It's both insulting and not surprising in the slightest the bulk of coverage in the media regarding the potential takeover.
It's really fucking simple. As a Newcastle United fan you're allowed to be excited about the takeover this doesn't mean you instantly approve of the behaviour of the nation state of one of the investors. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. I use Amazon occasionally that doesn't mean I approve of their tax dodging ways. On a more serious note Liverpool fans boycott The Sun but a lot still have Sky subscriptions, this doesn't make them hypocrites.
Also if the Premier League do end up saying this takeover cannot go ahead because of the human rights record of the majority investor. If that's where the line is drawn I don't have a problem with that. That would then mean that not one club or the league itself can do business with or be owned by Saudi Arabia or indeed any country that has a similar human rights record. Does this mean Manchester City are repossessed ? Are Chelsea suddenly put on Ebay ?
If football's administrators are suddenly developing a moral compass do the paymasters sleep easy with the fact that sponsors of half the teams in the Premier League are promoting gambling ?
If we can't have Saudi backed owners can teams have a Saudi player? Do Liverpool have to get rid of Mo Salah simply because he's Egyptian and the Egyptian's human rights record is simply not up to snuff ? What then happens to that money as Liverpool would doubtlessly be profiting from him (they have already incidentally as he brings in a lot of middle eastern corporate finance) ?
Either football is the capitalist old whore it has always been or it's striving for a brave new future. That's not my decision that's football's, but let's not pretend the other nineteen clubs in the league haven't a little red on their pound notes too .