Arsenal’s reaction to Mesut Ozil and China is why we need distance from the things we like

Mesut Ozil recently condemned the silence of his fellow Muslims regarding China’s persecution of Uighurs, an ethnic Muslim minority group located primarily in the Xinjiang region of the country. Reports by the United Nations and leaked documents describing internment camp conditions suggest China’s actions amount to a full-on ethnic cleansing.

(Ozil’s stance has been called hypocritical because of his friendship Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan, who has launched attacks on Turkey’s Kurdish minority.)

Ozil’s tweet wasn’t aimed at China, but it angered numerous Chinese fans — not to mention the Chinese state — nonetheless. The response was immediate. The Chinese broadcast of Arsenal’s recent match against Manchester City was cancelled, and Ozil was denounced as “misguided,” “full of nonsense,” “as insignificant as dirty ants,” and accused of encouraging global jihad.

This rapid backlash reveals, as if it needed further revelation, the sway China has over significant chunks of the Western world. Entering the Chinese market means playing by China’s rules. When activism conflicts with those rules, people and corporations will eject any pretense towards morality so as not to risk the money.

Arsenal immediately distanced themselves from Ozil and his statement, saying, “The content published is Özil’s personal opinion. As a football club, Arsenal has always adhered to the principle of not involving itself in politics.” Electronic Arts and Konami, responsible for FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer respectively, also capitulated, deleting Ozil from the Chinese versions of their games.

This fallout mirrored the situation faced by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey earlier this year. Morey posted a tweet in support of the Hong Kong protests, China reacted with predictable belligerence, and the NBA and several of its stars quickly distanced themselves from Morey in order to protect their place in the Chinese market.

This fear of irritating China has become virtually universal. Similar situations have occurred with companies like Activision Blizzard, American Airlines, Apple, Audi, Disney/ESPN, Delta Airlines, Nike, Zara, Viacom/Paramount Pictures, and more. Brands and people everywhere are self-censoring and being censored so they don’t jeopardize their interests in a massive, growing market.

That money rules everything isn’t surprising, but the Ozil situation is still significant because it shows the extent to which entities like Arsenal are compromised. All it takes is a simple tweet from one employee to jeopardize a long-standing agreement. The tweet itself was not radical; it didn’t call for anything but awareness, and for others to speak up. But China has the reach and power to enforce its worldview, and so the tweet became a battlefield.

In a world dominated by money, social justice is just another commodity, to be weighed in dollars. Companies are happy to lean into progressive ideas so long as they can make money off them. The problem is that social justice and profit are often in conflict, and sometimes all it takes is one tweet to expose their divide.

Arsenal and the rest should always be kept at an arm’s length when it comes to their progressive ideals. No matter how good their messaging, these businesses can only go so far. Sports teams face a particular paradox in which they are businesses that act as an extension of fans. A positive emotional connection and identification is the root of fandom. And teams’ survival and success is usually determined by how well they can keep business and fandom in harmony.

Regardless, many businesses will happily profit from the problems of the world when they can. FIFA for instance, makes high-flying declarations about the power of sports to help people, while at the same time sponsoring a World Cup in Qatar being built off the abuse of migrant workers.

Many of us, as fans, want the things and people we like to be good. And we tend to elevate them at the first sign of their supposed goodness. Football clubs are often tied to our identities — to our family and regional associations — which only deepens the sorrow when their visage of goodness is shattered. It’s a huge letdown as an Arsenal fan to see Arsenal show their cowardice. But this knowledge can lead us to a fortifying and necessary disenchantment.

We should be able to support companies when their causes are good, and nudge them towards using their power to make the world better. We should never abdicate our responsibility to hold the likes of Arsenal accountable, because they do have an obligation to live up to the ideas they promote — the ideas they are more than a business, they are stewards of a game that champions the power to positively affect the world. They should be shamed when they pretend to be apolitical in order to maintain a revenue stream. And holding organizations accountable can have a real effect. For example, because of the Ozil situation, the German club Cologne has cancelled their plans to build an academy in China.

But ultimately, no matter how much we may love Arsenal, or any team or brand, their primary mission is to enrich the people in control. Yes, seeing the stark truth of these companies is much bleaker than buying into the romance we give them as entities that are also reflections of ourselves. But doing so gives us a more honest position from which to engage them. A place where we can enjoy and cheer them when they do good things, without ever forgetting they will do anything to protect their bottom line.