It took FIFA only hours to condemn Russia in 2022 and just four days to impose a ban on its teams. But it would be foolish, given their rampant hypocrisy, to expect any such thing after the US and Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran. 

Iran reconsider FIFA tournament participation

Iran’s participation in the 2026 World Cup remains uncertain, according to statements by the head of the Iranian Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, who confirmed in statements to Iranian television that the escalating military tensions make participation “unlikely,” and that the final decision rests with the country’s sports leadership.

Taj said:

It’s not possible to say exactly, but there will certainly be a response. This will surely be studied by the country’s high-ranking sports officials and there will be a decision on what’s going to happen.

But what we can say now is that due to this attack and its viciousness, it is far from our expectations that we can look at the World Cup with hope.

Advertisement

In a move that increases the uncertainty, the Iranian Football Federation announced the suspension of all domestic sporting activities until further notice, leaving open the possibility that the national team will not be sent to the World Cup.

The draw placed Iran in Group G, alongside Belgium, Egypt, and New Zealand. The matches will be held in the United States.

FIFA regulations stipulate that if Iran withdraws, the team can be replaced by another, most likely Iraq or the UAE, to ensure the tournament is completed with a balanced schedule.

FIFA’s Stance and official reactions

Despite the unfolding situation, FIFA has not issued any official condemnation of the attacks or taken a clear political stance. The FIFA Council Secretary General stated that the federation is monitoring events “closely,” emphasizing that the primary objective is to organize a safe tournament for all teams.

This delay in condemnation has drawn criticism from sports observers and analysts, particularly in comparison to FIFA’s swift response in 2022 when it imposed sanctions on Russia just days after the invasion of Ukraine.

The Iranian crisis extends beyond the realm of sports, encompassing global political and security implications.

Tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel are casting a shadow over all aspects of sporting activity. While the United Nations and international organizations have expressed concern about the escalating violence and called for peace, there has been no direct pressure on FIFA to impose sporting sanctions, unlike in previous cases.

No guesses needed as to why.

Featured image via the Canary

Amid the ongoing military conflict in Iran, Spanish-Moroccan player Munir El Haddadi found himself in an unusual situation. His flight to Tehran was canceled due to the closure of Iranian airspace following unprovoked attacks from the US and Israel.

El Haddadi, who plays for Esteghlal FC, was on a plane preparing to return to Spain when passengers were ordered to disembark immediately due to an emergency security situation. This forced him to quickly find an alternative way to leave amidst the chaos at the airport.

El Haddadi managed to secure a land route, embarking on a journey of approximately 16 hours towards the Turkish border. He arrived safely and is now awaiting the completion of procedures for his return to Spain, according to the newspaper Marca.

El Haddadi’s land travel was part of a broader effort by Spanish professionals in Iran to leave the country following recommendations from authorities in Madrid to do so as the conflict escalated.

This situation raises renewed questions about the potential impact on player contracts and their professional stability, particularly in leagues that rely on foreign investment and foreign professionals.

The war has also led to the postponement of sporting activities in some neighboring countries, in addition to the potential impact and absence of the Iranian national team from the 2026 World Cup due to its being held in the United States.

Featured image via the Canary

Parliamentary staff are outraged by MPs receiving a larger pay increase than them for the next financial year (Alamy)

3 min read48 min

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on Monday that MPs’ basic salary will rise by 5 per cent to £98,599 a year from April, while also aiming to move towards a salary of around £110,000 by the end of the Parliament, due in 2029. The MPs’ pay decision for 2026-27 includes a 1.5 per cent benchmarking adjustment, as well as a 3.5 per cent cost-of-living increase.

IPSA chairman Richard Lloyd said the role of an MP had “evolved”, with parliamentarians “dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation”.

However, MPs’ staff are only being offered an ‘optional’ 3.5 per cent pay increase, despite months of lobbying by the trade union and some MPs for a substantial rise in staffing budgets due to low pay and unsustainable workloads.

One parliamentary staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely, called IPSA “a bunch of useless bean-counting morons”.

“I can’t tell you the level of fury among MPs’ staff about this announcement from IPSA,” they said.

They called the decision to raise MPs’ salaries to nearly £100k to include a “cost of living” increase “mind-blowingly tone deaf”.

“It’s staggeringly incompetent and makes MPs’ and their staff’s lives harder. In a nutshell, IPSA treats MPs’ staff with total contempt. Not just on this issue, the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.”

PoliticsHome understands that some parliamentary staff were on a call with IPSA to discuss the pay increase last week, with some in attendance feeling that concerns about workload were met with a dismissive response.

MPs also have the authority to block their staff from receiving the pay rise. PoliticsHome understands some parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, signed to prevent their staff from getting pay uplifts last year.

Lisa Gillmore, GMB MPs’ and peers’ staff branch president and senior parliamentary researcher, said: “The GMB MPs’ and Peers’ Staff Branch wants to see a fair pay deal for everyone working in Parliament, but struggle to understand why IPSA think the cost of living is 1.5 per cent lower for caseworkers, researchers and office managers than it is for MPs.

“Staff handle the complex casework and safeguarding issues, and face escalating abuse. Many of those same staff are earning just above the minimum wage.

“MPs’ staff have experienced a pay cut of 14.6 per cent since 2019 based on RPI, while workloads have increased significantly, leading to long hours, stress, and burnout. 58 per cent of our members feel that their salary does not reflect their responsibilities and workload. If rising living costs justify a 5 per cent increase for MPs, IPSA must explain why this does not extend to staff.”

Another parliamentary staffer said: “The most offensive thing about the 5 per cent rise for MPs is that their justification – rising casework, increasing abuse, new demands on time – are all borne first and foremost by staff. 

“We’re the ones who pick up the phone, or read the emails, or go through the social media feeds reading bile and looking for death threats. We’re the ones who, despite a significant increase in casework and demands on time, have to make do with the same budgets and staff numbers.”

Parliamentary staff have pointed out that their pay consistently lags behind the civil service, despite fewer opportunities for growth and promotion. For many junior staff working in Westminster, they now earn barely more than the living wage.

IPSA has been contacted for comment.

US President Donald Trump’s war on Iran is illegal. That’s the view of former senior US military officials. And Keir Starmer and other allies need to adjust their involvement accordingly.

Former air force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham served as chief of international law at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). She told the Intercept on 1 March:

Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

Here’s some of the key legal context:

The United Nations Charter generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. The Constitution separately gives Congress the power to authorize offensive war.

Clearly Trump and Israel hit first on 28 February. There was no imminent threat. In fact, negotiations with Iran had made unprecedented advances in the hours before the attack.

The Intercept reported:

The War Powers Resolution also requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits how long those forces can operate without congressional approval.

VanLandingham said:

This is an introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities. It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement.

The US – and now, the UK – are at war with no democratic debate or approval having been established. The fact four US military personnel were killed in Kuwait adds more urgency to the issue:

The fact American service members died in the operation raises further legal concerns, she said, as Congress is intended to decide when American lives are placed at risk in offensive wars.

Trump and unauthorised use of force on Iran

Even Democrats – who haven’t resisted the war, but rather asked to have oversight – have been calling for a vote:

Rep. Becca Balint told the outlet:

Speaker [Mike] Johnson must immediately reconvene the House so we can pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in this unauthorized use of our military and taxpayer dollars.

Retired Air Force special operations member Wes Bryant also spoke to the Intercept. He also served as:

chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.

Bryant warned:

To say there’s no risk to U.S. troops … I wouldn’t call it naive. I’d call it a pure lie.

He was concerned about ‘mission creep’ as the war escalated:

Bryant said the scope of the strikes suggested major combat operations that could quickly tip toward large-scale conflict in a densely populated country, with predictable risks to both U.S. troops and civilians.

Adding:

I’m surprised it’s only been three deaths. It will be more if this continues and we lose the initial shock value.

Former US Marine and State Department official Matt Hoh told the Intercept:

If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces. Iranian missiles and drones were able to breach U.S. defenses very early in the conflict.

But what role is domestic ambition playing in Trump’s drive to war?

Domestic politics drives Trump

After the strikes began Trump repeated an old conspiracy theory that Iran had interfered with the 2020 election results. VanLandingham said this was important. Trump’s attack is partly driven by domestic politics and an urge for revenge.

What’s chilling is that he’s tying this attack against another country to domestic politics as a way to further consolidate power over his base and potentially link the use of force to domestic use of force this fall.

She added:

It’s mind-boggling. But when you look at it, it makes rational sense for him to say, ‘I’m doing this because I’m taking out everyone who stood in my way in 2020″.

VanLandingham said:

He is linking it to his own domestic grievances because he is laying the groundwork, I strongly believe, to use the U.S. military improperly.

The Pentagon has confirmed that Iran had no intention of launching strikes prior to the US-Israel bombardment.

The US seems determined to keep bombing for now. And Trump seems determined to use the opportunity to shore up his power at home. The fact that his ambitions have already cost hundreds of lives in Iran, across the region and among his own citizens is unlikely to slow him down.

Featured image via the Canary

Hollywood is still hell-bent on attacking a man with Tourette’s. Most disgusting of all was Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) sketch in which celebrities who’ve been accused of various harmful actions ‘jokingly’ blamed their actions on Tourette’s.

Last week was absolutely horrific to witness as a disabled person. In the aftermath of the BBC airing a man with Tourette’s shouting the N word at two black actors, disabled people, and particularly people with Tourette’s, faced off-the-scale hatred.

SNL airs fucking disgusting sketch

Don’t get me wrong, Black people had every right to be hurt and upset about what happened, even though many attacked them for being hurt. And, disabled people were shot down when it came to correcting misinformation. Social media, the papers and TV were full of people essentially saying that people with Tourette’s should not be allowed in public.

Seeing that was bad enough, but then Saturday Night Live aired a fucking horrific sketch.

brought to you by the national workforce of rethinking disabilities pic.twitter.com/F5Fj1wpPhJ

— Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl) March 1, 2026

In the skit, celebrities who are seen as ‘controversial’ speak to the camera in a personal service announcement style. They tell the audience that actually their horrific behaviour isn’t their fault. In the scenario they realised, thanks to the BAFTA incident, that they have Tourette’s.

Firstly, we see a comedian playing Mel Gibson excusing his own behaviour with Tourette’s. Just to remind everyone, Gibson previously said that Jews rule the world and told his ex-girlfriend she should be raped by Black men. This attempts to place intentional racism as somehow comparable to something involuntary i.e. Tourette’s tics. Thus, the ‘joke’ suggests says that John Davidson was intentionally racist.

But it gets worse.

The sketch also features several known abusers, excusing their actions with Tourette’s. Louis CK blaming exposing himself to women on Tourette’s; Armie Hammer excusing mentally and physically abusing women via Tourette’s; Bill Cosby saying he drugged and raped multiple women because he has Tourette’s.

The message is clear: we don’t believe you

By ‘excusing’ intentional abuse, harm, and other heinous actions via Tourette’s, it’s portraying the condition itself as an excuse. As last week has brought to the fore, Tourette’s is not intentional, and people with the condition are often deeply distressed by their tics.

The message to people with Tourette’s is clear: we don’t believe you and think you’re weaponising your disability

But it also sends a clear message to all disabled people who’ve been trying to raise awareness of a deeply misunderstood condition.

It’s bad enough to see a disabled man mocked by the biggest comedy show in the world. But to then have his disability used to excuse some of the most horrific celebrities who have committed the very worst crimes is inexcusable. SNL knew exactly what they were doing. They took a scenario that sparked widespread anti-Blackness and ableism, and made a further mockery of people with Tourette’s.

The video is the very definition of punching down.

Featured image via X