New Jersey Senate Bill S3032

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/22/22
• Refer: 9/22/22
• Report Pass: 10/13/22

Caption

Prohibits professional sports organizations operated utilizing funds primarily received from sovereign wealth funds from hosting sport or athletic events in this State.

Impact

The enactment of S3032 would introduce a significant change in the regulatory landscape for professional sports organizations operating in New Jersey. Specifically, it would prevent any organization that relies heavily on sovereign wealth funding from hosting events in the state, thereby potentially limiting high-profile competitions and reducing economic benefits associated with such events. The authority to enforce compliance would rest with the New Jersey Attorney General, who would oversee the implementation of this bill through monitoring and penalty enforcement against non-compliant organizations.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 3032, proposed in New Jersey, seeks to prohibit professional sports organizations that are primarily funded by sovereign wealth funds from hosting athletic events within the state. The primary target of this legislation appears to be organizations like LIV Golf, which has garnered significant attention for its financial backing from the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. This fund is known for its major investments in various sectors, including sports, and is often criticized for 'sportswashing'—a practice where governments use sports to improve their international image amidst various human rights criticisms.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding this bill is the broader implications of banning events based on their funding sources. Proponents of the bill argue that it is a necessary measure to prevent complicity in human rights abuses linked to the governments behind these funds. However, critics may view this prohibition as an encroachment on the state's ability to attract business opportunities in the sports sector and raise concerns about selective enforcement against certain entities while allowing others to operate freely. Such a stance could spark debates about economic opportunities versus ethical responsibilities in legislative decision-making.