There’s a writer whose blog I read frequently, and he got me hip to this image of a French man going to a 2015 demonstration against the violent attacks at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
His sign, roughly translated, says “I walk but I am conscious of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation.”
I oppose and am deeply critical of Esports organizations who are rushing to partner with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) theocratic, autocratic government and their plan to become the global cultural Esports capital of the world. I am opposed to this because of the House of Saud’s brutal, many times fatal, crackdown on dissenters; their consistent efforts to make women 2nd-class citizens in many aspects of their laws; their razing and destruction of Yemen, up to and including recruiting child soldiers and slaughtering asylum seekers; their brutalization and criminalization of its LGBT-alligned citizens both in country and abroad. I understand that my country, the USA, is not only responsible for the shielding of the Kingdom from international repercussions, but in many ways aiding those same despicable war crimes in Yemen. It is difficult to consume, or even participate, ethically in a world so integrated in the commitment of unethical acts to maintain that integration. I would argue that I have never advocated for, and in fact have outright protested, any US government entity entering into Esports as well, but nevertheless, I recognize that the criticism can be confusing and hypocritical given that context. But I do it anyway, because I believe that it is beneath our fighting game communities, unbelievably indebted to women and LGBT organizers, players, and staff, to carry water for a monarchy that continues to marginalize those groups.
Because I think it can be hard to make sense of what to do about it, I’m open to any variety of arguments and tactics. But what I don’t respect is taking Crown cash, shaking your head and promising to critique them publicly, then doing the exact opposite of that. It’s tortured logic that only succeeds at appearing resistant while actually being something more akin to an extension of the Monarch’s PR team.
So why does Team Liquid insist on doing that?
As I detailed in my post last year, Team Liquid (TL) went out of their way to castigate themselves publicly for choosing to participate in what was then called the Gamers8 tournament series, currently ongoing as the Esports World Cup (EWC) in Riyadh. In a long Twitter video, Victor Goossens, one of the founders of TL, elaborated that he was not only “aware of the many human rights issues,” of KSA, but that he also “ha[d] no qualm calling out the human rights issues”.
The perception Goossens wanted to provide is that while TL was (and is) a willing and able recipient of KSA cash (The organizations that run the tournament series are state-controlled by the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, via their Public Investment Fund), they didn’t like it. They were forced to enter into a conflict of values due to the precarious nature of the industry, and they didn’t believe there was a legitimate way for them to be a conscientious objector of any sort while remaining a prestigious and profitable company. There was no choice but to take the cash, however, they donated a portion of their earnings to charity while promising to “continue to speak out” to their new benefactors about their issues. Moreover, the safety of any one of their staff and players was incredibly important and accounted for, and no TL member would be penalized for not participating. As a demonstration, they even linked to posts from Amnesty International and other groups detailing human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia in the same tweet thread containing Goossens’ video.
For about 25 seconds after the video, one could conclude that it’s a fairly bold declaration of passive resistance. A major Esports team, the only one even willing to put out a public statement about their participation in the KSA, is openly saying “Yes, we’re getting paid a lot of money to participate and our status is dependent on it, but goddamn it we’re not taking this shit lying down”; That’s just good vibes, y’know? It is the opening salvo of that “difficult discussion” regarding participation in KSA, an “important dialogue” that shows what a commitment to the values that TL has that they’d be willing to critique their benefactor like this.
Then those 25 seconds pass, and you start to wonder.
When they said they’re having “meaningful dialogue,” what did that exactly entail? Am I to believe that the executives of TL are sitting down with this famously autocratic, dissent-despising kingdom and giving a list of demands? Is there a particular reason this monarchy would consider the opinions of a foreign esports team who needs their money, considering they admit they feel coerced? Has Team Liquid’s account or executives ever once publicly in the year since Gamers8 “continued to speak out” on the Saudi Arabian human rights abuses they “feel as strongly as they ever have” about? Speaking of which, aside from the Kafala system that is actually employed by most of the Gulf states, was TL going to name any specific KSA human rights abuses, or was it always going to be a vague gesture at “challenges” and “civil rights”? It was noble to be so up front about it, I suppose, and you won’t have me complaining about charitable donations, but I find it hard to believe there was ever a chance that these “difficult discussions” were going to end any other way than TL continuing to participate like usual. Call me crazy.
But oh, what change does a year bring.
When Gamers8 rebranded, KSA also launched the EWC Club Support Program, where certain Esports orgs can make up to 6 figures for promoting the EWC and entering more games in it. The incentives are strong – even if you don’t qualify for the EWC, the Club Support Program will still pay out so long as viewership and fan engagement are being driven towards the tournaments. Naturally, Team Liquid was one of those 30 orgs participating in the program.
Just like last year, TL once again had Goossens publicly wring his hands about their participation in an even longer tweeted video, although it’s got a bit more of a cinéma vérité flair.
A lot of the content from the video in 2023 is reiterated – TL feels they literally have no choice but to compete if they want to stay relevant, they want their participating members to feel safe and do not demand participation from its players, Esports belongs to everyone, etc. – but there are a few key differences. One thing that leaps out right away is the video being posted on Goossens’ personal Twitter account, not the vastly more popular Team Liquid page like the previous year’s (although the TL page did retweet Goossen’s account).
Then there’s this from the video’s opening 30 seconds:
As you might know, last year we made a statement as well, in which we explained our reasons for participating as well as expressed our concerns with regards to the human rights track record of and in Saudi Arabia. Today we’d like to do something similar, although with an updated perspective that might be slightly more nuanced.
Right away, the tone shift is apparent. There are multiple mentions throughout the video of “educating ourselves,” “having a more nuanced perspective,” “the more I learn the more I realize I didn’t understand,” etc. One gets the feeling that although Goossen is retreading familiar ground in some respects, he’s also definitely trying to communicate that some of what they said in the familiar year was ignorant and inaccurate.
An almost apologetic Goossens goes on to reaffirm that as they’ve taken the year to educate themselves, and as such, they have narrowed their complaints to 4 “callout” areas:
- Political freedom, especially on what you can and cannot say
- “Challenges” with regards to migrant workers who need more protections
- “Challenges” in the LGBT community, who also need more protections
- “Challenges” with regards to “gender equality”.
Again, I’m not sure what to do with this. It’s not wrong, in the sense that Saudi Arabia has taken criticism for these issues, but without specifics it seems quite toothless. At a certain point, vaguely gesturing at problems just sounds like Patrick Bateman rebuffing his out-of-touch, materialist yuppie dinner guests with creeds of justice while also being a murdering maniac yuppie materialist himself:
He’s raising “the difficult questions,” “speaking the truth,” but what is he really saying? It’s coordinated fluff, somehow getting more vague than the previous year’s statement while also giving the Kingdom a lot more charitability than is likely deserved. It probably is a “challenge” that “promoting homosexuality” is on the rap sheet of people who do things as innocuous as wearing shorts with no shirt, but I feel that more direct criticism of real things that have happened is something TL is unwilling to do. It’s possible it’s for the sake of brevity, but there’s probably something more going on here.
Despite these “challenges,” Goossen says that he feels he has an “obligation” to speak out on the “progress” that has been made, especially after visiting the country for himself, even as he believes there is more to be done. That progress is not named, however, except in regards to “Esports for all” and how women and LGBT-identifying people have been able to participate in some aspects of the EWC. Because of this Goossen believes that TL has “a small role to play” in helping to speed this progress along, which apparently is a major factor as to why they’ve chosen not to boycott: “they’d lose their voice for good”. Apparently, Amnesty International advised them that boycotting would be more harmful than staying on and wagging their finger about “challenges” in the system while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate. Who knew?
I think it’s clear that Goossen’s message has shifted from ‘passive resistance’ to ‘we can mutually benefit’ and ‘perhaps we were wrong.’ There’s been enough “progress”, allegedly, that, while not erasing the objections held previously, is enough that the org now believes that their participation will continue to help the process along. Near as I can tell, the only real identifying example of said progress is that TL can wear their Pride Month jerseys at the event, surely a massive win for imprisoned Saudi feminists getting their legs broken.
Notably, there is no follow-up tweet this year with links to sources regarding human rights violations, nor does the video state that they will be making charitable donations to LGBT-friendly orgs. Goossen confirmed that they still plan to, but it’s only after being asked in a separate thread from the original message. Without any overt pressure that we, the public, are aware of, it only took one year of participation (and a massive influx of cash) for TL to start walking back a lot of their initial criticisms and towards a hopeful message that they are “breaking through” in changing things in KSA.
This broadly positive message is echoed in a follow-up tweet from Goossen’s co-CEO, Steven Arhancet, who similarly believes in the power of TL to lead “the conversation” and “engagement”.
All of this positivity is darkly funny in light of Goossen’s video once again reiterating that, effectively, Team Liquid has no choice. TL management believes that they need to compete for the biggest money on the biggest stage, and they were (allegedly) told that boycotting is ineffective because they might lose their chance at, and I quote, “maybe just maybe inspir[ing] incremental change”. It is an incredibly confused position, arriving at both being a victim of a circumstance that they didn’t ask for and didn’t want, but also really looking forward to making a difference. If that’s not bleak, I’m not sure what is.
Of course it’s easy to say that these are cynical moves by cynical people who have put their business ahead of any principled stance or morals. But I think to simplify what’s happening here is to do a disservice to the truth of these confusing ethical plays. Indeed, there’s a very real humility at play that I think is recognizable to all of us: when you’re wrong, you want to own up to it.
I don’t think Goossens is lying when he says that he felt he was completely ignorant – Saudi Arabia has almost certainly changed in the last ten years. Religious police, feared for their zealotry and lack of accountability, have been entirely defanged, reduced more to hall monitors than any sort of constabulary force. A Personal Status Law has been created in order to enshrine certain rights for women when it comes to matters of custody, divorce, in addition to changes that allow them to drive, work and be protected in the workplace, and travel without the need for approval from a male guardian. Accordingly, the lack of harassment from the religious police means that restrictions on clothing have been relaxed; abayas and hijab are no longer demanded of women, and men (preferably straight men) can wear shorts.
These aren’t small changes, and it speaks to the weakening political power of Wahabbist extremists that these types of reforms have been passed by the Crown. I think people, although well-intentioned, often speak as if these reforms haven’t happened and aren’t demonstrably true. To travel to Saudi Arabia and not only see women with their hair uncovered and wearing makeup but also not being scolded for how you’re dressed is probably a minor shellshock if you haven’t kept up with what’s been going on. Such a shock, I can imagine, would invite great shame, perhaps great enough to wonder if your entire line of thinking was off base.
This is where I think Goossesn and other executives of TL land. They had a certain image of the country, it was shattered when they went, so now they believe that they have “an obligation” to correct the record and, if only a little, feel better that things are changing and that perhaps the partnership wouldn’t be so bad. Perhaps the influence of western business and tourism truly is swinging the country towards something resembling the more secular nations of Europe and the Americas, and that line about being the “connection between the east and the west” is not just a tourist tagline.
I think this is the completely wrong way to think, but I understand where it comes from.
The truth of the matter is that while these protections and laws are on paper, they are applied inconsistently, and the Kingdom is just as autocratic as ever towards its own citizens, if not towards the western tourists and migrants they prefer to come to the country. A woman can wear relaxed clothing until she tweets about the Male Guardianship system, then that clothing becomes a line on the rap sheet to throw her in jail for decades. A man can create unique art from the Kingdom, but as soon as he rejects threatening overtures from the government to break a contract with Netflix and sign with state-aligned media, he’s now “promoting homosexuality” and sentenced to 13 years in prison and a 30 year travel ban, his company destroyed overnight. Completely incoherent, and it completely stands to reason why certain marginalized groups in KSA don’t exactly feel satisfied with these changes, progressive though they might seem. If Saudi citizens still bear the brunt of the authoritatian boot, it’s ill advised to start patting yourself on the back for a job well done.
I think it’s important to remember that, as invited guests of the Crown, there is no chance that Esports teams would be treated the same as a native Saudi citizen. I can’t imagine some pencil-pusher is combing through your tweets looking for inappropriate clothing or anti-Saudi statements and pressuring you to delete them. No western woman is going to feel the unique and particular weight of a Male Guardianship System on a two-week vacation. Your Tiktoks made there are probably not being scrutinized for allegedly gay content. It’s just not the same, and it would likely alleviate some of the confused logic if that perspective was applied.
Like I said, I get the need to want to be fair, to not look like you have a bias, but I don’t think it’s very helpful in these confusing and challenging ethical situations to misrepresent what’s really going on. TL is probably not intending to, but the reality is they are self-censoring, choosing to not offend the people they are now financially welded to rather than genuinely speak out on the issues they claim to have. Goossens ends his video this year by saying “Some may believe this goes too far,” and what can that mean other than to say he’s apologizing to people who think he’s too harsh in his criticisms? Why even include that, to what end? Who could think saying there are “challenges” to homosexuality being a crime punishable by prison or death is too harsh? Again, incoherent.
There was a tweet from Joey Thimian, a TL director of Global Production and Development that, while crude, I think is far more truthful:
This is more akin to what I referenced at the beginning: admitting that the motives are muddled and any sense of progress unclear, but believing that being a hypocrite is better than the alternative. I would much prefer someone just bluntly say that truth, that the financial incentive is so overpowering that there is no chance to take a principled position on this, than the dramatic fainting that TL has provided otherwise. The fact that Goossen will both acknowledge the company’s helplessness to resist but also give endless charitability to KSA’s position makes their position clear, no matter how much they state otherwise.
Sad! I can only hope that other orgs, particularly ones more directly FGC-aligned like Evo don’t start towing the line. However, it seems the line is now that it’s hypocritical, but hopefully bending the knee gets these Royals to capitulate.
So I won’t hold my breath.
Them's fighting words!! 
Leave a comment