labelling it ‘Not Free’ and accusing Kagame’s regime of suppressing political dissent.
Rwanda has also been accused by the United Nations, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and the European Union of sponsoring the M23 rebel group in DRC. The UN has stated that over 4,000 Rwanda troops are present in eastern Congo, while UN experts have stated that the Rwandan army is in “de facto control of M23 operations.”
The rebels have allegedly taken part in multiple executions, sexual violence and other atrocities. Rwanda is further accused of illegally exporting minerals from the regions M23 controls, including vast quantities of gold.
Rwanda’s football strategy has not been untouched by this, especially after M23 captured the Congolese city of Goma in February, promoting widespread western condemnation and US sanctions.
The offensive prompted DRC’s foreign minister to write to Arsenal, PSG and Bayern Munich to “question the morality” of their sponsorship deals, calling them “blood-stained.” But despite some Arsenal fans protesting outside games, and 70,000 PSG fans signing a petition urging an end to their deal with Kigali, the clubs remain committed to the deal.
Of course, ‘sportswashing’ like this is not new.
Nazi Germany famously hosted the 1936 Olympics to project a positive image to the world as did the Argentinian Junta with the World Cup in 1978 and, more recently, Vladimir Putin in 2018.
Concerningly, in all three cases, the leaders went on to invade neighbouring territory, possibly emboldened to act with impunity following their perceived acceptance by the world at these events.
It is possible that Rwanda’s alleged involvement in the eastern DR Congo has similarly been influenced by a belief that its positive image-building in the west will limit criticism.
And, so far, this might be a fair assessment. Criticism remains muted.
It is notable that, though some PSG fans opposed Rwanda’s sponsorship, few were urging Qatar to divest from the club, suggesting they oppose only some ‘sportswashing’, but not all.
The media, similarly, remain far less focused on sportswashing than during the 2022 World Cup, though no doubt attention will return when Saudi Arabia hosts in 2034.
Meanwhile, the ‘sportswashers’ will continue to invest because, despite occasional scrutiny, the broader strategy seems to be working. Even if PSG had lost on Saturday night, their backers in Qatar and Rwanda are already reaping geopolitical rewards, at the expense of fans, clubs and UEFA.
This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.
Christopher Phillips is professor of international relations at Queen Mary University of London.
Christopher Phillips is professor of international relations at Queen Mary University of London.