Sportswashing for Rwanda

When Paris Saint-Germain and Atlético Madrid face each other in Pasadena, California, on June 15 in the FIFA Club World Cup, both clubs will be promoting the same product on their jerseys: “Visit Rwanda,” the tourism initiative of the state-run Rwanda Development Board. The logo is already familiar to fans of the German Bundesliga thanks to perimeter advertising by FC Bayern Munich. But what exactly is being advertised?

The BTI Transformation Index has a clear assessment of what it is that should be visited: according to the country report, Rwanda is an “authoritarian development state,” i.e., a political system that combines centrally controlled economic development with authoritarian rule. The small East African country, covering an area of around 26,000 square kilometers, is roughly the same size as the Munich metropolitan region (but with a population of around 14 million, more than twice as densely populated) and is a dictatorship ruled with an iron fist. There are no free elections. President Paul Kagame, who has been in office for 25 years, was re-elected last July with 99.18 percent of the vote, with no serious opposition allowed. Independent organizations and media, let alone demonstrations critical of the government, are not permitted. As a hard-line autocracy, Rwanda has ranked somewhere between 90th and 100th out of 137 countries surveyed in the BTI index for years – making it highly repressive, but without the level of brutal oppression seen in Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. 

Roots of authoritarian rule in Rwanda

The harsh authoritarian regime has historical roots that should be particularly recognized in Germany. Rwanda (along with Burundi and Tanzania) was part of the colony of German East Africa from 1897 to 1916. The preferential treatment of the Tutsi elite by the German (and later Belgian) colonial administration and the systematic discrimination of the Hutu majority reinforced social divisions. They culminated in a violent uprising by the discriminated and radicalized Hutu population in 1959, while the country was still under Belgian rule. Thousands of Tutsis were killed in nationwide pogroms, and around 150,000 Tutsi fled to Burundi, Uganda and Congo. After the monarchy was abolished in 1961 and independence was achieved in 1962, the Tutsi were systematically discriminated against and excluded from public office in the army, administration, and education under the authoritarian Hutu presidents Grégoire Kayibanda and, from 1973, Juvénal Habyarimana. Further pogroms intensified the flight of Tutsis to neighboring countries. 

In Ugandan exile, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was formed, which sought to overthrow the Habyarimana regime and return the Tutsi refugees to Rwanda. It launched a military offensive in October 1990, triggering the Rwandan civil war. An interim peace agreement in 1993 provided for power sharing, which was opposed mainly by radical Hutus. The crash of President Habyarimana’s plane in April 1994 was the immediate trigger for massacres against Tutsis and moderate Hutus, which had already been organized in advance by means of death lists and the distribution of weapons. Within four months, between 800,000 and 1,000,000 people were murdered, most of them Tutsis. While the international community remained largely passive, the RPF, led by Paul Kagame, brought the country under military control by July 1994, ending the genocide. 

This tragic background is essential to understanding that Paul Kagame and the RPF, despite their repressive rule, are by no means perceived solely as a dictatorial regime within the country. An analysis of the 2024 presidential elections by the South African Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) cautioned readers to remember that “this is the Kagame who managed to lead Rwanda from the trauma of genocide, uniting the country and making significant strides in development.” The authors point to a largely conciliatory culture of remembrance, progress in education, health, and gender equality, and economic growth as successes. 

Even though Rwanda is heavily dependent on international development aid and is one of the most favored recipient countries per capita; even though the Rwandan government’s ability to learn is severely limited by rigid top-down governance (for example, in agricultural reform); even though inequality in the country is growing rapidly, especially in view of a growing urban-rural divide and structural disadvantages for the mostly poorer Hutu majority, and even though reconciliation has in many cases been selective and human rights violations by the Rwandan Patriotic Front have not been addressed – it must nevertheless be acknowledged that the country has made significant gains in terms of stability and economic development. 

Domestic repression, foreign aggression

The downside of rigid state control is serious democratic deficits that are not limited to manipulated elections and the lack of checks and balances. The BTI country report shows that all civil society and journalistic activities accused of “divisionism,” of stirring up ethnic conflicts and endangering national unity, are aggressively persecuted and suppressed. This explicitly includes any criticism of President Kagame and high-ranking decision-makers. Just last year, the international investigative journalism network “Forbidden Stories” published extensive reports on repression, covert influence, and human rights violations by the Rwandan regime in its dossier “Rwanda Classified,” which also documented the intimidation of the Rwandan diaspora and the targeted assassination of exiled critics. 

Recently, the regime came under international criticism once more for directly participating with around 4,000 soldiers from the Rwanda Defense Forces (RDF) in the fighting in eastern Congo in support of the M23 militia. This threatens the territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of Congo and has led to thousands of deaths, the displacement of millions of people, and massive human rights violations, including the summary execution of child soldiers and thousands of cases of conflict-related sexual violence. The Congolese government accuses Rwanda and the M23 of mining raw materials such as gold and coltan (an ore used in the manufacture of smartphones and computers) in the occupied territories and selling them on the international market. Several Western governments, including the German government, suspended their development aid to Rwanda, and the EU imposed sanctions in March 2025. 

Fan protests and club ambitions

This, then, is the problematic and complex backdrop against which major football clubs are promoting visits to the East African country. The reactions of organized fan groups were negative. On February 23, 2025, the ultra-group “Munich’s Red Pride” displayed a banner in the south stand during a Bundesliga home game with the slogan: “Visit Rwanda – Those who stand by and watch are betraying the values of FC Bayern!” At the end of January 2025, PSG fans launched an online petition entitled “End the partnership of shame,” which was signed by 75,000 people. Despite protests and a fan demonstration in front of the Parc des Princes stadium in Paris, PSG’s management extended the “Visit Rwanda” agreement for another three years in the same month. While the fan base of the third major contract partner, Arsenal FC, caused a stir with large-scale protests – including an ironic “Visit Tottenham” video – the Kagame government doubled down and signed Atlético Madrid this summer, making it the fourth traditional European club to be contracted. 

The question is, however, why soccer clubs are allowing themselves to be used as advertising vehicles for autocrats, thereby jeopardizing their own image. Immediately after the partnership with Qatar, which had been criticized by FC Bayern fans for the human rights situation, came to an abrupt end in June 2023, a new deal was promptly struck with the next dictator. 

Surely it can’t be about money. FC Bayern’s “platinum” partnerships are worth €5 million upwards, and it is estimated that the Rwanda deal could bring the club a good €6 million per year. That’s not a small amount of money, but it’s roughly enough to pay the annual salary of Konrad Laimer or Raphaël Guerreiro. Is that really worth it to be associated with an East African dictatorship? 

It would seem more likely that international marketing considerations were the deciding factor. Part of the agreement with the Rwandan government involves setting up a football academy, and in addition to promoting the FC Bayern brand as part of an internationalization strategy, the aim is also to promote youth football and potentially recruit talent for the club’s own team. Now, linking football and development aid is a meaningful and helpful undertaking that numerous German sports clubs and organizations are pursuing in a decentralized manner and with great commitment—including in Rwanda. The difference, however, is that such projects do not involve collaboration with the respective regime, but rather direct investment in local structures. Neither propagandistically nor financially do those in power benefit as official partners. 

As Arsenal FC’s “Gunners for Peace” put it, this is different from the “Visit Rwanda” campaign, where sports enthusiasm and the good name of a club are being used by those in power “to gain an appearance of respectability that they don’t deserve.” According to Sarath K. Ganji, a fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, this sportswashing is “like a smokescreen, a haze of emerging stories that exploit competing news values to obscure coverage of other events.” This competition for information can discredit or suppress negative news in order to promote “alternative perspectives” and draws on a pool of personalities such as current and former football stars who, as supposedly apolitical influencers, contribute to building a positive image. 

The fact that rulers in countries such as Qatar and Rwanda want to polish their image in order to attract more investment or improve their own geopolitical standing is comprehensible. What is irritating, however, is the businesslike matter-of-factness with which European partners acquiesce to human rights violations and reject criticism with a mixture of denial and qualification. Already regarding the controversial Qatar advertising contract, honorary president Uli Hoeneß countered critics at the annual general meeting by saying that this was “the Bayern Munich football club, not the Amnesty International General Assembly,” while President Herbert Hainer assured that they would also try “to achieve further improvements in Qatar.” In the case of the Rwanda deal, too, CEO Jan-Christian Dreesen emphasized that the club’s leaders were “not altruists,” while in February 2025 he responded to growing criticism by announcing that he had sent two of his employees to Rwanda to get a first-hand impression of the situation. Currently, there are no signs of a change of heart or renewed scrutiny of the sponsorship deal on the part of the club. 

Mirror image of sportswashing

The normality of such a business relationship conveyed by the club managements in London, Madrid, Munich and Paris thus represents—more than any advertising on jerseys or in the stands—the real success of sportswashing. At this point, a moral question – whether it is compatible with one’s conscience, fan culture and club reputation to advertise a repressive regime – becomes a political issue. This is because the decoupling of “normal” diplomatic and economic relations from normative human rights considerations is a key strategy in Rwanda’s foreign relations. 

Take development policy, for example. Rwanda has been a preferred partner country for many years, credited with positive attributes such as efficiency and successful economic development, while democracy deficits took a back seat. However, it is precisely these deficits in democracy that impair efficient governance. “Political governance in Rwanda follows a dirigiste development approach with clientelistic traits,” according to the BTI country report, in which “tolerating a certain degree of rent-seeking activities is unavoidable.” What’s more, the development successes of recent years have been repeatedly questioned. Alleged declines in poverty rates turned out to be inaccurate and possibly manipulated, but according to one researcher involved, there was no desire to correct them: “This makes clear again that donors and recipients need each other. Donors need “success stories”, recipients need money, and neither wants to rock the boat.” 

Take international venues, for example. In addition to numerous prestigious sporting events (World Cycling Championships in September 2025) and sports policy events (FIFA Congress in March 2023), Rwanda also hosted the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in June 2022. Numerous commentators condemned the decision to hold the event in Kigali as a “sham” and argued that the meeting would “make a mockery of the commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law enshrined in the Commonwealth’s Charter.” Although the issue of human rights could not be completely ignored, the regime managed to largely sideline “awkward issues.” 

Take migration policy, for example. Even after the UK Supreme Court ruling in November 2023 and the subsequent end of British deportation plans, political leaders across Europe are still considering sending refugees to Rwanda, a country marked by poverty, inequality, overpopulation and repression. Here, too, the Rwandan regime has an opportunity to convey an image of security, effectiveness and normality. In this context, the slogan “Visit Rwanda” takes on a different, even more cynical meaning, given the undermining of the individual right to asylum in Europe, the outsourcing of integration problems to poorer countries, and the ignoring of democracy deficits and human rights violations. 

Sportswashing fits seamlessly into such patterns of downplaying and relativization and contributes significantly to their success. Ironically, then, the deals struck by European football clubs result in a product that other European partners can then market more effectively. Such circular image cultivation also holds up a mirror to our European societies. If we are willing to accept less democracy for more efficiency and economic gain, does this only apply on the road, or also at home games? In both cases, sportswashing undermines our own normative position and thus contributes to the erosion of democracy in Europe as well.