The capital–credibility paradox: why sport’s next big test is about trust, not cash
Global sport stands at a critical juncture. Financial capital is pouring in from sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and billionaires alike, yet the origin of that capital is under sharper scrutiny than ever. Sport has become a prime vehicle for both financial return and political influence. The industry’s next great challenge is not finding money but deciding whose money to take. In early 2025, Saudi Arabia’s SURJ Sports Investment, a subsidiary of the Public Investment Fund (PIF), announced a significant investment in sports streaming giant DAZN, with reports suggesting a US$1 billion injection tied to a new Middle Eastern venture, DAZN MENA. The move gave Saudi Arabia a foothold in one of sport’s fastest-growing media ecosystems. Around the same time, DAZN’s principal shareholder Leonard Blavatnik committed an additional US$587 million to stabilise the platform and narrow losses. Elsewhere, global private equity firms such as Advent International and CVC Capital Partners are expanding portfolios into sport, media, and entertainment – from rugby and volleyball to MotoGP and football broadcasting. The inflow of institutional and state-linked funding has shifted sport from an emotionally charged cultural product to a heavily financialised asset class. This is not inherently bad. Many leagues and clubs depend on external funding to modernise infrastructure, enhance digital platforms, or invest in women’s sport. But when investment comes from politically sensitive sources, the lines between financial growth and moral compromise blur quickly.
When credibility becomes currency
In a hyperconnected world, reputation has become a hard asset. Fans, sponsors, and athletes increasingly hold organisations accountable for the ethics of their partners. The concept of sportswashing – the strategic use of sport to launder reputations or divert attention from human rights abuses – has become a mainstream critique. Academic research reinforces this concern. Studies in the Journal of Democracy highlight how autocratic regimes deploy sport as a form of soft power, using global exposure to shape public narratives. Others note that sportswashing operates not just through hosting events, but through the entire ecosystem of ownership, sponsorship, and media control. This entanglement makes it difficult for clubs, leagues, or broadcasters to claim neutrality. Once capital enters the ecosystem, complicity becomes a structural feature. For sport executives, credibility now functions as both risk and opportunity. Transparent governance and principled investment decisions attract premium sponsors, safeguard fan loyalty, and reduce crisis volatility. Conversely, short-term acceptance of controversial funding can destroy decades of brand equity in weeks.
The new trade-off: capital versus credibility
For many organisations, particularly emerging leagues and women’s sport, turning down investment may seem unrealistic. But the real risk lies in treating credibility as optional, as a “soft” variable outside the financial model. As Deloitte’s 2025 Women’s Sport Report forecasted, elite women’s competitions are on track to generate US$2.35 billion globally this year. Sustaining that trajectory requires diverse funding, but also credible governance to retain fan and sponsor trust. The capital–credibility paradox is now existential. Taking state-linked or politically motivated capital may unlock immediate growth, but it can simultaneously erode long-term legitimacy. Financial due diligence alone is no longer sufficient; ethical due diligence has become a strategic necessity. Some sport organisations are beginning to integrate reputational analysis into how they assess investment and partnership opportunities. This emerging model moves beyond traditional financial evaluation to consider the ethical, political, and perceptual dimensions of capital. It starts with transparency – knowing precisely who the investors are, what motivates them, and how their track record aligns with the sport’s values. From there, organisations are developing internal risk-scoring systems that quantify reputational exposure in the same way financial risk is assessed. These tools incorporate independent human rights, ESG, and governance evaluations to identify potential conflicts before deals are signed. Once investment terms are on the table, narrative control becomes central. The most forward-thinking organisations ensure they retain editorial independence and brand authority, preventing investors from influencing content or messaging. Stakeholder engagement also plays a critical role. By involving athletes and supporters in early stages of partnership discussions, organisations can test perceptions and as a result anticipate pushback, and then in turn strengthen legitimacy. Finally, credibility audits are emerging as a new form of governance oversight. These should be conducted by external experts every few years, evaluating whether partnerships still align with the organisation’s stated values and stakeholder expectations. Together, these practices form a proactive framework that treats reputation not as a static concept, but as a living element of strategic management.
Between a cheque and a hard place
I have long argued that sport has always been political, and that globalisation inevitably entangles business with geopolitics. However, what distinguishes today’s environment is the speed and visibility of scrutiny. Every deal, stake sale, or partnership is dissected in real time across digital media. The reputational margin for error has evaporated. This means sport’s leadership must evolve. Tomorrow’s successful sport executives will be those who combine financial acumen with ethical intelligence – professionals capable of navigating moral complexity without paralysing growth. The ‘smart money’ in sport will increasingly be defined not by how much it offers, but by how clean it is. Sport’s global power lies in its authenticity… its ability to unite, inspire, and transcend politics. But as financial capital becomes more politicised, the integrity of that authenticity is under threat. Every funding decision now carries a reputational shadow. The future of sport business will belong to those who treat credibility not as a cost, but as a strategic advantage. In the decade ahead, the question will no longer be how much capital you can attract, but how much trust your capital can sustain.