

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The NBA’s credibility as a league that stands for justice and fairness is at risk. Will they take actions to break off their connection to a government that is funding and arming some of the worst atrocities in the world?
The National Basketball Association, a league renowned for its support of civil rights going back to the Bill Russell era, is now connected to the former member of Sudan’s Parliament Siham Hassan Hasaballah, who organized soup kitchens out of her home after the country’s most recent war began in 2023. Just weeks ago, she was executed in Darfur by a genocidal militia called the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF.
The NBA, a league that actively promoted racial justice in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, is now connected to the Saudi Maternity Hospital in Darfur, where RSF soldiers murdered hundreds of patients and health workers last month. One video shot by RSF soldiers themselves reveals a dozen victims lying on the floor, while an RSF soldier kills an elderly survivor. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Director of the World Health Organization, was “appalled and deeply shocked by reports of the tragic killing of more than 460 patients and companions” at the hospital.
The NBA, a league undertaking major investments in youth programs in Africa and around the world, is now connected to the world’s fastest displacement crisis taking place now in Sudan, which is the “largest humanitarian crisis ever recorded,” according to the International Rescue Committee.
What’s the connection? The NBA has developed a deep and evolving commercial partnership with the United Arab Emirates, which is providing weapons and support to the RSF, that genocidal Sudanese militia. The most visible and public manifestation of the relationship is the Emirates NBA Cup, the increasingly popular in-season tournament sponsored by the UAE’s flagship airline. The tournament's final round will take place this coming Tuesday in Las Vegas.
Global business dealings are complex, but surely genocide should be a red line for the NBA.
The NBA also has a deepening partnership with Rwanda, which over the last two years has sent thousands of troops into neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, sponsored one of the deadliest militias in all of Africa—the M23—in support of its Congo intervention, and looted Congo’s valuable natural resources.
The league is now one degree of separation away from the two worst abusers of human rights in all of Africa: the RSF and M23.
“Sportswashing” has a long history. The Roman Empire had its bread and circuses. Hitler hosted the 1936 Summer Olympics, Mussolini hosted the 1934 World Cup, and Putin hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics. Saudi Arabia owns the LIV golf league. They all recognized that attention from their own misdeeds could easily be diverted by investing in sporting events that entertain the masses.
To that end, the NBA relationship isn’t the only sportswashing the UAE is engaged in, as the Emirati government and its subsidiary companies are also sponsors of Formula One racing, US Open tennis, Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events, European soccer teams, and National Football League teams, among others.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s deputy, Mark Tatum, has argued that the NBA follows “directives and guidance” from the US government, and he has told private audiences that if American policy changed, the NBA’s action would change accordingly.
That change is underway. On November 12, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped just short of saying the quiet part out loud: “"We know who the parties are that are involved [in arming the RSF]... I can just tell you at the highest levels of our government that case is being made and that pressure is being applied to the relevant parties… This needs to stop."
At the moment, it remains unlikely that a US official would publicly name the UAE as the largest supplier of weapons to the RSF. But it is clear US policy toward the UAE’s arming of the RSF is shifting. NBA Commissioner Silver has a duty to recognize that change, as his deputy said, and “change accordingly.”
With the crisis in Sudan only getting worse, now is the time to act. The activist campaign Speak Out On Sudan, coordinated by a number of humanitarian and human rights organizations including Refugees International and The Sentry, is calling on the NBA to make it clear to its Emirati partners that as long as the UAE continues to fund and arm the RSF, this will be the last Emirates NBA Cup. The NBA is one of the most powerful sports leagues in the world—surely it can find another sponsor.
There is precedent for this. Recently, partly in response to growing activist pressure, the English Premier soccer club Arsenal announced the end of its commercial partnership with Rwanda, which has invaded neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and is looting the Congo’s mineral wealth. The German club Bayern Munich did the same earlier this year. These teams have shown brand sensitivity and willingness to change when called out for commercial arrangements that connect them to horrific human rights abuses. The UAE's support for a genocidal Sudanese militia is no different.
The NBA’s credibility as a league that stands for justice and fairness is at risk. Will they take actions to break off their connection to a government that is funding and arming some of the worst atrocities in the world? Or is “shut up and dribble,” the infamous line used by Fox News host Laura Ingraham to LeBron James, going to be the way forward for the NBA on this issue?
Global business dealings are complex, but surely genocide should be a red line for the NBA. As this year’s Emirates NBA Cup concludes this week, let’s hope it’s the last.
Six of the 12 MLB teams in this year’s playoffs—including the league champions—are sponsored by some of the biggest polluters on the planet as well the financial institutions that underwrite them.
Millions of baseball fans have been watching this year’s World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays, building on the huge audience the Major League Baseball playoffs attracted over the last few weeks. Nationally, postseason viewership through the American and National League championship series averaged 4.48 million, a 13% increase from 2024, making it the most-watched baseball postseason since 2017.
Fans tuning in couldn’t help but notice signage in the ballparks—as well as logos on players’ uniforms—promoting corporations that are exacerbating climate change. Six of the 12 MLB teams in this year’s playoffs—the league champions along with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers, and Milwaukee Brewers—are sponsored by some of the biggest polluters on the planet as well the financial institutions that underwrite them.
It’s called sportswashing, a play on the term greenwashing. Companies sponsor teams to portray themselves as good corporate citizens, increase visibility, and build public trust, hoping that fans will form the same bond with their brand that they have with their teams. According to a 2021 Nielsen study, 81% of fans completely or somewhat trust companies that underwrite sports teams, second only to the trust they have for friends and family.
As it turns out, more than half of the 30 MLB teams are pursuing petrodollars, but baseball is not alone. Three dozen US pro basketball, football, hockey, and soccer teams have similar sponsorship deals that afford oil companies, electric utilities, and fossil fuel-friendly financial institutions a range of promotional perks, from billboards and jersey logos to community outreach projects and facility naming rights, according to a survey conducted last fall by University of California, Los Angeles’ Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Baseball club owners, however, are more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts
Most sports aficionados are likely unaware that their favorite teams are going to bat for corporate climate destroyers, but baseball fans in New York and Los Angeles are calling out the Mets and Dodgers, demanding that they sever their ties to the fossil fuel industry. Cigarette advertisements, which at one time were ubiquitous in ballparks, were essentially banned because of the threat smoking poses to public health. Given the threat that fossil fuels pose to public health and the environment, shouldn’t their ads—as well as the other trappings of their sponsorships—be banned as well?
Oil, gas, and coal are largely responsible for the carbon pollution driving up world temperatures and triggering more dangerous extreme weather events. Last year the world experienced the highest average global temperature in 175 years of recordkeeping, and that dubious distinction came on the heels of 10 of the hottest years, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Those warmer temperatures certainly played a role in producing the 27 weather and climate disasters in the United States last year that caused at least $1 billion in damages, one fewer than the record set in 2023.
Baseball club owners, however, are more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts. After all, annual MLB payrolls today average $157 million.
The Dodgers, whose $321 million payroll is the highest in baseball, first partnered with Phillips 66, owner of the 76 brand gas station chain, in 1962. The most visible element of their partnership is the company’s iconic 76 orange logo that sits atop both Dodger Stadium scoreboards. But like most sponsorships, it is about much more than prime ad placement.
Phillips 66 fosters community loyalty, for example, by collaborating with the Dodger foundation’s educational and charitable programs, including a campaign promoting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for underserved elementary and middle-school students. Most of its tie-ins, however, involve various promotions to sell more gasoline. Customers who buy at least 8 gallons can get a free limited edition 76-Dodger pin or two Dodger home game tickets for the price of one. And on special “76 Stadium Days,” customers who fill up their tanks can get free tickets, T-shirts, and other swag.
Phillips 66 has built a devoted customer base over the years by tying itself to the Dodgers, but its environmental track record tells a very different story. It is definitely not a good corporate citizen. The company is among the nation’s top 10 air and surface water polluters in total pounds and the 14th biggest carbon polluter, emitting more than 30 million metric tons in 2022, according to the 2024 edition of Political Economy Research Institute’s (PERI) “Top 100 Polluter Indexes.” The company also is one of six major oil and gas companies California sued in June 2024 for climate damages, accusing them of carrying out a “decades-long campaign of deception” to hide the truth about climate change and delay the transition to clean energy. Likewise, it is among 32 companies named in similar lawsuits filed at the same time by three California cities—Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz—and three California counties—Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.
Arco, owned by Marathon Petroleum, also advertises in Dodger Stadium. The country’s largest oil refiner with more than 7,000 Marathon and Arco gas stations nationwide, it is among the top 20 air, surface water, and carbon polluters in the country, according to PERI’s 2024 report. It also is one of the oil and gas companies sued by the six California municipalities in June 2024, and the company and its subsidiaries have been fined more than $900 million for federal environmental violations since 2014.
An Ohio-based company, Marathon Petroleum has much closer ties with the Cleveland Guardians. It has been one of the team’s main sponsors since 2021, and the team—who lost to the Tigers in the wild card round—has been wearing its logo on their sleeves since the summer of 2023. Its logo also is prominently displayed in the Guardians’ ballpark and, as part of the uniform patch agreement, is featured on souvenir jerseys given to fans on two game days every season.
Cleveland’s ballpark has been called Progressive Field since 2008, when the Progressive insurance company paid $58 million for naming rights for 16 years. It extended the deal through 2036 for an undisclosed sum last year. While Progressive is a minor player when it comes to fossil fuel investments, it is still a contributor. As of 2024, the company had $306 million invested in 20 utilities and fossil fuel companies, including Duke Energy, Marathon Petroleum, and ExxonMobil, according to a report by the German environmental nonprofit Urgewald.
The Tigers, who lost to the Seattle Mariners in the American League Division Series, partner with DTE, a local fossil fuel-based electric utility. DTE derives 40% of its electricity from coal, another 26% from fossil gas, and only 12% from wind and solar. Although the company is committed to reducing its reliance on coal over the next decade, it plans to replace it with fossil gas, not renewables.
The Blue Jays, Brewers, and Red Sox, meanwhile, have commercial ties with financial institutions that invest heavily in fossil fuels.
The Blue Jays’ jersey sleeves display the logo of the Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank, the ninth biggest financier of fossil fuel companies in 2024, when it invested $20 billion, according to the 2025 edition of the “Banking on Climate Chaos” fossil fuel finance report. More than a quarter of that outlay—$5.5 billion—went to the Trans Mountain Pipeline extension, which the report says “poses a grave threat to Indigenous people.” Its US recipients included ConocoPhillips, NGL Energy, and Phillips 66.
The Brewers, who lost to the Dodgers in the National League Championship Series, wear Northwestern Mutual patches on their sleeves. As of last year, the insurance company had $12.17 billion invested in 146 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell, according to Urgewald’s report.
Lastly, one of the official sponsors of the Red Sox, who lost to the New York Yankees in the wild card round, is Bank of America. According to the “Banking on Climate Chaos” report, it invested $46 billion in fossil fuels in 2024, second only to JPMorgan Chase. Its US recipients included Occidental Petroleum, Duke Energy, and ConocoPhillips.
Besides the Red Sox’ Bank of America connection, an illuminated Gulf Oil sign hangs on the back wall overlooking Fenway Park’s left field grandstand. (As Sox fans know, there is also a massive Citgo sign sitting on top of a nearby building that looms over Fenway’s Green Monster, but it is not owned by the Red Sox.)
In June 2024, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres castigated coal, oil, and gas companies—dubbing them the “godfathers of climate chaos” for spreading disinformation—and called for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertising. He also urged ad agencies to refuse fossil fuel clients and companies to stop taking their ads. So far, more than 1,000 advertising and public relations agencies worldwide have pledged to refuse working for fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and their front groups.
Major League Baseball is behind the curve, but fans, environmentalists, and public officials in New York and Los Angeles have been trying to bring their teams up to speed.
Two years ago, a coalition of groups, including New York Communities for Change, Stop the Money Pipeline, and Climate Defenders, joined New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams to urge the New York Mets to sever ties with Citigroup—the third biggest fossil fuels financier in 2024—which paid $400 million for the Mets to call their ballpark Citi Field for 20 years. “Citi doesn’t represent the values of Mets fans or NYC,” Williams wrote in a tweet. “If they refuse to end their toxic relationship with fossil fuels, the Mets should end their partnership with Citi.” (Although the Mets payroll is nearly as high as the Dodgers’, they didn’t make the playoffs this year.)
Activists are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure their teams to do the right thing.
While Williams and the coalition initially framed their campaign around the Mets’ ties to Citigroup, most of the coalition’s activity since 2023 has focused more broadly on Citigroup’s fossil fuel financing and not specifically on its Mets sponsorship.
A similar baseball-oriented campaign in Los Angeles, however, is still very much alive. More than 80 public interest groups, scientists, and environmental advocates signed an open letter in August 2024 calling on the Dodgers to cut their ties with Phillips 66. “Using tactics such as associating a beloved, trusted brand like the Dodgers with enterprises like 76,” the letter states, “the fossil fuel industry has reinforced deceitful messages that ‘oil is our friend,’ and that ‘climate change isn’t so bad.’” Since then, more than 28,000 Dodger fans have signed the letter, and the Sierra Club’s Los Angeles chapter has held rallies outside Dodger Stadium this year demanding that owner Mark Walter end his team’s Phillips 66 sponsorship deal.
The campaign has received support from some local elected officials. State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-33), for example, endorsed the campaign earlier this year. “Continuing to associate these [fossil fuel] corporations with our beloved boys in blue is not in our community or the planet’s best interest,” the lifelong Dodger fan told the City News Service, a Southern California news agency, in March. “Ending the sponsorship with Phillips 66 would send the message that it’s time to end our embrace of polluting fossil fuels and work together toward a cleaner, greener future.”
So far, the campaigns in New York and Los Angeles have struck out. Both the Mets and the Dodgers have balked at walking away from sponsorships worth millions. But activists are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure their teams to do the right thing. As that baseball sage Yogi Berra astutely observed, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.
We’re football fans who see no alternative: The CO2 party must end.
Football is more popular than Jesus of Nazareth and John Lennon combined. And at first glance, it seems like a pastime that doesn’t harm the environment: Players just need a ball, some space, and the desire to run. But the data are shocking: Football is directly responsible for 0.3-0.4% of the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to Denmark's emissions. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2024 the sport generated more than 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as a source of energy, equivalent to 150 million barrels of oil. Every match at the men’s World Cup finals emits between 44,000 and 72,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases, the same as 30,000 to 50,000 cars on British roads each year. Recent studies estimate that emissions from the cup will range between 1.65 and 3.63 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent between 2000 and 2026.
Let’s also consider football’s basic equipment: boots and balls. Generations of kangaroos have been slaughtered, with the blessing of the Australian government, as raw material for “k-leather” boots, while balls from Pakistan are made from petroleum-derived synthetic leather, rubber, and cotton extracted from plant species, and leather and glue obtained from animals slaughtered before their natural lifespan. The 60 million balls sold in 2010 travelled from the sewing workshops in Sialkot to the professional football pitches of Europe and the Americas. The balls emerge from these frequently clandestine sewing workshops to a carbon cycle of transport companies, customs administrations, equipment, the advertising industry, sporting goods retailers, and department stores. The chain turns a ball costing 63 rupees (€0.62) into a product retailing for over €100.
Think also of the water and chemicals used in the construction and maintenance of stadia, the electricity needed to watch matches and bet or report electronically on them, and the impact of tourism.
Sponsorship by companies with high CO2 emissions alone is responsible for 75% of sports emissions, as it stimulates demand for highly polluting products and lifestyles. The large eco-laundering multinationals use football to cover up their environmental shame. For example, shortly after Repsol spilled thousands of barrels of oil on 1,400 hectares of Peru’s Pacific coast in 2022, killing native life and destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people, the company signed a sponsorship with the national team. The motto of the project, also associated with supporting youth and women's representatives, was “Let's look to the future.” In Spain, Repsol and Petronor have signed an agreement to supply renewable energy to Athletic Club de Bilbao that supposedly demonstrates the multinational’s commitment to decarbonization. But the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority found Repsol distorted its environmental commitment by highlighting production of synthetic fuels and biofuels, which only account for a small fraction of its core business—fossil fuels.
Instead of greenwashing and pseudo-reforms, football needs a drastic transformation to disrupt its environmental impact, corruption, systematic human rights violations, sponsorship by highly problematic companies, and money laundering by bookmakers.
Qatar’s bid for the 2022 World Cup in 2009 promised to be CO2-neutral. The damage caused by constructing facilities, desalination, and water use in an arid climate would be offset because, according to the organizers, future generations would enjoy the facilities. There is no evidence for that.
As we all know, the candidacy was successful, despite evidence of vote buying. Implementation resulted in total disregard for labor and human rights: massive exploitation of migrant workers, workplace accidents, derisory wages, and impossible working hours. The pollution generated by air conditioning stadia to withstand Qatar’s climate, as well as the 150 daily flights of attendees, confirm the New Yorker’s verdict: FIFA is “a rancid institution.”
600 million trees would have to be planted to counter the climate calamity caused by Qatar 2022. Despite the trademark Sustainable FIFA World Cup 2022TM, the environmental plundering of the event was greater than that of any other World Cup or Summer Olympics. As usual, the United States provided the largest number of international tourists, which resulted in the emission of 191,055 tons of CO2, including a staggering 14,700 tons produced by private jets.
Le Monde exposed the environmental propaganda as a “mirage.” Scientific American called the event a “climate catastrophe.“ This was “the dirtiest World Cup“ in history, bathed in oil and corruption. The French collective Notre Affaire à Tous explained: “By presenting the World Cup as carbon neutral, FIFA makes [...] fans believe attending such an event has no impact on the environment, which is clearly incompatible with the international World Cup travel that affects greenhouse gas emissions.”
The Swiss Commission for Equity received complaints from Notre Affaire à Tous along with Carbon Market Watch (Belgium), the UK’s New Weather Institute, Alliance Climatique (Switzerland), the Netherlands’ Reclame Fossiettvrij, and Fossil Free Football (international). The commission ruled FIFA had lied by claiming the cup was the first event of its kind to be “totally carbon neutral.”
The 2026 men’s World Cup is expanding to include 48 national teams. For the first time, matches will be held in three huge countries: Canada, Mexico, and the United States, across four time zones, in 16 venues separated by several thousand kilometers, each with derisory public transport. Five and a half million spectators are expected, who will need to use the map to locate the venues: Mexico City will mark the southernmost point, Vancouver the north, Boston the east, and San Francisco the west. In terms of logistics, practically all travel will be by air due to a primitive railway infrastructure. Radio France refers to this as a “very carbonated cocktail.” The New Weather Institute with Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that aviation emissions “will increase by 160% to 325% in each of the three tournaments in 2026, 2030, and 2034” compared to recent World Cups.
In addition, in the scheduled period—midsummer—96% of the US population experienced extreme heat for one or more weeks in 2023, and 45 cities had very high average temperatures. 2024 broke numerous records due to unprecedented drought and rainfall.
The environmental impacts in Mexico are horrific. The Akron stadium is close to the Primavera de Guadalajara reserve, home to pumas, a near-extinct species, deer, golden eagles, and migratory birds. The conservation of wild fauna and flora is at serious risk due to the World Cup, while the presence of 50,000 spectators and 4,000 cars will cause significant tensions in water resources in Mexico City and Monterrey (also next to a key biological corridor).
The World Cup is “simultaneously the greatest sporting festival on the planet and a sordid commercial machine that carries an enormous human and environmental cost, for the benefit of torturers, exploiters, and insatiable greedy.” Ecology only matters in football as an instrument of public image for the governing associations, host countries, and sponsors.
Instead of greenwashing and pseudo-reforms, football needs a drastic transformation to disrupt its environmental impact, corruption, systematic human rights violations, sponsorship by highly problematic companies, and money laundering by bookmakers. The World Cup's claims of carbon neutrality are just rhetoric. In reality, it has become a “greenwashing World Cup.”
We’re football fans who see no alternative: The CO2 party must end.
Abolish the World Cup!