US President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale is overseeing an Israeli influence operation. Drop Site News reported that the operation is training bots to embellish fake claims that Palestinian journalists are linked to terrorism. The story has sparked debate about israel’s approach to using new technologies in information warfare.

The campaign has even tried to muddy the waters around the Israeli military’s murder of Palestinian child Hind Rajab. The operation aims to shape the views not of humans, but of the AI chatbots that people increasingly turn to for ‘corroborating’ information.

Drop Site reported on 28 July:

The key intended audience of these sites is not concerned Americans, it’s not even humans—most of the sites average a few hundred unique visitors each month.

Instead, Parscale and his firm, Clock Tower X, created them as part of a $46.5 million contract with the Israeli government to try and influence artificial intelligence-powered chatbots, tools like Claude or ChatGPT.

Advertisement

The process is known as Large Language Model (LLM) Poisoning. Drop Site reported:

In his initial agreement with Israel, Parscale said that he would deploy “websites and content to deliver GPT framing results on GPT conversations” as part of the contract.

Adding:

More recently, his team even told Axios they are “seeing success” at getting popular AI systems to incorporate information from their sites, though they declined to provide data.

Even more chillingly, the outlet said, the multi-million dollar scam “is working”.

Disinformation experts reviewed:

a Drop Site analysis of chatbot queries and training data.

They found:

tens of millions of Americans who use chatbots are increasingly likely to receive answers manipulated by Parscale on behalf of the Israeli government.

Drop Site asked Parscale-run search engines about things like whether US backing of Israel benefited America. The answer was invariably yes.

The outlet said:

All of Parscale’s websites contain a statement at the bottom which states “this material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel.” This statement is a mandatory disclosure requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The US-based website added:

Despite this, when Drop Site asked prominent chatbots about the latest news from Paxpoint.org, Perplexity and Copilot did not flag that the site was created as part of an Israeli influence operation. Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini did flag the caveat.

Disinformation expert Alice Lee told Drop Site the Israeli networks compared to Russian disinformation in interesting ways:

While Russia’s Pravda network overall is far larger, Parscale’s sites have a far higher rate of successfully being archived.

As the Canary reported on January:

half of all political accounts linked to Israel social media are bots. This includes many of the accounts boosting posts by Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his terrorist government.

Parscale is also linked to a firm which will be familiar to UK readers. Drop Site said:

Parscale, who gained national attention as Trump’s campaign manager for hiring the controversial microtargetting firm Cambridge Analytica, is the largest recipient of Israel’s massive influence investment.

Cambridge Analytica was the US and UK dark money-backed influence operation which shaped narratives around, for example, the 2016 Brexit referendum.

There was a time when Trump and his allies endlessly talked about ‘fake news’. To some degree they still do. But the truth is they are some of the most venomous purveyors of garbage information around, as well as major beneficiaries of the fact-free ‘mirror world’ they’ve created.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

US diplomats staged a walkout of a UN meeting over French dignitaries’ criticisms of the Trump administration’s human rights record.

Which is, you know, completely accurate considering the kidnap of president Maduro, strikes against civilian vessels, and unlawful imprisonment (and murder) under ICE, to name but a few.

‘Forced labour’ tariffs

The ridiculous walkout stunt, which took place during a security council meeting on 27 July, was part of an ongoing feud between the two countries’ delegations.

Several days beforehand, on 23 July, the Trump administration announced massive tariffs on more than 80 countries. In effect, these reinstated the previous tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court.

Seemingly in place of a rationale, US trade representative Jamieson Greer accused the countries, including the UK and the whole EU, of using forced labour. Greer praised US efforts in policing its forced-labour ban, and stated that:

It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.

International Twitter beef

The very next day, the Trump administration set its sights on the UN’s human rights record. In particular, the US criticised the reinstatement of human rights chief Volker Türk for a second term.

.@AmbUNReform: The UN human rights system has been losing credibility for decades.

Volker Türk led it to its deathbed.

Advertisement

Today’s vote kicked the bucket. pic.twitter.com/9yBB516mAp

— U.S. Mission to the UN (@USUN) July 24, 2026

Of course, the US delegation’s dislike for Türk is unsurprising — he’s been a vocal critic of America’s recent human rights record. This included a March statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

We have enjoyed bipartisan support from the U.S. on human rights over many decades … I am now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally.

Policies intended to protect people from discrimination are now labelled as discriminatory…Divisive rhetoric is being used to distort, deceive and polarize. This is generating fear and anxiety among many,

The UN’s legitimacy deficit

In response to the US criticism of the UN’s rights record and its chief, the French Geneva Mission took to social media. On 25 July, it posted:

The US used to be a beacon of human rights. Not anymore. Today, it stands alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia, isolated. And the world no longer listens to it.#AmericaAlone https://t.co/GLNMsYEH9n pic.twitter.com/UTVvljTMeO

— France ONU Genève (@FranceONUGeneve) July 25, 2026

That reference to “North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia” named four of the nine countries which joined the US in voting against Türk’s re-appointment. Meanwhile, 144 countries voted in favour, with 13 abstentions.

Continuing the Twitter feud, Mike Waltz — the US ambassador to the UN — posted:

It is disappointing – though not surprising – that this is how France deflects on its shameful vote to coddle some of the worst human rights abusers.

France voted for someone who has been lecturing, free, sovereign democracies like the United States, the UK, and Israel, while… https://t.co/m6zxE95d5l

— Ambassador Mike Waltz (@USAmbUN) July 26, 2026

Advertisement

Professionalism? Never heard of her

Then, during Monday’s security council meeting, ostensibly to discuss Russia’s war on Ukraine, the US wasted time by choosing to criticise France in person. US deputy ambassador Dan Negrea called his country a “beacon of liberty for the world”, adding:

As such, we will not be affording them the benefit of listening to their politicized drivel until they renounce their condescending and disrespectful rhetoric and behave in a manner commensurate with their seat on this council.

Because bringing your Twitter beef to an unrelated UN meeting and then storming out just screams ‘fitting behaviour for a security council seat’.

But then, that really is typical of the Trump administration all over, isn’t it? These overgrown children have become used to being able to bribe, bully and threaten anyone in the US so that they get their own way.

Then, as soon as they’re confronted with a modicum of pushback outside of their safe American bubble, they simply have no comeback but to splutter and bolt for the exit.

This entire debacle would almost be laughable, were it not that these same pampered, snivelling wastes of space control one of the most powerful militaries on Earth.

Featured image via the Canary 

By Grace

Source link

Source link

The North Yorkshire and South Durham Cricket League has been pushed into the spotlight. This happened after a Division Two match between Saltburn Cricket Club and Norton Cricket Club produced one of the strangest amateur cricket controversies of the summer.

A fielder is accused of clicking his fingers at slip to mimic the sound of an edge, allegedly influencing umpires into giving batters out. The incident, captured on video and shared widely across social media, has triggered a formal investigation. It has also raised questions about conduct, gamesmanship and the boundaries of fair play at grassroots level.

The clip, filmed during Saturday’s fixture, shows a Saltburn fielder positioned at slip as the ball passes the bat. As it travels through to the wicketkeeper, the fielder appears to click his fingers at the exact moment the ball goes by.

Saltburn’s wicket keeper then completes a routine catch behind the stumps. The team appeals, and the umpire gives the batter out. Within days, the footage had gone viral, approaching five million views by Tuesday lunchtime and drawing global attention to a league more accustomed to quiet weekends and local rivalries.

Cricket league responds

The North Yorkshire and South Durham Cricket League confirmed it had received a formal complaint regarding the alleged incidents. In a short statement, the league said a full investigation had been initiated. Furthermore, no further comment would be made until the process was complete.

It is standard protocol for the league to withhold detailed comment during active investigations, but the speed of the response reflects the seriousness with which the matter is being treated.

Saltburn Cricket Club has been contacted for comment by Sky Sports News. As of the time of publication, no public statement has been issued by the club. The league’s involvement means the matter will now move through established disciplinary channels. This will include evidence review, witness statements and potential hearings if required.

Saltburn’s season in context

Saltburn currently sit top of the Division Two table, having won 10 of their 15 matches. Their wicketkeeper has been a standout performer, leading the league in fielding dismissals with 34—31 of those catches behind the stumps. Earlier in July, he took eight catches in a 22‑run win over Shildon Railway Cricket Club. This performance underlined his importance to Saltburn’s campaign.

The team’s strong season adds another layer to the controversy. Success often brings scrutiny, and the viral clip has prompted questions about whether the alleged finger‑clicking was an isolated moment or part of a pattern. The league’s investigation will aim to establish exactly that.

Allegations of previous incidents

After the video gained traction online, Middlesbrough second XI captain Rory Cotterill alleged that similar incidents occurred during his side’s match against Saltburn in June. Cotterill’s comments, made publicly after the clip surfaced, suggest that concerns about the behaviour may have existed before the viral moment. His claims are now part of the wider conversation surrounding the investigation, though they remain allegations until formally assessed by the league.

The suggestion of multiple incidents increases the significance of the inquiry. If the league determines that finger‑clicking was used deliberately to imitate edges, it would represent a clear breach of the spirit of cricket. It could also breach the laws of the game. The investigation will need to determine intent, frequency and impact.

How the clip spread

The video’s rapid spread across social media reflects the modern reality of amateur sport — every match, every moment, every appeal can be captured, shared and scrutinised. What might once have been a minor dispute between teams has become a global talking point. The clip’s near‑five‑million views by Tuesday lunchtime show how quickly unusual sporting moments can gain traction. This is especially true when they involve questions of fairness.

The footage itself is brief but striking. The timing of the finger-clicking appears deliberate, though only the investigation can determine intent. The wicketkeeper’s catch is clean, the appeal is immediate, and the umpire’s decision is swift. Without audio clarity, the clip relies on visual cues, but those cues have been enough to prompt widespread debate.

Implications for grassroots cricket

Grassroots cricket relies heavily on trust, sportsmanship and respect for the game’s traditions. Umpires at amateur level often operate without technology, without neutral appointments and without the support systems seen in professional cricket. They depend on honesty from players and clarity of sound and sight. Any attempt to manipulate those senses undermines the foundation of the sport.

The alleged finger‑clicking raises questions about how leagues can protect umpires and ensure fair play. While professional cricket has DRS, ball‑tracking and ultra‑edge, amateur cricket has none of those tools. It relies on players acting in good faith. If the investigation confirms wrongdoing, leagues may need to consider guidance or sanctions to deter similar behaviour.

Saltburn’s position

Saltburn’s league‑leading form means the investigation arrives at a delicate moment. The club has enjoyed a strong season, built on consistent performances and standout contributions from key players. The wicketkeeper’s exceptional catching record is a major part of that success. The club’s silence so far is understandable given the ongoing process, but the eventual findings could have implications for both individuals and the team.

The league’s statement emphasised that no further comment would be made until the investigation is complete. That suggests a thorough review is underway, likely involving video analysis, match reports and interviews with umpires and players from both teams.

What happens next

The investigation will determine whether disciplinary action is required. Possible outcomes range from no action to warnings, suspensions or points deductions, depending on the findings. The league has dealt with disciplinary matters before, but the viral nature of this incident means the spotlight is brighter than usual.

For now, the focus remains on establishing facts. The clip has sparked debate, but only the league’s formal process can deliver conclusions. Until then, speculation remains just that.

A small gesture, captured on a phone and shared online, has become a national talking point and triggered a formal investigation. Saltburn’s strong season, the wicketkeeper’s impressive record and the allegations of previous incidents all add layers to a story that will continue to unfold.

Grassroots cricket thrives on trust. The league’s investigation aims to protect that trust and ensure the game is played in the right spirit. Whatever the outcome, the incident has highlighted the importance of integrity at every level of the sport.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

Andy Burnham is planning to finally implement the much-needed National Care Service (NCS). While it’s undeniable that we need this service, the question is what the NCS will be: a privatised mess like the NHS of today or a nationalised treasure like the NHS of the past?

With the finer details yet to be decided, now is the time for people to make their opinions known.

Andy Burnham has promised to bring in a new system of social care. But the government needs to address the desperately important issue of who owns and runs it.

Privatisation has been a failed — we’re paying more for worse care while private equity sharks walk away with huge… pic.twitter.com/FRY6naDOM9

Advertisement

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 28, 2026

Burnham is keeping his promise so far

The Morning Star is among those calling for a fully nationalised care service, noting:

ANDY BURNHAM was urged today to prove to keep his vow to abandon 40 years of neoliberalism by legislating for a national care service before the end of this parliament.

Those calling for a fully public NCS also include Labour MP Clive Lewis, who said:

The extractive state vs the productive state:

The real litmus test for any essential public service is simple: who owns it?

Social care reform that ducks this question will repeat the mistakes of privatised water, haemorrhaging billions into management consultants, shareholder returns and financial extraction instead of frontline care.

The same story is playing out in children’s services. In just two years, care costs have risen by 37% to £3.7 billion. Private equity now dominates much of the sector. Firms buy up children’s homes, strip out costs, drive up prices and extract ever greater profits, while too many children’s needs go unmet.

That is the difference between an extractive state and a productive one. One channels public money into financial returns for the 1%. The other invests it in the 99% the service exists to support.

Advertisement

The New Economic Foundation has commented on the issues with private companies:

Rather than being used to improve services, this money is extracted.

We found that private care companies in three English regions had taken more than £250m in profits in just three years. Company directors earn 60 times more than the average wage. 2/3https://t.co/xqBLUvJ8GW

— NEF (@NEF) July 29, 2026

Advertisement

The Green Party is pushing for the full nationalisation of vital utilities and services, but Burnham has frozen them out of the cross-party discussions on care.

"Given our consistent engagement on the adult social care crisis and willingness to work together to solve it, it's deeply disappointing that the Greens weren't invited to today's cross-party talks.

We need all hands on deck to tackle this issue – the Greens remain ready to work… pic.twitter.com/5yICMR6whz

Advertisement

— The Green Party (@TheGreenParty) July 29, 2026

The privatisation nightmare

Covering the problems that have arisen from NHS privatisation, We Own It has noted the following:

"The GP records of more than half the country sit on a system controlled by a firm whose business model is returns for investors, not care for patients, and the public found out after the fact."

And you thought Palantir's involvement in our healthcare was pretty dodgy…… pic.twitter.com/Rcg7O46nYx

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 27, 2026

The new US-UK pharma deal could lead to 229,000 preventable deaths.

How? It will divert £45 billion from patient care to pharma corporation profits.

Can you help keep the pressure on Andy Burnham to rip it up?

Sign the petition: https://t.co/hIihU2FFwH pic.twitter.com/hHrn3rgUV7

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 16, 2026

Advertisement

We Own It has also spoken out about Burnham’s stance on nationalisation:

The man set to be our next Prime Minister has gone on record as saying he wants to bring key utilities like energy and water into ‘public control’. But Andy Burnham hasn’t yet clarified what he’s proposing.

It’s certainly true that he hasn’t clarified what he has planned, but it seems almost certain it won’t be full re-nationalisation. Here’s what he said in June (emphasis added):

On utilities, we will ensure all parts of the UK are able to take greater public control of essential services like water, housing, energy and transport, learning from the model that has transformed our bus networks here in Greater Manchester.

The eagle-eyed among you will have spotted that ‘greater’ public control is not the same as ‘full’ public control; it’s privatisation with more oversight. As privatisation and regulatory oversight have repeatedly failed, we’re not optimistic that more of the thing which doesn’t work will solve anything.

Useless Burnham has sacked off renationalisation

We Own It continued:

Here’s the truth about public control that not enough people know about:

1) Public control is not public ownership. When it comes to water and energy, the ’public control’ that Burnham is promising already exists. It’s another word for regulation which has been failing households since water was privatised in 1989.

Advertisement

2) Privatisation is a waste of your money. Burnham can afford to deliver public ownership. How? He can force the companies – water, energy, Royal Mail – to deliver massive investment out of their own pockets or go bust. When they fail there is legislation he can use – the special administration regime – to protect the public interest and take them back without compensating shareholders. The truth is that bringing public services and assets into public ownership will save money and deliver a better deal.

Nationalisation is also massively popular with the public, as a YouGov poll showed.

‘Real control’

We Own It concluded:

Why should your household be a revenue stream for shareholders around the world? Andy Burnham’s popularity won’t last long unless he’s crystal clear that he will end the scam and deliver permanent public ownership for all our key public services and assets, including the NHS and care as well as our key utilities and infrastructure.

We deserve to own our public assets whether at the local, regional or national level, because owning is better than renting; ownership is the only way to get real control of our essential services.

Advertisement

Andy Burnham must pick a side and he can’t bring down your bills and improve your services unless he does.

The National Care Service is badly needed, sure, but so is full ownership of our sovereign assets. If Andy Burnham founds the NCS and it turns out to be yet another extractive nightmare, people won’t remember him as fondly as he hopes they will. And that’s the choice he has: becoming the new Clement Attlee or the new Margaret Thatcher.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Campaigners from Fossil Free London dressed as firefighters during a protest outside Shell HQ on 29 July. Meanwhile others poured a black liquid resembling oil over their heads.

Behind them placards read: “Shell Fuels Wildfires,” “Oil Fuels Wildfires,” and “Stop Pouring Oil on the Flames”.

The protest comes as Shell is announcing its quarterly profits on Thursday 30 July.

Meanwhile, more than 300,000 people have been forced to leave their homes as wildfires rage across Spain and France. Record-breaking heatwaves across Europe this summer are fuelling the fires.

A recent study found that the climate crisis enabled 55 out of the 213 global heatwaves that would have otherwise been impossible to occur between 2000 and 2023. Fossil fuels made all of these more likely and more intense.

They also found that just pollution from Shell alone made almost a quarter of these heatwaves 10,000 times more likely, and 51 of these heatwaves possible.

Robin Wells, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:

Fire needs fuel. And as we witness fires rage across Scotland, France and Spain, we all know those red and yellow flames are turbocharged by Shell’s oil.

For decades Shell covered up the science and continued to drill for the oil that makes wildfires more intense, last longer, and burn further. However the first ember hit the undergrowth in each place, it is Shell, and corporations like it, who set the tinder in place.

Advertisement

And as we witness one of the biggest evacuation efforts on the continent since World War Two, the heavy weight in our heart is the knowledge there’s so much more to come.

Stop pouring Shell’s oil onto this house, torn down by fire. People need to stop the harm and rebuild.

Andy Burnham and Miatta Fahnbulleh [Energy Security and Net Zero secretary] need to make clear now that protecting people from wildfires, drought, crop failures and heatwaves means stopping new oil. It means they must stop Rosebank.

Featured image via Fossil Free London

By The Canary

Source link

Another politician linked to Reform UK has become embroiled in a financial scandal. The MP had already self-suspended, though, so that should at least save Reform some time if things don’t go in his favour:

EXCL by @GeorgeGreenwood

Suspended Reform MP was blocked from winding up two companies — as they failed to repay *still* unexplained taxpayer-backed Covid loans.

James McMurdock has lashed out at scrutiny since Sunday Times posed Qs, but never explained pandemic debts.

Advertisement

— Gabriel Pogrund (@Gabriel_Pogrund) July 28, 2026

Reform Covid loans

James McMurdock suspended himself in 2025 after questions emerged about the Covid loans. Now, the Times have revealed that the Department for Business and Trade blocked McMurdock from winding up the two companies linked to Covid loans. As they reported:

The “dissolution objections process” was introduced by the business department to reduce losses from misuse of bounceback loans by preventing borrowers from avoiding repayments by striking off their companies with outstanding debts.

Giving you an idea of why this was possible, a Covid counter fraud commissioner report from 2025 found:

around 70,000 businesses with outstanding Covid-19 loans placed in the dissolution objections process, many of whom would have committed fraud, possibly worth £0.9 billion, have since either repaid their loans or withdrawn their applications to dissolve

In this case, the Department for Business and Trade has confirmed that the issue was McMurdock not paying back his bounceback loans. In other words, if the department hadn’t blocked the winding up processes, McMurdock may have gotten away with not repaying the loan.

McMurdock responded to the Times with the following statement:

It is now a matter of public record that my businesses have been closed. I owe nothing. Not a penny. Not a bean. All former statements made by me relating to this matter remain true and correct. I would like to thank The Times and all other parties for giving me the opportunity to be vindicated… again.

This is far from the only financial scandal Reform is linked to anyway, with others including:

• Multiple investigations into a £5m ‘gift’ Farage received from a crypto billionaire.
• Accusations Farage is shilling for crypto on behalf of his donors.
• Questions over three houses Farage seemingly failed to declare.
• Failure to declare financial support from convicted fraudster Posh George in the run-up to the 2024 election.

McMurdock

The Covid bounceback loans aren’t the only scandal that McMurdock is linked to either, with the Times reporting:

The MP, who narrowly won his seat in 2024, came to national prominence when it emerged he had been convicted of assaulting his ex-girlfriend in 2006.

He had not publicly disclosed the conviction before he was elected, and played down the attack as a “teenage indiscretion” when details emerged in the weeks after the election.

Advertisement

In the same article, the Times suggest that McMurdock becoming an MP shows a problem with Reform’s vetting. As we’ve suggested elsewhere, however, we’re not sure that Reform’s vetting process is ‘failing’; it actually just seems like the party is willing to ignore certain things.

Reform candidate suggests ‘melting Nigerians’ to fill potholes

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Donald Trump has suffered a huge and potentially crippling legal blow in his lawsuit against the BBC.

A US court has ordered Trump’s ‘revocable trust’, through which he owns most of his properties and businesses, to hand over more than three-and-a-half years’ of documents, including financial information.

The US president has only 10 days to comply.

Trump’s hubris has backfired

Commentators warned Trump, when he launched the lawsuit, that his attempt to sue the BBC for billions was likely not just to fail but to be colossally embarrassing. The BBC apologised for editing a Trump speech connected to the 6 January riots in Washington DC, but Trump wants cash.

Few would dare contend that the edit materially misrepresented Trump’s links to and incitement of the rioters. This made a legal victory for Trump unlikely. However, it meant that the BBC could demand full disclosure of Trump’s financial affairs for assessment of his claim to have suffered $10 billion in financial losses.

Unsurprisingly, Trump wasn’t listening. Having f*cked around, he’s now found out after the judge rejected his lawyers’ attempt to replace disclosure with bought ‘expert testimony’. The likely result was summed up neatly by one social media commenter on Threads:

View on Threads

However, just as with the US’ disastrous war on Iran for Israel, Trump’s pride is unlikely to allow him to admit defeat unless he can find an ‘off-ramp’ to salvage some of what passes for his ‘dignity’.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A major row has erupted between football’s governing bodies after FIFA confirmed plans to seek private investment in commercial rights linked to the world cup. UEFA reacted sharply, accusing FIFA of crossing a line and warning that European nations are prepared to discuss a potential boycott if Gianni Infantino pushes ahead.

FIFA announced on Tuesday that it intends to launch FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), a new commercial company that would combine the sale of FIFA’s commercial rights. This includes broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing. All in line with the operational delivery of its tournaments. Under the proposal, FIFA aims to raise up to $4.2bn from external investors through minority, non‑controlling stakes in FFE, valuing the entity at around $20bn.

The governing body says the structure could generate more than $10bn in football development funding over the next four years. but UEFA issued a statement saying the plan “crossed a line”, arguing that the “soul and governance of football are not assets to trade”.

FIFA face threat of boycott

UEFA nations are expected to hold an emergency virtual meeting this week. It looks as though there is a willingness among some European associations to use the threat of a boycott if Infantino continues with the proposal.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham criticised the proposal, saying on x that football “does not belong to investors” and belongs to supporters who fill stadiums and stand on touchlines “week in, week out, rain or shine”.

Relations between FIFA and UEFA were already under pressure. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin did not attend the World Cup final in protest at FIFA’s handling of governance issues, including the Folarin Balogun case. The emergence of the investment plan, without discussion during meetings with football associations in New York on the eve of the World Cup final, intensified European frustration.

UEFA said the proposal lacked transparency and warned that stakeholders, including leagues, clubs, players, supporters and governments should take the matter seriously. the organisation reiterated that “none of us are the owners of football” and insisted it is not FIFA’s to sell.

European concerns

UEFA’s statement emphasised that governance and the soul of football should not be traded, particularly without transparency over who would benefit financially. European associations fear that private investment could influence decision‑making, even if FIFA insists control would remain entirely with the governing body.

The manner in which the proposal surfaced, without prior discussion in New York has contributed to European frustration. UEFA argues that major structural changes should be openly debated among stakeholders rather than introduced through media reports.

FIFA says the proposed structure would allow the commercial side of the game to operate more efficiently, with dedicated focus on revenue generation and distribution. the organisation believes this could support long‑term development, particularly in regions with fewer resources.

FFE would consolidate commercial rights and operational delivery, creating a single entity responsible for major revenue streams. FIFA argues that minority stakes would not compromise governance, as investors would have no control over sporting decisions.

What happens next

FIFA will present the proposal to member associations and the FIFA council. European nations will hold emergency talks, and the possibility of a boycott remains part of the discussion. the outcome will depend on whether FIFA adjusts the proposal and whether member associations believe the structure protects governance and transparency.

The row highlights ongoing tension between FIFA and UEFA and raises questions about how global football should be governed in an era of increased corruption, the fans need to stand up to the evil that is Gianni Infantino and FIFA.

Featured image via Al Jazeera

By Faz Ali

Source link

FIFA’s announcement of its new project was not merely a passing commercial move. Within days, it had become one of the most controversial issues in the history of the game.

Whilst FIFA insists the project aims to increase financial resources and expand support for national associations, European stakeholders believe it paves the way for investors to be brought into the heart of the management of football’s most important tournaments, foremost among them the World Cup.

The crisis has escalated rapidly, with European federations threatening to boycott the World Cup as a means of pressure.

Meanwhile, UEFA is preparing to examine legal and political options to counter the project. The dispute threatens to redraw the balance of power within football.

FIFA considers an unprecedented investment project

The project involves the creation of a new commercial company, FIFA Forward Enterprise, which will manage the commercial rights to FIFA’s tournaments, including the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup.

According to details revealed by the Times, FIFA is seeking to sell minority stakes in the company to private sector investors in exchange for raising around $4.2 billion, with the company’s valuation set to reach around $20 billion.

FIFA would retain full majority ownership to ensure it retains control over all sporting and organisational decisions.

The newspaper also noted that the project could pave the way for FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, to take up an executive role in the new company after his term ends, a prospect that has sparked further controversy. FIFA has denied that any decision has been made on this.

‘We are not selling the World Cup’

FIFA has rejected the project being described as it ‘selling the World Cup’ or the privatisation of football, with the main aim being to boost finances so they can be reinvested into developing the game.

It also aims to raise the value of the FIFA Forward programme to more than $10 billion over the coming years.

Investors will have no authority over tournaments, regulations or the international calendar, FIFA has emphasised. Their role will be limited to holding minority stakes in the commercial company.

Europe responds and a boycott is on the table

On the other hand, the proposal has been met with widespread European opposition. The Telegraph revealed that a number of European federations are preparing to hold an emergency meeting to discuss options for escalation, including boycotting the World Cup should FIFA proceed.

UEFA is also considering taking legal action against the proposal, amid anger across the continent over the failure to involve many national associations in discussions before the plan was announced.

The newspaper quoted sources involved in the consultations as having described the proposal as “a nuclear bomb in the world of football”, whilst other officials stressed the need to act swiftly to prevent its adoption before it becomes a fait accompli.

UEFA fears that the entry of investors will lead to constant pressure to increase the number of tournaments or expand them to generate greater financial returns. This could threaten the balance of the international calendar and affect domestic and continental competitions.

A battle that goes beyond money

Despite FIFA’s assurances that the project will keep sporting decisions in the hands of the world governing body, its critics argue that investors will not pour in billions of dollars without seeking the highest possible return, which could affect the format, dates and venues of tournaments in the future.

Analysis by the Guardian suggests that European concerns are not so much about the sale of shares in a commercial company as they are about a shift in the philosophy of football governance.

Many fear that investment considerations will become the main driver of decision-making, including the expansion of the World Cup, an increase in the number of tournament editions, and a focus on the most profitable markets at the expense of sporting considerations.

Observers believe that the current crisis is similar in scale to the upheaval caused by the European Super League project in 2021, but it may have a greater impact, as it affects the very institution that governs world football.

Crucial weeks ahead

The proposal still requires the approval of a majority of FIFA’s national member associations, making the coming weeks crucial in determining its future.

Meanwhile, the sporting world is watching to see what the European response will be, and whether it will be limited to legal and political objections, or whether it will escalate to more drastic measures.

The confrontation that could shape the governance of world football for decades to come.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link