Less than 30 days before the 2026 World Cup kicks off, political tensions are simmering, ticket prices are soaring, and a broadcasting dispute threatening to shut out billions is brewing. The tournament—set to begin on 11 June—promises to be the biggest ever. However, it remains dogged by three major crises which continue to dominate the headlines.

Iran and Trump’s political hokey cokey

Questions continue to swirl around Iran’s participation as US president Donald Trump’s search to find off-ramps have repeatedly failed to subdue Tehran.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has insisted there are no plans to exclude Iran from the tournament. However, conflicting statements from Trump have left audiences befuddled — will they withdraw as he has suggested or are Iranian players welcome as Trump has also previously said?

The lack of clarity has spawned speculations left, right, and centre. Trump’s associates floated the idea that Iran could be replaced by Italy. This suggestion came after Italy failed to qualify for three consecutive World Cups. Only Italy’s government had said there’s no chance of that happening, and described the suggestion “shameful.”

Back in March, the same month Trump launched unprovoked strikes on Tehran. It was reported that the Iranian consulate in Mexico had been in talks with FIFA to move Iran’s matches from the US to Mexico. Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum signalled openness to the idea. However, FIFA rejected the plan over logistical and commercial concerns.

Meanwhile, Iran has said it will not relent, demanding guarantees over security, freedom of movement, and respect for the Iranian flag and anthem during the tournament.

Fans revolt over sky-high ticket prices

Eye-watering ticket prices are another sticking point, contradicting FIFA claims of an accessible ticketing policy for the 2026 World Cup, and sparking widespread backlash.

One such example, as reported by the Guardian, is the cost of tickets for the World Cup Final. These range from USD 8,970 to USD 11,499,998.85, as per listings on FIFA’s Resale/Exchange Marketplace — wild!

By contrast, during the 2022 World Cup hosted by Qatar, tickets for the finals retailed at USD 1,600. For this year’s tournament, premium packages for the final have reportedly climbed to nearly USD 33,000.

Infantino has defended the pricing, arguing that the US sports market already operates on inflated costs — even for college games. FIFA also says demand remains enormous. In fact, they claim more than 500 million ticket requests have already been submitted.

But many fans are being priced out. According to reports in the British press, some England supporters are already considering staying home. They are faced with paying massive travel, accommodation, and ticket costs to attend the tournament in North America.

Even Trump weighed in, saying he personally would not spend that kind of money to attend a World Cup match after prices for the US opener against Paraguay approached USD 1,000.

A broadcasting dispute could shut out billions

Another crisis is unfolding off the pitch — and it could seriously damage the tournament’s global reach.

With only weeks remaining before kickoff, FIFA still has not finalised broadcast rights agreements in either China or India. These two countries are among the world’s largest television markets.

No official broadcaster has yet been announced in China. In India, reports say FIFA rejected a joint bid worth around USD 20 million from two companies, demanding a significantly higher fee.

If no deals are reached, huge audiences across both countries could be left without access to the tournament.

Combined, China and India account for nearly three billion people — roughly a third of the global population. Losing viewers on that scale would be a major commercial and reputational blow for FIFA, especially for a tournament already billed as the most global sporting event in football history.

No matter which way you slice it, uncertainty is growing With less than a month to go, as the triple crisis shows no sign of easing.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Eurovision icon Johnny Logan has backed his home country’s decision to withdraw from the competition.

Johnny earned himself the moniker the “King Of Eurovision” when he became the first act to win the song contest on three different occasions, as Ireland’s representative in 1980 and 1987, and as the writer of Linda Martin’s winning entry in 1992.

Last year, he backed calls for Israel to be removed from the Eurovision Song Contest in light of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, similar to how Russia was banned in 2022 after its invasion of Ukraine.

“I really feel that in this case, RTÉ definitely made the right decision,” he told The Week in December 2025, after Ireland’s broadcaster withdrew from Eurovision in solidarity with Palestine.

Advertisement

He continued: “I don’t think that Israel should be allowed to hide under the umbrella of the Eurovision [and] make it look as though, everything’s okay, business as usual, because it’s not. I think most people in Ireland would agree with that.”

ullstein bild Dtl. via ullstein bild via Getty Images

Since then, Johnny has revealed he has repeatedly turned down offers to perform at Eurovision in light of the controversy.

“I’ve been asked three times, four times to be involved with the Eurovision Song Contest, the actual show this year, and I’ve had to say no because of my support,” he told Ireland AM at the end of April.

Noting that he’s “not antisemitic [nor] pro-Hamas or anything like that”, he continued: “I was asked to make my decision. My decision is to support the Irish Government and the Irish television position on this.

Advertisement

“I just wanted to make that clear because I get all these people I see on Facebook saying, ‘Johnny Logan says you can’t watch the Eurovision’. That’s not something I ever said.”

At the end of last year, Ireland was the first nation to pull out of Eurovision 2026 due to Israel’s involvement, followed quickly by Spain, The Netherlands, Slovenia and Iceland.

Eurovision 2026 officially gets underway in Basel, Austria this week, with the first semi-final airing on Tuesday, following singer JJ’s victory last year.

Source link

Source link

Campaigners opposing the annual guga hunt say they were “fobbed off” after attempting to deliver what is believed to be the largest petition in the history of NatureScot ahead of its upcoming board meeting on Thursday.

Protect the Wild’s petition – now signed by more than 163,000 people – was brought to NatureScot headquarters by the now-infamous six-foot gannet that recently went viral during Scotland’s election coverage, alongside a giant cheque ‘signed’ by members of the public.

The gannet costume became widely recognised after Protect the Wild founder Rob Pownall wore it while standing as an independent candidate in Edinburgh Central to force the guga hunt into the political spotlight.

The guga hunt is the UK’s last remaining legal seabird hunt, in which young gannets are taken from the remote island of Sula Sgeir, killed, and sold as a traditional delicacy on the Isle of Lewis under licence from Scotland’s nature agency, NatureScot.

Protect the Wild argues that continuing to license the hunt is incompatible with NatureScot’s duties to conserve biodiversity and act in the public interest.

Campaigners also say they were left disappointed after NatureScot declined to physically accept the giant cheque and instead instructed them to submit the petition via email.

Devon Docherty, Protect the Wild’s Scottish campaigns manager, said:

This is the largest petition NatureScot has ever received, and it deserved more than to be fobbed off with an email.

For a taxpayer-funded public body, refusing to physically accept such a significant expression of public concern is disappointing and does not reflect meaningful engagement with the public it exists to serve.

Advertisement

NatureScot is effectively ignoring the voices of hundreds of thousands of people who believe protecting wildlife should come before the vested interests of a tiny minority.

Protect the Wild says it’s urging the NatureScot board not to license this year’s guga hunt ahead of the board meeting on Thursday 14 May.

Featured image via Protect the Wild

By The Canary

Source link

During a speech on 11 May, Keir Starmer (PM-for-now) boasted about blocking “far right agitators” from entering the country. Labour has in fact blocked the visas of seven individuals who were planning to attend ‘Unite the Kingdom,’ a far-right rally happening on 16 May. Among them are two prominent MAGA figures. Criticising his political opponents for spreading “more division” and “pointing at Britain’s problems,” Starmer stated:

That politics is with us now. And you’ll see it again on Saturday at a march designed to confront and intimidate this diverse city [London] and this diverse country. That is why this labour government will block far right agitators from travelling to Britain for that event.

Because we will not allow people to come to the UK… and spread hate on our streets. This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation.

Don’t mind the hypocrisy

When the Canary reported on Starmer’s speech yesterday, we couldn’t help but point out the glaring hypocrisy. First and foremost, Labour has been cribbing its immigration policy from the far-right handbook. As such, the party is clearly happy to stoke division when it’s politically expedient for Starmer.

Likewise, boasting about blocking far-right agitators was rich, coming from a man who actively fought to get racist, Islamophobic Maccabees fans into the country. Again, the deciding factor is purely whether or not Starmer thinks fighting the far right will help its image. Absolute chancers, the lot of them.

But we digress. The ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march Starmer’s referring to is another event organised by Tommy (the-fascist) Robinson. For last year’s version of the rally, an estimated 100,000 racist scum took to London’s streets, hurling bigoted profanities.

Joey Mannarino

So, who exactly is it that Starmer and home secretary Mahmood have chosen to block this year? So far, we know that the Home Office has blocked seven visas. Five of the names remain unknown to the public. However, the two known figures are Joey Mannarino and Valentina Gomez, both MAGA talking heads. A government spokesperson stated that their right of entry was revoked because their presence isn’t “conducive to the public good”.

And looking at the track records of the two named far-right agitators, we’re inclined to agree.

At a Britain First ‘March for Remigration’ in 2025, Mannario gave a rambling speech in front of a backdrop image of himself and Donald Trump. When he later tweeted a recording, he urged viewers to:

deport the parasites who are raping their way through America, Europe and the United Kingdom.

Obviously, he didn’t include Trump among those rapists. Instead, as Hope Not Hate has reported:

Donald Trump was held civilly liable for the sexual abuse of journalist E. Jean Carrol. In response, Mannarino chose not to stand with victims of abuse, and instead wrote in a since-deleted tweet that he “will never believe a victim of rape again in my life no matter the verdict in court” and that “all rape cases have just become fake to me”.

Yeah, that’s not conductive to the public good, right there.

Valentina Gomez

Meanwhile, Gomez has a similarly charming track record. Speaking at last September’s Unite the Kingdom march, the Islamophobic influencer said:

England, they took your guns, they took your swords, and they raped your women. You have nothing else to lose, but there’s still hope. You are still the majority. So you either fight for this nation or you let all of these rapist Muslims and corrupt politicians take over.

She told the attending police officers that:

I need you to stop following orders because you know you are being told to look the other way while your country is being raped into submission.

Obviously Gomez wasn’t aware the Met were already way ahead of her. In fact, they didn’t even bother to use facial recognition software at the far-right rally. By way of contrast, they did deploy that same tech at Notting Hill Carnival. We wonder what the difference might be?

The Home Office actually made the decision to block Gomez from entering the UK on May 16 back in April. At the time, a government source said that:

While we recognise the democratic right that people must be free to peacefully express their views, this does not include promoting hatred and extremist views.

After finding out about the ban, Gomez took to Twitter, posting:

I’m coming to England on a boat. They can try to ban me, but they cannot ban the TRUTH. See you May 16th.

Funny how they do mind arriving illegally on a boat when it’s the far right, isn’t it?

Don’t get us wrong — we’re absolutely thrilled that scum like Joey Mannarino and Valentina Gomez are barred from entering the UK. However, it’d be lovely if Starmer could manage to carry that same sentiment through all of his decisions, rather than merely when he thinks it’ll look good for his (absolute rock-bottom) image.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

As top arms companies BAE Systems and Rheinmetall announce record sales, civilians in Yemen have faced a setback in their pursuit of international justice yet again.

After more than 6 years of preliminary examinations, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has confirmed that it will not open an investigation into the legal responsibility of European governments and arms companies in alleged war crimes in Yemen.

Radya Almutawakel, chairperson Mwatana for Human Rights, said:

The entrenchment of impunity over a decade of conflict has not only deepened the humanitarian catastrophe but has also fueled the persistence and escalation of hostilities.

The absence of international accountability has effectively granted a ‘green light’ to all parties, including the Ansar Allah armed group (Houthis), to persist in committing grave violations that exacerbate human suffering and undermine any prospects for stability in Yemen.

Advertisement

The ICC decision comes in response to a joint article 15 Communication requesting that the ICC investigate if European corporate and government actors aided and abetted alleged war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen through the sale of arms.

It was submitted in 2019 by:

• The European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR).
• Mwatana for Human Rights.
• Amnesty International.
• Campaign Against Arms Trade.
• Centre Delàs.
• Rete Italiana Pace Disarmo.

Arms trade accountability

The 350-page Communication was the first of its kind to call for the ICC to address the issue of arms trade accountability.

It details factual information on 26 airstrikes by the Saudi-UAE coalition, which may amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute. These included attacks on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, a museum and world heritage sites.

Despite clearly documented instances of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, arms companies from Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain continued to supply the coalition members with weapons, ammunition and logistical support. Government ministers and officials facilitated these exports by granting export licenses.

The Office of the Prosecutor did not provide any specific legal reasoning for its decision not to open a preliminary investigation. This is despite increasing calls for the international community to hold arms companies to account, where arms sales enable the commission of international crimes.

The cycle of impunity remains, perpetuated by the failure of the international justice system to hold powerful defence industry actors to account. Efforts to seek accountability have continued through strategic litigation at the national level against the actors named in the Communication.

Cases in Italy and the UK did not result in findings of liability. But a criminal complaint against arms traders is pending in France. And there are two submissions before the European Court of Human Rights.

Chloé Bailey, senior legal advisor ECCHR, said:

We regret the decision from the ICC not to examine the complicity of European arms companies in violations of international humanitarian law during the conflict in Yemen. In the face of ongoing geopolitical instability and conflicts fuelled by the arms trade, the ICC has an essential role to play in seeking the accountability of all conflict actors, including corporations.

Sam Perlo-Freeman, research coordinator at Campaign Against Arms Trade, explained:

European arms companies like BAE Systems and Rheinmetall, and government ministers including Boris Johnson, actively enabled and supported the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen through the supply of arms and ongoing support and maintenance.

The Yemeni people deserve justice and accountability for these crimes, as well as those of the warring parties themselves. This ICC decision is yet another failure, maintaining the wall of impunity for western actors supporting war crimes.

Amnesty International’s Patrick Wilcken added:

While the ICC has failed to take this case forward, the principles outlined in the Communication still hold: both state officials and company executives bear responsibility when knowingly supplying arms used to commit war crimes.

And campaigns coordinator at Rete Italiana Pace Disarmo Francesco Vignarca said:

Even though the Italian criminal complaint started by civil society groups over bombs sold to Saudi Arabia used to kill civilians in Yemen did not result in a trial, the preliminary Judge’s decision to archive the case nonetheless acknowledged a violation of the Arms Trade Treaty.

That is why we pursued a Communication to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and why an ICC action would have been essential.

Victims and their families deserve justice, and arms sales that endanger innocent civilian lives must be stopped.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Labour has announced it may nationalise British Steel following a ‘public interest test’. That’s after the Greens came second in the local elections when it comes to national vote share. The Green party received 18% compared to Reform’s 26% and Labour’s 17%.

Nationalising UK steel

Clement Attlee’s 1945 Labour government brought steel into public ownership, along with 20% of the economy. But Margaret Thatcher privatised steel in 1988.

The industry has issues nowadays, notably high energy costs and old infrastructure. Public ownership would deliver lower borrowing costs to invest in infrastructure, failing the use of debt free fiat currency.

Further, a government could deliver cheaper energy costs for steel through a publicly owned Green New Deal. Renewables are cheaper, while public ownership removes profit from an essential. And a Green New Deal stops inflationary pressure from volatile international markets.

What’s more, electric powered furnaces are established.

Labour: Public ownership is entirely possible…

Campaign group We Own It said:

So this government can nationalise. And they can do it quickly

Public ownership of steel brings about the question of why utilities cannot be nationalised.

We Own it also said:

Why, then, are we not announcing emergency legislation to bring our water into public ownership?

Labour claims that nationalising water would cost too much, at £90bn. But the privatised water industry funded that research. Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King’s College London, has claimed that bringing the water industry into public ownership would actually cost nothing.

Indeed, we had water in public ownership in the 1800s. That’s how far neoliberalism—the ideology of privatisation, austerity and deregulation—has taken us into the past.

And it is ideology because public ownership of an essential is by definition more efficient than wasting money in profit. Whereas, management can be inefficient in either the public or private sector.

But it appears that Labour is feeling the pressure from the Greens and may bring about some nationalisations. All the more reason for the Greens to keep campaigning.

Featured image via Unsplash / the Canary

By James Wright

Source link