Equity, the performing arts and entertainment trade union, has welcomed the announcement that the government is to row back on the ‘opt-out’ exception to copyright for AI training. The union says it’s:

recognition that selling out the UK’s creative industries to benefit US tech companies would’ve been an act of national self-sabotage.

The report and impact assessment on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, published jointly today by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Intellectual Property Office, says the government:

will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will meet our objectives for the economy and UK citizens.

The report continues:

In view of the concerns raised by stakeholders, and the continued uncertainty about the likely effects of an exception with opt-out, a broad copyright exception with opt-out is no longer the government’s preferred way forward.

And it also mentions personality rights – something Equity raised – saying:

We propose to explore options that address these risks, while promoting growth and innovation. This will include considering whether a new personality right may be appropriate.

An ‘opt-out’ exception was the government’s preferred option this time last year. This would have allowed developers to scrape creators’ work online to train AI models without active consent from, or pay for, the creators. Equity opposed this position, describing it as ‘legalising theft’ of creators’ work.

Commenting on the report on AI and Copyright, Equity’s general secretary, Paul W Fleming, said:

The government has taken a welcome and marked change of approach, which has included engaging with Equity at the highest level in detail, and in advance of this announcement.

The pause announced today is recognition that selling out the UK’s creative industries to benefit US tech companies would’ve been an act of national self-sabotage. The UK should be the best place on the planet to create, supporting the government’s growth agenda through a strong copyright regime and respect for creative workers.

We welcome the government’s intention to introduce measures on digital replicas and we look forward to working with them to develop new protections against unauthorised and unpaid use of a performer’s voice and likeness, the bedrock of our members’ careers.

Advertisement

What creators need after this pause is a firm commitment to copyright and neighbouring rights and support for collective licensing for AI uses, including via existing trade union collective bargaining mechanisms. We look forward to working with the Labour government on how best to secure these reasonable aspirations.

Equity believes that licensing frameworks for AI training are entirely capable of facilitating fair and remunerated use of creators’ work, and are already emerging in various sectors. Collective bargaining mechanisms, including Equity’s, which cover 90% of UK film and TV production, already exist for this purpose.

Rather than pave the way for a transfer of wealth from UK creative industries to US tech companies, today’s statement gives needed reassurance to UK creators that AI developers must pay to use their work, just as in any other context.

Recent analysis of three studies commissioned by the tech industry shows that none of the studies demonstrates that a copyright exception for AI would deliver a net benefit to the UK economy, even while the studies mostly failed to account for the impact on creative industries.

Featured image via the Canary

Benjamin Netanyahu has released another questionable video to prove that he is alive – this time with Mike Huckabee, the US Ambassador to Israel.

Whether the video is real or not is not the Canary’s main concern. Because that is exactly what Israel wants – confusion and distraction from their continuous war crimes.

Israel: speculation

Currently, social media users are filling the internet with rumours, speculation, and conspiracy theories. Some of them have more evidence than others.

In total, Netanyahu and his team have released at least seven different posts – including photos and videos. These are meant to be ‘proof of life’. All of them have varying degrees of believability, with Israel having clearly published some before Israel’s current illegal attacks on Iran. Others do include signs of manipulation.

However, Israeli ministers know that both rumours about them being dead or purposefully releasing videos that look like AI are going to dominate social media.

Meanwhile, Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran – all at the same time.

Maybe most importantly, when you search ‘Israel AI’, the results now include all of this speculation instead of Israel’s increasing and very extensive use of AI in Gaza.

The media has extensively covered Israel’s use of AI in Gaza. It has turned Gaza into a literal testing ground for using AI to kill people.

As the Canary has previously reported, Israel has fuelled its genocide in Gaza with AI tools like Lavender and the grotesquely named Where’s Daddy, which is:

used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

This allows the Israeli army to mark tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination. The AI targeting system has very little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties.

According to +972 Magazine, the IDF treats decisions that Lavender makes “as if it were a human decision.”

Unlike previous versions of Israel’s AI tech, such as “The Gospel”, – which marks buildings and structures that the army claims militants operate from, Lavender marks people and puts them on a “kill list”

Additionally, there is mounting evidence that AI targeting shaped the US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Confusion is the goal

Maybe Netanyahu is getting a BBL. Maybe he’s dead, and Israel doesn’t want to ruin his genocidal army’s morale. Or maybe he wants us to think he’s dead. There is no way of knowing for sure.

But what we do know for sure is that if he dies, the absolute hell that Israel will rain down on Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and who the hell knows where else will be like nothing we have seen before – and that’s saying a lot. People across the Middle East will suffer even more than they already do.

People in the West might celebrate his death, but it’s the Arabs and Persians who will suffer even more.

Netanyahu is a despicable human being who deserves to be six feet under. But he is not the entire problem. He is just the current figurehead of the genocidal zionist machine. Zionism does not need Netanyahu to do its dirty work.

Israel is the problem. Zionism is the problem. Western colonialism is the problem.

If Netanyahu dies, none of these disappear. They only get worse.

Featured image via HG

The military in Iran has issued formal notice to oil and gas facilities in Israel and the Gulf after Israel attacked Iran’s huge South Pars gas field today, 18 March 2026.

The reckless attack is no doubt designed to intensify the global energy crisis and manoeuvre the US into committing to a ground invasion of Iran, but the Iranian government has long given up ‘showing restraint’ to constant Israeli and US attacks and has threatened immediate retaliatory attacks on oil and gas infrastructure in Israel and among US allies in the Gulf.

Israel’s Haifa port facility is also on the target list and has been issued with an evacuation order:

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has been attacked this week by the UK Israel lobby for calling Zionism one of the biggest threats to the world. She is not wrong.

Featured image via the Canary

Hard-right Telegraph hack Brendan O’Neill is at it again; the Israel and Trump fan’s long fixation with best-selling Irish author and Israel boycotter Sally Rooney has again reared its very ugly head. This time, dressed up as an(other) attack on Rooney’s commitment to Palestinian freedom and an end to the genocide. One that, typically, is saturated with an impression of O’Neill’s obsessive fervour for his own imagined wit and writing skill. High on his own supply, he also (of course) derides Rooney’s hugely-popular books.

Blech. Rooney is a frequent theme for O’Neill. Here, here and here, for example. In the latter, he dismisses her objection to the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians as a “luxury belief”. Right.

Sally Rooney is principled – unlike O’Neill

O’Neill has taken offence (again) at Rooney’s vocal support for the Palestinian people and her opposition to Israel’s crimes. He claims, falsely, that she shows no interest in Sudan and only cares about Gaza because, we’re meant to believe, in Gaza it’s Jews killing Muslims and not other Muslims doing it. This commitment to the Palestinian cause is, he proposes, evidence of a god-complex on Rooney’s part.

His ‘hook‘ for this claim is that Rooney didn’t talk about Sudan, but about Gaza. She was at an event specifically about Gaza, but hey damn the woman for not talking about Sudan. But to O’Neill, nothing should be about Gaza – unless it’s an excuse to lionise Israel. Or Trump. Either will do.

We’ll spare the reader an exposure to examples of O’Neill’s anti-Palestinian bile. Instead, let’s look at who endorses O’Neill’s recent ‘clash of civilisations’ spew, his book “After the pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the crisis of civilisation”. The book, according to the blurb, decries the:

twisted ideology of atrocity denial, as the activist class accused the Jewish State of exaggerating or even inventing the events of 7 October.

And look who loves it, positively gushing with praise for an ‘honesty’ they would struggle to be on nodding acquaintance with:

“A bruising blow in the cause of liberty, tolerance and good sense. Thank God he is on our side” – Jake Wallis Simons, editor, Jewish Chronicle.

“A brutally honest analysis of how the world failed the test of Hamas’s brutality” – Eylon Levy, former Israeli government spokesman.

Grim characters

Genocide-denier Eylon Levy got sacked from his job as a pro-slaughter mouthpiece because he went too far even for his boss Benjamin Netanyahu. O’Neill’s fellow Telegraph hack Jake Wallis Simons is a former editor of hard-right libel rag The Jewish Chronicle and of his own piece of farcical anti-Palestinian propaganda, his book “Israelophobia”. Wallis Simons considers the idea of Israel’s genocide as “narrative” to be “quashed”.

Brendan appears not to read too widely. Every atrocity-propaganda claim by Israel about 7 October fell apart faster than a cheap suit. Rapes, beheaded babies, all of it. Not just in the eyes of the “activist class” he despises, but according to United Nations investigators, human rights groups and even Israel’s chief prosecutor, who couldn’t find evidence to support a single rape case.

Oh, and Israel’s military, its media and its then-defence minister Yoav Gallant. Gallant admitted that Israel spent all day on 7 October 2023, from the early hours until late at night, killing hundreds of its own citizens under the so-called ‘Hannibal directive‘. But that wasn’t all.

The chances of ol’ Brendan sticking that in his pipe and smoking it are very slim. But it would definitely be a better way to spend his time than fixating on Sally Rooney and his imagined skill as a writer.

As for Rooney, well an Irishman who actually had wit and writing skill famously said “You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies”. That goes for women too – and a glance at O’Neill and his fixations means Rooney is definitely on the right track.

Featured image via the Canary

Reform bigot Nigel Farage is offering to pay your energy bills, but the cost isn’t exactly free. It will probably cost you your private data.

Reform UK has launched a competition promising to cover the energy costs for winners and their neighbours for a year. Apparently you’ll get a personal visit from Farage himself. (Urgh.)

The competition was launched to help advertise Reform’s new policy on how to cut energy bills — but to enter, entrants must disclose their past and future voting intentions.

Digital rights experts warn this violates UK data protection law. Mariano Delli Santi from the Open Rights Group, a non-profit digital rights organisation, said:

Reform are asking the public to hand over sensitive data about their voting habits without being transparent about how it will be used. This is a clear breach of transparency obligations under UK data protection law. Nothing in their privacy policy suggests they are not acting unlawfully in many other ways.

Delli Santi argued voters shouldn’t feel pressured to “trade their privacy for the chance of material benefit” and has called for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate the competition.

Aside from the potential breach of data protection law, offering financial incentives in exchange for people’s political views risks turning democratic participation into a data-harvesting exercise.

Privacy barrister, Eleanor Duhs, noted that political opinions have extra protection under UK GDPR law. And let’s be honest, why the fuck does a raffle require all of your personal data on voting habits? Because it’s definitely for a nefarious reason.

‘Nigel is gonna come to your house and he’s gonna pay your energy bills’

Robert Jenrick launches Reform UK’s new energy raffle where households can enter to win a year’s worth of energy for their street

He is speaking at the launch of Reform’s plan for energy bills pic.twitter.com/Vaoat3AXst

Advertisement

— ITVPolitics (@ITVNewsPolitics) March 17, 2026

Personally, I can imagine nothing worse than having my gas paid for by a racist political party which has problems respecting women and telling the truth. But each to their own, I guess.

At a time when a lot of people are falling into devastating poverty, I can see the appeal to those on the edge. It almost feels like Reform is taking advantage of people’s circumstances. Again.

Data harvesting and potential abuse

The ‘data minimisation’ principle requires organisations to only collect what is absolutely necessary. Critics of Reform argue that knowing who you vote for is irrelevant to a prize draw. It’s even more worrying when we have companies such as Palantir courting the far-right like flies on shit. Yet, Reform claims the competition is legal and complies with electoral laws.

However, experts warn that harvesting voter intentions allows parties to create invasive voter profiles. This sensitive data can be abused through micro-targeting — where parties use psychological triggers in digital ads to manipulate emotions or reinforce biases.

Algorithms use this data to sort people into tiny, homogenous groups and will send out tailored messages. These can be entirely different from what they show someone else. Think Cambridge Analytica.

Even raffle losers could be tracked through shadow profiling in which Reform can use this data to build maps of persuadable households. By building data maps, they can then target specific streets based on the sensitive data shared with them.

There are also concerns regarding data brokerage. Political parties could share data with third-party consultants who use ‘big data’ to predict the public’s reaction to news. This allows for discriminatory campaigning where specific groups are targeted to discourage them from voting, which sounds exactly like something Reform would do.

ICO MUST INVESTIGATE REFORM ‘COMPETITION’ FOR DATA PROTECTION BREACHEShttps://t.co/vVSKaC3f4m

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) March 18, 2026

Advertisement

A simple raffle or surveillance?

Farage used the launch to promote his plan to scrap green levies and VAT. He promised if Reform UK wins, he’ll personally visit the winners to pay their bills. To be honest, that sounds like more of a threat than anything else. (Or a clever way to lure him in.)

Farage also vowed to break existing contracts with green energy producers. Other than to suck up the arses of big oil and gas, I have no idea why Farage would even throw this out there.

The ICO confirmed all parties must follow data protection laws and urged concerned individuals to complain to either the party or the ICO directly.

This move turns serious policy and people’s desperation into a “downmarket reality gameshow”, according to some commentators. It raises serious questions about how much personal freedom we are willing to sell for a lower bill.

Will you hand over your private democratic data for a chance of free energy? I definitely fucking won’t be.

Featured image via ShutterStock

Two presidential commissions have recommended the mass eviction of Maasai people from some of East Africa’s most iconic conservation areas and tourist destinations. Advocacy group Survival International says this is an example of colonialist “fortress conservation”.

Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan set up the commissions following previous evictions of Maasai pastoralists from parts of the world famous Serengeti ecosystem, and large protests in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2024.

Now, despite a global outcry at the earlier evictions, the two Commissions have:

• Backed the previous evictions and called for them to continue, including in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Ngorongoro and neighbouring Lake Natron.
• Described the historic Maasai presence in the area as an “environmental pressure” that needs reducing.
• Threatened local NGOs that support the Maasai, accusing them of “spreading misinformation or propaganda” because they “conflict with government interests”.
• Called for the “relocation” of all “non-conservation activities” [in other words, Maasai occupancy of the land] to outside the conservation areas.
• Called for removal of the existing recognition of the Maasai people’s right to live in the Ngorongoro area.

An anonymous Maasai spokesperson said today:

We are blamed for environmental degradation while the unchecked expansion of tourism is ignored. Forced relocation, disguised as policy, has deprived our people of basic rights and dignity.

We reject any continuation of these measures and condemn the Commission’s failure to reflect the voices, realities, and rights of our people.

Advertisement

The authorities maintain that these are “voluntary relocations.” However, the Maasai have overwhelmingly said no to moving.

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When it was established, the ancestral right of the Maasai to live there with their cattle was explicitly acknowledged.

But UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has backed the so-called “voluntary relocations”, and UNESCO endorses the “fortress conservation” model that underpins Tanzania’s approach.

Survival International director Caroline Pearce said today:

These commissions were a sham, a gimmick designed to give Tanzania’s violent persecution of the Maasai a veneer of respectability. It was widely predicted that they’d back further evictions: the whole saga just confirms that colonial-style fortress conservation is alive and well in Tanzania today, and enthusiastically endorsed by UNESCO.

These recommendations give the green light to more evictions, in Ngorongoro and beyond. And while the Maasai are robbed of their lands and livelihood, the government, tour operators and so-called conservationists will enrich themselves from a landscape emptied of its original owners.

Featured image via the Canary

The Confederation of African Football’s (CAF) recent decision to declare Morocco the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) champions, despite Senegal’s victory in the final on the pitch, has sparked widespread anger in Senegal.

The decision, issued by CAF’s Appeals Committee, came after accepting the Moroccan Football Federation’s appeal and declaring Senegal the loser due to withdrawal, based on Article 84 of the tournament regulations. This has caused a major shock in both the sporting and public spheres within the country.

AFCON: Senegal reaction

The players expressed their categorical rejection of the decision, emphasizing that championships are decided on the field, not through administrative paperwork.

Pape Demba Diop, a Toulouse player, wrote on his Instagram story:

I think we’re living in a crazy world.

Defender Moussa Niakhaté reposted photos of the team receiving their medals, commenting:

Come and take them! They’re crazy! This isn’t artificial intelligence, it’s reality.

El Hadji Malick Diouf delivered a sharp message:

Prove yourselves, champions… This title is decided on the pitch, not by email.

Idrissa Gueye opted for a more measured approach, stating:

Titles and trophies are fleeting… The most important thing is that every fan returns home with their dignity intact. The Senegalese people have shown their worth, and no one can take away the pride we have experienced.

Anger spreads

Various media outlets quoted Claude Le Roy, the former Senegal coach, who described the decision as “absurd,” saying:

I had never imagined, even for a single second, that the Confederation of African Football could go this far into such ridiculous absurdity,” he said.

When we see how CAF is being run under Motsepe, who is considered a follower of Gianni Infantino, who from the beginning wanted to give this trophy to Morocco at any cost.

He added:

There are a lot of manipulations and suspicious deals within CAF. I believe this matter is not over yet, and that Senegal will eventually regain its rights, but it is unfortunate that CAF’s image has reached this level.

And:

This decision will make the whole world laugh at the African continent, which I love very much.

In the political arena, MP Guy Marius Sagna expressed his anger, saying:

Shame on the corrupt CAF. Thank you to the Lions of Senegal, you are the true champions.

Minister of Water and Sanitation Cheikh Tidiane Dièye wrote:

We have the cup, the honor, and the smile. Proud of the Lions of Teranga. You keep the court and the shame.

Press reacts

According to the Middle East News Agency, the newspaper “Le Dakar” described the decision as a “scandal in the final,” while “Le Soleil” headlined its front page “The Joke of the Century,” referring to the ridicule of the administrative decision that overturned the results of a match decided on the field.

Amid continued public and player anger, Senegal is preparing to file a formal appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in what is expected to be one of the most controversial cases in the history of African football.

Featured image via the Canary

5 min read38 min

The chair of the party’s Red Wall Caucus has told PoliticsHome that Labour will “never rebuild trust” in constituencies in her part of the country until it is seen as having tackled the issue.

On Tuesday night, Rayner, who is seen as a frontrunner to succeed the Prime Minister, criticised the direction of the government in her most significant intervention since resigning from cabinet in September.

Speaking to a reception hosted by the soft left Labour group Mainstream in a Westminster pub, she said the “very survival” of Labour is at stake as the party faces the electoral threat of both Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Zack Polanski’s Greens.

“There is no safe ground for us, and we’re running out of time. The change that people so desperately wanted to see needs to be seen. It needs to be felt,” Rayner said.

The influential backbench MP also specifically criticised new restrictions on settlement policy being brought forward by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.

Under the changes, set to come into force on Wednesday, migrants will need to wait longer to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK. 

Rayner said the plan to extend the automatic qualifying period for awarding Indefinite Leave to Remain from five to 10 years would “pull the rug” from migrants who have already arrived in the UK, and represent “not just bad policy but a breach of trust”.

Over 100 Labour MPs recently signed a letter organised by backbencher Tony Vaughan urging the Starmer government to rethink the tightening of immigration rules.

The PM has been urged by the left of Labour to pursue a more progressive agenda after the party suffered a seismic defeat to the Greens at last month’s Gorton and Denton by-election.

However, Mahmood has today been backed by Labour MPs who say the reforms are key to defeating Reform in their areas.

Jo White, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the Labour Red Wall Caucus, told PoliticsHome: “My constituents tell me this is the most important issue that this government has to sort out. We can only move on when they have confidence that the government has done what’s needed, whether it’s the small boats or dealing with the high numbers who have come here in recent years.

“My constituents are calling for fairness, and diverting from this means we will never rebuild trust in constituencies like mine.”

She added: “Recent history has already shown that Labour cannot win a general election without the Red Wall MPs, and seats on the opposition benches will mean that we will never deliver on the economic and social change that we all believe in and desire.”

The ‘Red Wall’ is a phrase commonly used in Westminster to describe post-industrial seats in northern England and the Midlands that have been seen as key to recent election results.

Luke Akehurst, MP for North Durham on the right of Labour, said he was “extremely disappointed” by Rayner’s public intervention on Tuesday night.

“All the polling shows these policies are popular across the electorate,” he told PoliticsHome.

“They aren’t the cause of Labour’s poll malaise, which is driven by the cost of living. Being credible on controlling immigration is critical to Labour’s ability to hold marginal red wall seats at the next elections.”

Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, said his colleague must “back Shabana” and her reforms, saying “the country wants it, and we need to deliver, otherwise Reform will do something much more extreme.”

Mahmood herself doubled down on the asylum reforms in a speech last week, warning concerned Labour MPs that the current system is  “eroding trust” with the public.

“Hard-working people across this country engage in the daily struggle to make ends meet.

“They see a state that they pay taxes towards, yet it is unable to stop the flow of dinghies across the channel. They see a state that is paying billions towards hotels. It doesn’t look fair because it’s not fair, and it erodes their trust in government,” the Home Secretary said.

Speaking to PoliticsHome this afternoon, an unnamed Labour MP in the Red Wall group said Mahmood’s reforms are “not just about me keeping my seat at the next election, it’s what’s morally right”.

Another Labour MP added: “If we can’t deliver the changes that the public supports, then we can’t govern. The government’s immigration policy can’t be changed by Angela Rayner in the basement of some dingy pub.”

An MP in the party’s Blue Labour group, which advocates more socially conservative positions, told PoliticsHome: “We can’t – must not – retreat into our comfort zone as a party. The country wants these reforms.”

There were suggestions this afternoon that Downing Street could dilute the reforms after Rayner’s intervention, with a spokesperson telling journalists that it was “considering responses” to a Home Office consultation, and would “respond in line with our principles and values”.

However, a government spokesperson later stressed that its position “has not changed”.

“We will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here forever should be earned, not automatic.

“But between 2021 and 2024, this country experienced levels of migration it had historically seen over four decades. We must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settlement,” they said.

The government has sought to clarify that the consultation relates to whether transitional arrangements should be used for migrants who are already in the UK but have not yet received settled status.

Reactions have poured in from all official, sporting, and legal levels following the Confederation of African Football’s (CAF) decision to declare Senegal the loser of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final against Morocco (3-0). This decision has reignited a larger question: who holds the authority to make such decisions, the referee or the committees?

The decision issued by the Appeals Committee has sparked widespread division within football circles and opened the door to conflicting legal interpretations, all of which agreed on one point: what happened transcends the mere result of a match.

AFCON mess

International sports lawyer Ali Abbas described the decision in press statements as “shocking and illegal,” arguing that the Appeals Committee exceeded its authority by interfering in the outcome of a match decided on the field.

He explained that the basis upon which the committee relied—according to the CAF statement—relates to Article 82, which penalizes refusal to play. However, he emphasized that the assessment of such refusal remains solely with the match referee.

The legal expert stated:

The referee is the only one authorized to end the match or declare a team withdrawn. Since he decided to resume the match until its conclusion, no judicial body has the right to change the result afterward.

Temporary rejection and complete withdrawal

From another perspective, regulations expert Mohamed Bayoumi offered a more detailed analysis of the legal loopholes, emphasizing that what occurred did not constitute a “complete withdrawal” justifying a forfeit loss.

He explained that the regulations—specifically Articles 82 and 84—stipulate that a team must remain absent from the field for 15 minutes before being considered withdrawn, which did not occur in this match.

He added:

Senegal returned and completed the match, and the game ended normally on the field. This is the fundamental principle of football.

Precedent

Notably, this decision brought back memories of the CAF Champions League final between Wydad and Esperance, a precedent highlighted by Ali Abbas, who argued that African football “has not learned from its past mistakes.”

He continued sharply:

We are facing a legal farce… and a decision more serious than the previous one, which will have major repercussions for the reputation of African football.

Amid this controversy, the next step seems almost certain, as the Senegalese Football Federation is heading towards escalating the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

According to Abbas, Senegal’s chances of winning the case “exceed 90%,” while Bayoumi asserts that the court will review the entire file, not just the Appeals Committee’s decision, which opens the door to its annulment or amendment.

Between a decision issued by the Confederation of African Football and an anticipated appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, African football faces a new test, one that concerns not only the outcome of a title but also the credibility of its legal system.