As the pundit continues to draw criticism for claiming an Australian golfer had taken “blood money” from the oil-rich kingdom, it is possible that Peter FitzSimons received up to $100,000 from UberEats, a company formed with Saudi financing.
FitzSimons made an appearance in advertisements for Uber’s food delivery business in 2018, which counts Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman as a key early investor.
Insiders in the advertising business claim that he might have received compensation of up to $100,000 for his services.
Those who claim FitzSimons is a “champagne socialist,” or someone who espouses liberal ideas while leading a lifestyle, pointed out that this is a long cry from the $30 per hour average pay of an Uber Eats driver.
After FitzSimons criticised Australian golfer Cam Smith for joining a circuit supported by the oppressive Middle-East country, business deals connected to Saudi Arabia have become a fiercely contested topic.
Smith was accused by Sydney Morning Herald columnist FitzSimons of signing on to the breakaway LIV tour for an eye-watering price, which has been estimated to be $140 million, in order to “sportswash” Saudi Arabia’s dubious image.
Seriously, he said, “Aside from blood money, what does LIV contribute to this war?”
And certainly, $130 million is a difficult offer for anybody to turn down. You could probably convince yourself of anything for that much, or at the very least say it.
However, NRL Melbourne Storm player Christian Welch caught Fitzsimons off guard by bringing up the fact that the parent business of Uber Eats was primarily founded with Saudi cash in a Twitter crash tackle.
“You can make money (although indirectly) from the Saudi investment fund, but a golfer can’t?” Welch tweeted about it.
The same funds that LIV used to purchase Uber, Boeing, and Starbucks. When you receive a ride home or a coffee, are you complicit? Where does it end? I don’t remember feeling the same fury against those businesses, but dare a golfer take the money being offered.
This has sparked a heated discussion regarding the morality of interacting directly or indirectly with Saudis.
Welch, who has a Bachelor of Commerce and is working toward his MBA, and Nine reporter Mark Gottlieb have engaged in the most heated sparring matches.
When Gottlieb tweeted that Welch’s argument was “like saying you can’t criticise America’s war in Afghanistan because you purchased McDonald’s for lunch,” FitzSimons praised him.
This argument was deemed “brilliant” by Fitzsimons.
Gottlieb continued by further contrasting Smith’s and FitzSimon’s behaviours.
There is a great difference between being unable to prevent your money from going to or arriving from the Saudis and getting into bed with them, at the risk of arousing the wrath of a thousand weekend golfers. It’s a completely wrong analogy,’ he tweeted.
Welch, though, answered back.
He tweeted that “Uber aggressively sought Saudi investment while they were a private company, years before they went public in 2019.”
“The corporation wasn’t doing open trading.” If there is no outcry, that is my point. My suspicion is that the PGA monopoly is more at risk. Gottlieb remained steadfast.
There was a lot of criticism from business and technology circles, but companies naturally don’t arouse the same kinds of emotions that sports do, he tweeted.
Because of this, no one wears their favourite Lehman Brothers jersey to work and no one purchases CEO playing cards.
“LIV is a really tough subject, and if someone gave me a 1000% pay boost, it would also be difficult for me to refuse.” Although I disagree with Smith’s choice, I can understand it. It would be greatly oversimplified to imply that “you utilise things in the globe that the Saudis are also interested in.”
There are now other sports writers in the mix.
Golf writer Evin Priest tweeted, “I drafted the piece with Cam right after the announcement.”
His desire to spend several months each year in Australia is a sincere primary justification for signing. It is very natural to be outraged about Saudi support. Christian is correct to question why it is magnified now, however.
Anthony Sharwood, a seasoned sports journalist, added his opinion.
He tweeted, “Good point, Evin, which I had not heard.”
I abhor Saudi money and the PGA’s monopoly over the sport! My first reaction is to rail against the Norman/Saudi alliance, which CW likens to a Darth Vader and Dr. Evil alliance, but Saudi money is everywhere, as she points out.
Others believed FitzSimons, a well-known supporter of left-leaning causes, shouldn’t be receiving money from Uber, the gig economy’s version of venture capitalism.
In Australia, the US, and the UK, the rideshare company has been accused of underpaying drivers.
What about acting like a performative champagne socialist while accepting cash from a business that has been at the forefront of underpaying employees globally? Tweeted one Twitter user.
How does that rate in terms of equivalence? Or is he excused by the “performative”?
The founder of the advertising and PR firm Thinkerbell, Adam Ferrier, declared that he found the reactions to FitzSimons’ initial article to be “fascinating.”
He declared, “I believe what Peter FitzSimons has done is ultimately quite good.”
It’s beneficial to take a risk and advance the conversation.
I believe it’s fantastic for analysts to reveal the connection between Saudi Arabia and commercial interests.
The discussion is beneficial because more people are aware of the sponsorships they accept.
The end result, however, is that they begin to doubt and scrutinise their own relationship with the people they do business with.
Those who work with brands, according to Mr. Ferrier, need to be aware of all the background information.
I believe you just have to always do your research and make sure that you stand for the ideals of the company that you’re promoting if you’re receiving money to advocate for anything, he added.
“It’s also acceptable for individuals to draw attention to the issue’s complexity.”
Since its debut, LIV, a circuit that competes with the PGA, has drawn criticism from some who contend that Saudi Arabia is using golf to “sportswash” its abysmal record of respect for human rights.
FitzSimons is a high-profile scandal magnet and the husband of Project anchor Lisa Wilkinson.
Recently, he and senator from the Aboriginal community Jacinta Price got into a heated public argument about another newspaper piece he authored.
She was accused of being bullied by former Wallabies, Knox Grammar, and Sydney University graduates because of how she felt about the planned Voice to Parliament referendum.
During an interview about the merits and drawbacks of the contentious vote that would create a body dedicated to advising the parliament on issues affecting Indigenous Australians, which detractors have claimed would essentially be a third chamber of parliament, Ms. Price went public saying she felt FitzSimons “imposed” his view on her.
FitzSimons supports the Voice to Parliament wholeheartedly, while Senator Price is adamantly opposed because she thinks it won’t do anything to better the lives of Indigenous people.
Senator Price claimed in a Facebook post that FitzSimons had “accused me of giving racists a platform but that wasn’t written” and subsequently informed the media that he was “aggressive,” “rude,” and yelled at her.
FitzSimons sent her a text message urging her to delete the Facebook post, which she did. FitzSimons vehemently refuted her accusations, as did his supervisor, who tweeted that he had listened to the interview.
In their whole text discussion, the two fight over what transpired during the phone call and both claim to have witnesses.
FitzSimons wrote, “Senator, I encourage you to retract these defamatory claims, since you know it is rubbish.”
We yelled at each other, the senator retorted. You did accuse me of supporting Nazis, therefore I’d need a copy of the interview.
She said, “I remember I had to shout, as did my chief of staff who was there when you were on speaker,” in response to FitzSimons’ claim that “not a single loud voice on either side” occurred.