On 19th November, the Rwanda Development Board (RDB) announced that its partnership with Arsenal Football Club would expire in June 2026. Back in 2018, Rwanda signed an initial three-year partnership with the North London football club to have the ‘Visit Rwanda’ slogan branded on the sleeves of Arsenal’s shirts. The deal was renewed until the recent announcement. For Rwanda, the initial deal signalled a new approach to promote the nation’s growing tourism sector. For the nation’s critics, the recent announcement will no doubt be celebrated as a ‘victory’ in their campaign against Rwanda. But what was the real reason behind the recent announcement?
As I wrote previously, Rwanda largely views the Arsenal deal, along with others such as Paris Saint-Germain F.C. and Atlético Madrid, as a billboard to promote the nation’s tourism. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of football fans watch these clubs in multiple competitions. With each game, the ‘Visit Rwanda’ slogan is clearly visible. Whenever a fan purchases a football kit of their favourite team, the ‘Visit Rwanda’ logo is on the shirt, increasing the number of eyes. Advertising’s effectiveness is often a game of chance, but the increased viewership aids in spreading the ‘Visit Rwanda’ message to more people. Additionally, the advertising campaign boosted national pride and contributed to Ndi Umunyarwanda’s social development.
Within days of the initial announcement of the deal, critics of the Rwandan government and President Paul Kagame attacked it. Many political critics of Rwanda questioned the ethics of the deal. Some criticised the decision to classify a poor African nation, which still required foreign aid for up to 40% of its national budget and had roughly 90% of its workforce still in agriculture, many of which were subsistence, as having a developing economy, and to sponsor a mega-wealthy football organisation such as Arsenal. These criticisms often ignored Rwanda’s macroeconomic plans and commercial diplomacy aimed at developing the nation’s growing tourist industry.
Others criticised Arsenal for engaging with Rwanda’s government, which many human rights organisations classify as dictatorial and a constant violator of fundamental human rights within Rwanda and in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). However, these criticisms often followed a rather formulaic reductionist pattern. Whenever Rwanda is in the news, whether for good or bad, critics utilise the same critical narratives to attack the government. While I have deconstructed and refuted many of their criticisms, they often boil down to a lack of understanding of Rwanda.
Their criticisms often originate from a relatively narrow view of the nation’s development, only thirty-one years removed from the end of the Genocide against the Tutsi, personal and perhaps financial influence, or unawareness of Rwanda itself. Ask yourself, how many of these critics have been to Rwanda in the past decade or two? It is easy to criticise a foreign entity when you have not visited it (or have not in a long while).
Some speculated that the Arsenal-Rwanda deal existed only because President Paul Kagame is an Arsenal fan. However, before the deal’s announcement, a Rwandan government official commented to me that they had also approached other football clubs. Thus, it had little to do with President Kagame’s football preference.
So, with the announcement, did the critics win?
Soon after the German Bundesliga team FC Bayern Munich changed the terms of the deal, focusing less on advertising and more on youth development, many critics celebrated it as a win. However, there had been private conversations months before the announcement of the shift in priorities. But the Arsenal deal might be different, as it was the first in the nation’s new attempt at this type of economic diplomacy and received the greatest attention when it was initially announced.
Despite the hopes and self-satisfaction Rwandan critics will soon express, their campaigns had little to do with the decision not to renew the contract. Rather, it was a business decision. A source warned me that Arsenal increased the fees for the continuation of the shirt sleeve sponsor. The increased cost alongside greater attention to the US sports market led to the decision to move on after eight years.
No one should be surprised by the decision, as it happens with most clubs that have sleeve and front-of-shirt sponsors. Football kits change each year, and sponsorships often last only a handful of years. The increased attention to the US market is perhaps also more lucrative than that of many football leagues.
Thus, the clear answer to the earlier question is no. Rwanda’s critics did not achieve a victory in their campaigns to smear Rwanda. Rather, the answer is quite dull. It was a business decision for how best to grow the ‘Visit Rwanda’ campaign.
Jonathan R Beloff 