Yeah, for sure, and reading that book (and others; any recs from anyone?) can help inform. It is such a nuanced problem than I'm not sure I could fully register a stance here and certainly can't do justice to the topic. But it's interesting so I'll join in a little bit. It is a bit like the tragedy of the commons - if everyone refused to do business with the Saudis, business interests would fail, wealth would disappear, and they'd be forced to either solely invest in the country or improve their human rights record. However, that won't happen, as you say, because it's too much money and alliances are too important and the issue is inextricably attached to geopolitics. The US, for example, can't afford the Saudis to ally more closely with China and Russia, and so on. So given that, I mostly think it comes down to personal decisions that team owners need to make.
Personally, if I were a team owner, I would rather turn the money down and take some small stance against the Saudis' many human rights atrocities, including but not limited to the secretive murder and dismemberment within a protected embassy in a foreign country of Jamal Khashoggi and the systematic violent oppression of dissent. However, I can't argue with you from a macro view, and through the lens of the sport of cycling, massive investment in the sport is good.
No government and no business interest and no money is completely cleansed. There is always some blood there somewhere. However, the Saudis' growing power and strategy of using foreign consultants, strategic investments, and targeted relaxation of human rights violations (women couldn't legally drive vehicles until recently), coupled with their ruthless approach to dissenters (throwing women who called for the right to drive in prison even as the state granted women the right to drive was indicative of the true state of Saudi society), to me places them in the category of entities with which I would not do business. Again, I agree it is nuanced.
Also, it is really interesting that apparently it is Neom specifically that is considering sponsorship, as that is the "city of the future." Interesting because 1) Bicycles and flying cars seem diametrically opposed in some ways, although I agree the city of the future should have strong cycling infrastructure to facilitate high quality of life and healthy citizenry, and 2) Everything I've read indicates that Neom is like vaporware. There is no Neom. It's a place in the desert with a bunch of confused McKinsey and BCG consultants creating PPTs about something they can see isn't there.
Lastly, I do drive an electric car.
Here's another good read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/mohammed-bin-salman-saudi-arabia/626555/