Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, has reportedly made it known to NFL bosses that he wants to hold a game in Scotland.

The Tartan Army has been inundated with praise from Bostonians for bringing the joy back to the city with their two-week takeover of the city. The city is now officially twinned with Glasgow, and Mayor Michelle Wu even admitted putting a traffic cone atop a statue in honour of the Scotland fans’ antics.

The Tartan Army’s impact on Boston, and the wider area, has been keenly felt in recent days. And now it seems like one of the biggest names in the region wants to repay the favour over in Scotland.

The New England Patriots’ owner has reportedly spoken to NFL chiefs about playing an NFL match in Scotland. According to the Boston Globe, a conversation has been held between Pats owner Robert Kraft and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that the Patriots would be interested in playing a game in Scotland.

Thousands of Scots took over the city for a fortnight to see Steve Clarke’s men take on Haiti and Morocco at the nearby Gillette Stadium, the home of the Patriots.

The chat has come after the Tartan Army won over the Massachusetts capital with their kilts, bagpipes, and incredible feat of drinking parts of the city dry of beer. It’s reported that due to this newfound bond, Kraft who played an instrumental role in bringing the World Cup to North America, has now planted the seed for his team to play in what would be Scotland’s first NFL game.

Although Scotland has never hosted an NFL match, it used to be home to American football side, the Scottish Claymores. The franchise played in the World League of American Football between 1995 and 2004 and hosted many home games at Murrayfield Stadium and Hampden Park.

Several NFL games are played internationally every year, with the most ever in a single season of nine due to be played during 2026. Games are set to be played in Australia, Brazil, France, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Germany – where the Patriots take on the Detroit Lions – and Spain, with the number increasing to 10, possibly 11, in 2027.

Get Daily Record Premium for just £1 per month in exclusive offer to celebrate the World Cup. Click HERE.

Speaking about world expansion in February ahead of the Super Bowl, Goodell, who insisted 90 per cent of the crowds at international games are fans from the host country, said: “That’s an important mark to shoot for and I think we’re on our way.

“It’s the ambition we have to be a global sport, but it’s also the demand we’re having. We’re hearing from cities that want to host these games and really want to get more American football.”

Currently, the number of international games is capped at 10 under the CBA agreement, however the Jacksonville Jaguars are set to play two games in London this year which brings the total to 11.

Goodell has previously spoken about how he wants 16 international games per year, meaning it’s not out of the question to have a game in Scotland.

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE.

The vote marks the first time that both chambers of Congress have approved a concurrent resolution instructing a president to end a military action since the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted.

A concurrent resolution expresses the sentiment or will of Congress, as opposed to other forms of legislation that go to the president to be signed into law. In 2019, Trump vetoed a joint resolution that called for the removal of armed forces from hostilities in the Yemeni civil war.

Middle East analyst Laura Blumenfeld called it “more of a slap on a wrist than a handcuff, because it has no legal binding”.

But she told the BBC she thought what “it does reflect is the American people’s sentiments”.

The concurrent resolution’s passage is significant because it adds to pressure on the White House to find an end to the Iran war, which is unpopular with the public after petrol prices spiked.

The same measure was passed earlier this month by the US House of Representatives, where four Republicans joined every Democrat to approve it in a 215-208 vote.

But a White House official told the BBC that with the ceasefire agreed on 7 April, there are no hostilities from which to withdraw American forces.

The official also said the measure only passed because two Republican senators were absent: Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick.

Four Republican senators voted with Democrats in support of the resolution: Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy.

Democratic Senator John Fetterman was the only member of his party to vote against it.

It was the latest sign of division among Trump’s fellow Republicans ahead of the midterm elections in November, which will determine whether the party can hold on to its slender majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Some Republicans have resisted the president recently, including by rejecting his plans to create a $1.8 bn (£1.3bn) “anti-weaponisation” fund and approving Ukraine aid.

Tuesday’s vote was the 10th time that Senate Democrats have forced a war powers vote since the start of the war.

It came the same day as the Pentagon asked Congress for some $80bn, most of which is to pay for the war with Iran.

Federal law requires congressional approval to continue military actions for more than 60 days. The US-Israel strikes on Iran began on 28 February, although the Trump administration has argued April’s ceasefire reset the clock.

The White House can also extend the deadline for another 30 days, citing national security.

Currently, the US and Iran have agreed to continue a ceasefire and are working towards an end of hostilities under a memorandum of understanding that was signed by the presidents of both countries last week.

Under that memo, Washington and Tehran have 60 days to negotiate a broader agreement on ending Iran’s nuclear programme.

The murder of 13-month-old Preston Davey, who was sexually abused and killed by one of his adoptive fathers, Jamie Varley, has shocked and saddened people across the country. Varley was sentenced to life in prison. His partner, John McGowan-Fazakerley, was found guilty of sexual assault, child cruelty and allowing the death of a child, and sentenced to 25 years.

As horrific details emerged during the trial, many people were left asking the same question: how can so many agencies know about a child and still not see what was happening?

Reports suggest that multiple organisations had contact with Preston during his short life. Within approximately two months of being placed with his adoptive parents, Preston attended hospital for the first time. Over the following nine weeks, there were at least ten contacts with multiple agencies and professionals before his death.

Like many previous incidents, concerns were raised, injuries were observed, explanations were given, referrals and decisions were made across different parts of the system. Surely, if enough professionals know about a child, someone should be able to see the danger?

The unfortunate reality is that many children who experience these tragic outcomes are known to services. Recent analysis by the independent child safeguarding review panel found that 84% of families in reviewed cases were already known to children’s social care. Similar findings emerged from reviews we conducted in Wales, where the overwhelming majority of children had previous involvement with agencies before the incident occurred.

No single professional or agency usually holds the complete picture. A teacher may notice a change in behaviour. A health professional may see an injury. A social worker may become concerned about family circumstances. Police may respond to an incident. But each piece of information can appear relatively minor when viewed in isolation. It is often only when those pieces are connected that a fuller picture of risk emerges.

This is one reason why safeguarding reviews repeatedly identify challenges around information-sharing and multi-agency working. The issue is rarely that nobody cared. More often, it is that different professionals hold different parts of a child’s story.

Preston’s age (13 months) makes this case particularly challenging. Modern safeguarding practice rightly emphasises listening to children, hearing their voices and understanding their lived experiences. But babies and very young children cannot articulate what is happening to them.

Professionals must build a picture through observation, behaviour, development, injuries and interactions with carers, and collate pockets of information held across multiple agencies. Research examining non-accidental injuries in infants has repeatedly highlighted the importance of recognising patterns, rather than viewing incidents in isolation.

Lessons (not) learned

Past safeguarding reviews have identified these challenges for decades. So why are they still happening?

Numerous reviews, including our research in Wales, suggest that many of the issues identified following child deaths are remarkably consistent.

National reviews following the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson highlighted challenges around information sharing and recognising cumulative harm.

Similar themes emerged in our recent review of child safeguarding incidents in Wales, and in multiple reviews for adult safeguarding.

Across cases, children and families were often known to several agencies, sometimes over many years. Yet awareness did not always translate into action or effective intervention. Experts and academic research have questioned whether safeguarding systems rely too heavily on professionals “joining the dots” between fragmented pieces of information, rather than creating systems that make risk easier to identify collectively.

Safeguarding is a complex system involving hundreds of organisations, thousands of professionals and constantly-changing pressures, policies and priorities. Learning a lesson is one thing. Embedding it consistently across an entire system is another.

Our research has highlighted the gap that can exist between identifying lessons and translating them into meaningful change. Training does not automatically change culture. New procedures do not automatically change decision-making. And publishing a review does not automatically make children safer.

Following Preston Davey’s death, there will, rightly, be a safeguarding review. Its purpose will be to understand what happened and identify lessons that could help protect children in the future. The challenge will be to make sure that what is learned in Preston’s review results in real change for other children at risk.

There are signs that those responsible for safeguarding systems are beginning to think differently about how to apply the lessons from these many reviews. In Wales, a new safeguarding review process has brought different systems together within a single national framework. Alongside this, a publicly accessible dashboard has been introduced, allowing recommendations, actions and themes to be tracked nationally.

Rather than treating each review as an isolated exercise, the aim of Wales’ new review process is to identify recurring themes, strengthen accountability and build a clearer picture of the challenges that safeguarding systems repeatedly encounter.

It is too early to know whether these changes will reduce repeated recommendations or improve outcomes for children. But they reflect an important shift in thinking.

In England, wider reforms are underway. This includes the creation of a child protection authority to strengthen national oversight and accountability, and a unique identifying number assigned to every child to help bring together information held from different agencies.

Additionally, guidance is being developed to support professionals to build a more complete picture of children’s experiences across services.

The review into Preston’s death will rightly seek answers about what happened to him. Every child deserves that commitment. But it should also help us find the solution to a broader challenge: making sure that what is learned in one tragedy helps prevent another.

In The Mixer’s World Cup special

Everything you need to know about the World Cup – England updates, the games to watch and stories you missed – in five minutes, at 1pm, every day.

World Cup hydration breaks have proven controversial and received backlash an FIFA chief Gianni Infantino has spoken out concerning their future in the sport

FIFA boss Gianni Infantino has revealed that the governing body will consider whether to maintain hydration breaks in future World Cups ‘based on this experience’. The breaks have drawn criticism from fans throughout the current tournament.

The stoppages, which take place midway through each half, have effectively separated matches into quarters and are utilised regardless of weather conditions. Despite being brought in to look after players in hot conditions, the breaks are implemented even in stadiums with closed roofs and air conditioning.

England’s match against Ghana saw frustration as the players were permitted to take on board liquids quickly after another lengthy stoppage in play due to injury. Loud boos were heard in the Boston Stadium as the teams went to the sidelines.

Infantino has rejected claims that the hydration breaks have been a means to introduce greater advertising opportunities, and instead outlined the benefits. “Broadcasters maybe generate more, but for us, we make zero additional revenues,” he said.

“Maybe the coach can reassess certain situations, correct certain mistakes,” he added. “The players get a little rest and come back in full speed. Well, is that bad necessarily? Maybe it’s good.

“And we see as well the intensity of the games. We’ve never seen 90 minutes in a tournament like this played in such an intensity. Until the last second of the match, players attack and so on.

“And maybe, maybe not, but maybe it’s also a bit thanks to this little break that the players have and after they can go back on the field and show what they can do.”

The FIFA boss also attempted to explain the reasoning to introduce the breaks as a blanket decision, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Get the latest World Cup news straight to your inbox by signing up to our Make Football Great Again newsletter now!

“If we were to use hydration breaks only in those matches where it was too hot and not in the other matches, we would give an advantage or a disadvantage to some of the coaches or some of the teams,” he explained.

Advertisement

“Why would the coach have the opportunity to influence the game in one match just because it’s hot and in another match where it’s a bit less hot, he wouldn’t have this opportunity?”

Former England striker Alan Shearer described the break for the Three Lions match as ‘nonsense’, when it was not allowed to be combined with an earlier stoppage.

He said: “There’s been nearly two minutes [of stoppages] already. It seems crazy for the referee not to just say let’s have the break now. Goodness me.”

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

Advertisement

Upgrade your World Cup TV setup with the Sky Glass ‘designed for football’

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

from £4.50

Sky

Get the deal here

Sky is knocking 20% off its entire range of Glass TVs to mark the start of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Until June 17, shoppers can upgrade to the Sky smart TV that’s ‘designed for football’ from £4.50 per month when taken alongside a Sky TV and Netflix package.