WHAT is the biggest factor that will determine the medium to long-term fortunes of Newcastle United? Allan Saint-Maximin’s contract talks perhaps? The decision on whether to stick with Eddie Howe or seek a managerial upgrade if the club finds itself fighting in the top half of the Premier League table? Plans to redevelop St James’ Park and overhaul the physical infrastructure at the training ground?

All important issues. But when it comes to assessing what will happen at Newcastle in the next few years, I’d argue the single biggest determinant of the club’s future prospects will be the domestic and foreign policy decisions taken by the Saudi Arabian state. As the events of the last couple of weeks have proved, when sport and politics become intertwined, it is the political world that ultimately calls the tune.

Not even a month ago, Russia was still regarded as an important economic partner of the United Kingdom. Energy deals were still being signed off, Russian banks were doing business across the country, London’s financial sector was awash with the ill-gotten gains of kleptokrats and oligarchs.

Not anymore. Vladimir Putin’s decision to send his tanks into Ukraine changed Russia’s geopolitical standing at a stroke, sparking a chain of events that will have economic, social and sporting ramifications for decades.

Football might seem pretty inconsequential at the moment, but the fact Roman Abramovich’s statement announcing his intention to sell Chelsea led the Five Live news on Wednesday night nevertheless highlighted the scale of the development.

Read more: Roman Abramovich to sell Chelsea FC and donate "net proceeds" to Ukraine victims

Given Chelsea’s global reach, and the enduring popularity of the Premier League, there will almost certainly be a buyer out there somewhere, even at Abramovich’s £3bn asking price, but the change of ownership will nevertheless have a profound impact on all aspects of Chelsea’s operations over the next few years. It is not an over-exaggeration to suggest the club might never quite be the same again.

Everton are also feeling the effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, having felt compelled to suspend all sponsorship deals with Russian companies backed by the Uzbek-born billionaire, Alisher Usmanov, who is a close business associate of the club’s majority shareholder, Farhad Moshiri. Usmanov’s USM Holdings company began a five-year sponsorship of Everton’s training ground worth about £12m a year in 2017 and paid £30m for a first naming rights option on the club’s new stadium. With building work on that project already underway, there is suddenly a gaping hole in Everton’s finances.

Could the same thing happen at Newcastle, given the club is now 80 per cent owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, a body with deep-rooted connections to the Saudi state? Unquestionably. And the worrying thing from a Newcastle perspective, although they are hardly alone in this given the way in which football club ownership, particularly in the Premier League, has been transformed in the last decade, is there is absolutely nothing anyone involved in the day-to-day running of the Magpies could do about it.

At the moment, Saudi Arabia is an ally of both the UK and NATO. Boris Johnson’s Government continues to boast about its strong economic ties to Saudi Arabia, particularly when it comes to the provision of defence contracts, and for all the misgivings about the Saudi Arabian state’s horrendous human rights record, and involvement in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, defenders of Newcastle’s ownership situation can point to the UK’s governmental relationship with Saudi Arabia as justification for their stance.

As Russia’s warmongering has proved, though, there is absolutely no guarantee that the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia will remain cordial forever. The Middle East is a geo-political tinderbox, where decisions taken by one country can rapidly spiral and draw in others.

If, as looks increasingly likely given events in Ukraine, we are entering a new era of international relations where some of the old Cold War dividing lines are redrawn and renewed alliances formed, the Middle East will inevitably become a hugely important strategic nexus.

The hope, for a whole host of different reasons, is that nations such as Saudi Arabia, who have historically supported the West, will continue to do so. The reality, as highlighted by the United Arab Emirates’ initial reluctance to condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine – a wavering that should be setting alarm bells ringing at Manchester City – is that no one really knows how events will play out. What is certain, though, is that when Saudi Arabia’s rulers meet to discuss their country’s foreign policy objectives, the potential impact on Newcastle United will hardly be at the top of their list of concerns.

It is that powerlessness that is most concerning. To a certain extent, football clubs have always been vulnerable to the whims of their owners. You only have to look at what is currently happening at Derby County to see that it does not take the involvement of a foreign state to plunge one of England’s great clubs into a potentially existence-threatening position.

Mike Ashley was running Newcastle into the ground, but whatever his failings, it was hard to see the British government suddenly deciding to seize the Sports Direct boss’ assets. When it comes to an overseas entity, particularly one with obvious ties to the governmental infrastructure of a non-NATO state, it is impossible to rule out such an eventuality occurring at some stage in the future.

As previously stated, Newcastle are not alone when it comes to being susceptible to such a turn of events, but Saudi Arabia’s heightened geo-political importance allied to the undemocratic and therefore self-protective nature of the ruling regime makes the club especially vulnerable to world events. Winning on the football field is one thing; surviving the turmoil of global geo-politics could be quite another.