cards

Premier League referees will change the way they judge hair pulling next season after three players were sent off for the offence in 2025-26.

Officials will also be asked to place a greater emphasis on grappling and holding inside the area after it became commonplace on corners and set-pieces.

A solution to stop the goalkeeper “tactical timeout” is also set to be introduced.

The measures were agreed at the Premier League AGM earlier this month after consultation with the game improvement advisory board.

They form part of the “football principles” and “refereeing points of emphasis” for 2026-27.

All three red cards for hair pulling came through a video assistant referee review, and led to criticism from the managers of the players involved.

Everton‘s Michael Keane, Manchester United‘s Lisandro Martinez and Sunderland‘s Dan Ballard were all sent off for hair pulling after a VAR intervention.

United boss Michael Carrick called it “one of worst decisions I’ve seen” but lost an appeal to get the three-match ban overturned.

Stockport County defender Josh Dacres-Cogley was dismissed for the offence in the League One play-off final too.

But from next season, not every time a player is seen to pull an opponent’s hair will a red card be shown.

Instead, greater emphasis will be placed on both the level of force and the intention.

Everton boss David Moyes criticised the red card shown to Keane, claiming his player had received a ban for “absolutely nothing”.

However, the new guidance does not mean hair pulling will suddenly be tolerated.

Referees will be told to look for a “clear and deliberate action” which has “excessive force and/or brutality”.

It is likely that Keane would still be sent off – his holding and pulling the hair of Wolves‘ Tolu Arokodare deemed violent conduct.

But Ballard and Dacres-Cogley would probably be judged to be yellow-card offences – though the VAR cannot intervene for bookings.

Martinez’s red card would be considered a borderline case and open to interpretation.

The change is in intended to give more latitude to players who may accidentally hold onto an opponent’s hair.

Five goals, four water breaks, three red cards and a glittering opening ceremony.

The World Cup 2026 opening day delivered everything you could ask for.

From an early thunder strike to a late winning goal, Thursday was filled with drama, stretching from Mexico City to Zapopan.

Al Jazeera breaks down the key takeaways from the 2026 FIFA World Cup’s day 1:

Is this going to be the World Cup with the most red cards?

The three red cards brandished to Yaya Sithole, Themba Zwame and Cesar Montes during Mexico’s 2-0 win over South Africa were an unusual sight at a World Cup.

In the last two editions, Qatar 2022 and Russia 2018, only four red cards were handed out during the entire tournament. This year’s World Cup opening game nearly matched that singlehandedly.

With officiating at the start of the tournament usually setting the tone for the rest of the campaign, the sequence of sending offs at Estadio Azteca could be repeated several times during the 39-day, 104-match spectacle in North America.

Thursday’s three reds fell just one short of the record of four at a World Cup 2006 game, nicknamed the “Battle of Nuremberg”, between Portugal and the Netherlands.

The record for the most red cards – 28 – was also set at the same tournament in Germany.

Controversial VAR at the centre of debate again

The look of confusion and disbelief among South African players after Zwane was sent off for flinging an arm into Mexico’s Roberto Alvarado’s face prompted the debate: Is Video Assistant Referee (VAR) playing spoilsport again?

Referee Wilton Sampaio did not initially pull out the red card, but after being sent to the pitchside monitor by VAR, Sampaio decided to send Zwane off.

While the replays were unclear, it seemed Zwane was trying to move past Alvarado, but his hand caught the Mexican’s face in the process.

Zwane was ultimately booked for “violent conduct”, a controversial decision, which seemed harsh given it was not an obvious call. South Africa coach Hugo Broos was not convinced by it, either.

“The second red card, I think the Mexican player blocked my player,” Broos said in the post-match media conference.

“It’s the position of the referee, and we have to accept it also, but I don’t think [it was a red], it was too soft to give that as a red card.”

Hydration breaks or momentum killers?

The introduction of fixed hydration breaks – one in each half – came into effect for the first time at the World Cup on Thursday, and attracted early criticism from viewers and coaches alike.

While some broadcasters stuck with the live feed featuring players, others cut to commercials, disrupting the match-viewing experience for fans watching on TV.

Viewers in the United States were frustrated after broadcaster Fox cut away to full-screen commercials and they missed some live action during the second half of the Mexico vs South Africa opening match.

US head coach Mauricio Pochettino had a mixed opinion over the three-minute breaks, which are held regardless of weather conditions and introduced by FIFA to prioritise player welfare.

“I don’t like it. I only like it when the conditions are very extreme, but when the conditions are good, it is not necessary to have water breaks,” he said during a news conference on Thursday.

“For me, it’s 50-50. For coaches and staff, it’s a chance to make some changes or fix problems. But it’s part of the game, and we accept that.

“I don’t agree with it, but it’s not a big issue and won’t have a big effect on the games,” he said, adding that he did not watch the opening game.

Son Heung-min misfires, but South Korea prevail

Son Heung-min has often been the hero of the South Korea national team on the biggest stage, but on Thursday, even though the talisman got the lion’s share of the chances, he failed to score in their 2-1 win over Czechia.

Son worked seamlessly with the impressive Lee Kang-in and Lee Jae-sung to create a host of first-half chances, with the trio combining darting runs through the middle with a succession of dangerous pass-and-go moves that they just could not finish.

But Oh Hyeon-gyu and Hwang In-beom stepped up to the occasion, bagging a goal each to steer the Koreans to a dramatic late comeback win over Czechia.

South Korea vs Czechia: A clash of styles

Even though both teams opted for a 3-4-3 formation, there was a stark difference in their systems and approach.

South Korea played a fluid, possession-based style of football, while Czechia were heavily reliant on dead balls, opting for a rugged, route-one tactic.

Although the Czechs broke forward first with direct, physical play, the Koreans – buoyed by a largely Mexican crowd rooting for them – bounced back with their dominance of possession and stylish play, getting the better of their set-piece specialist opponents.

In 2017, Pierluigi Collina was appointed as Fifa’s new head of referees and it heralded a very different era.

Collina often takes about how decisions should serve as justice – for both teams.

Players should stay on the field unless they have done something which truly deserves a red card.

For instance, under his stewardship the law around denying a goalscoring opportunity (Dogso) when a penalty has been awarded have been hugely relaxed. It is now very difficult to get a red card.

So it should be no surprise that the 2018 and 2022 World Cups saw just the four red cards after he took over.

Refereeing at the start of a tournament often seem to sets the tone. Should we be drawing any conclusions from this match?

In his pre-tournament briefing, the Italian was focused on timewasting and general player behaviour.

There was no talk of a hard stands which should result in a huge spike in red cards.

Sometimes red cards are simply justified. Well, most of them anyway.

Sithole’s dismissal for fouling Brian Gutierrez was a simple decision for referee Wilton Sampaio.

The Mexico attacking midfielder was through on goal. Sithole may not have meant to bring him down, but he did. There was no doubt the South African had denied his opponent a clear goalscoring opportunity.

The second dismissal was much more controversial, given to Zwane on a video assistant referee review for violent conduct.

Zwane tussled with Roberto Alvarado, with the Mexican going to ground holding his head.

It looked like a coming together off the ball, but the referee was sent to the pitchside screen by the video assistant referee (VAR), Colombia’s Nicolas Gallo.

As Sampaio was shown the replays at the monitor it was difficult to make out what had happened.

Was there really a hand to the head? And if so, was it accidental or did he swing the arm?

When assessing violent conduct, the VARs are told to look for a clenched fist as a sign of aggression. This does not have to be present, but it is an indicator.

Zwane appeared to connect with an open hand to the side of Alvarado’s head, not with a closed hand.

It looks exceptionally harsh, and not the kind of clear and obvious decision VAR as introduced for.

Or maybe this is exactly the kind of thing Collina had told his referees and VARs to look out for, falling into the category of poor player behaviour.

Collina has brought in red cards for players who cover their mouths in confrontations, and those who leave the field in protest at a decision. He also wants goals disallowed for blocking on set-pieces.

Perhaps the actions of Zwane fall into this sort of category, a way for Collina to try to reduce the dark arts within the game.

Four Brazilian players and four members of their coaching staff were sent off during a dramatic encounter in Fortaleza.

Brazil were shown eight red cards during a chaotic 1-0 defeat to the United States women’s national team in a friendly in Fortaleza.

Brazilian coach Arthur Elias and three of his assistant coaches were sent off, while Bia Zaneratto and Tarciane were also dismissed. Two other players were shown red cards after the full-time whistle on Tuesday evening.

Sophia Wilson’s shot deflected off Isabela and snuck past Brazilian goalkeeper Lorena in the 63rd minute for the lone goal of the game before a crowd of more than 55,000 fans in northern Brazil. The hosts had no shots on goal, while the US had six.

Brazil manager Elias and several assistants were dismissed from the technical area during the second half.

Brazil then went down to nine in stoppage time after attacker Zaneratto was dismissed after picking up a second yellow card for pushing Emily Sonnett.

Moments later, her teammate, Tarciane, was shown a straight red for elbowing Wilson.

The chaos continued after the full-time whistle, with Brazil’s Kerolin and Ludmila both shown red cards for dissent.

It was the second of two matches in Brazil for the Americans, with the US losing 2-1 in the opener on Saturday in Sao Paulo.

Marta, a six-time FIFA World Player of the Year, was subbed into the match in the 80th minute, making her 212th appearance for Brazil.

Dudinha appeared to hurt her right knee in a collision with Sonnett in the 30th minute and was stretchered off the field in obvious pain. The 20-year-old forward, who plays for the San Diego Wave in the National Women’s Soccer League, returned to the bench in the second half on crutches.

The matches in Sao Paulo and Fortaleza were played at stadiums that will be used next June and July for the Women’s World Cup. The US will start their qualification campaign in November.

Rory McIlroy posted a first round of 70 at the Truist Championship as he began his challenge to win at Quail Hollow for a fifth time.

The 37-year-old from Northern Ireland made 17 pars before his only birdie of a one-under round came at the 18th hole.

American Matt McCarty set the early pace with an eight-under-par 63 at the event in Charlotte.

England’s Harry Hall managed six birdies and one bogey as he ended the opening round with a five-under 66.

Compatriots Tommy Fleetwood, whose round included an eagle on the 10th, and Alex Fitzpatrick, fresh from securing tour membership, are on four under after 67s.

England’s Matt Wallace and Justin Rose both signed for level-par rounds of 71, while Scotland’s Robert MacIntyre was two over with one to play when play was halted late in the evening because of inclement weather.

The tournament is the last event before the US PGA Championship takes place at the Aronimink Golf Club in Pennsylvania from 14-17 May.

The much-revered broadcaster and natural historian has been sent hundreds of items in the post

As birthdays go, they don’t come much bigger than Sir David Attenborough turning 100 – as the postmen of Richmond-upon-Thames have discovered.

In the run up to the big day today (FRI) the BBC natural history star has been inundated with hundreds of cards, packages and gifts from across the UK – with some even coming from abroad.

Yesterday Sir David issued a statement of gratitude. In it, he admitted that he’d been hoping for his milestone anniversary to slip by unnoticed, but added that he’d been “completely overwhelmed” by the messages he’d received.

READ MORE: Sir David Attenborough’s inspiring career at 100 from selling newts to teaching the world

In a message recorded for social media he is shown holding a harvest mouse, from the Wild Isles series about British wildlife. He said: “I had rather thought that I would celebrate my 100th birthday quietly – but it seems that many of you have had other ideas.

“I’ve been completely overwhelmed by birthday greetings, from preschool groups to care home residents and countless individuals and families of all ages.

“I simply can’t reply to each of you all separately, but I would like to thank you all most sincerely for your kind messages and wish those of you who have planned your own local events tomorrow, have a very happy day.”

As the posties have arrived carrying armfuls and boxes of letters in recent days, Sir David has been seen answering the door to his home in Richmond, south west London, looking surprised and delighted by the scores of thoughtful messages people have sent for his birthday.

He will mark the day itself with close family in the daytime and then attend a live event staged in his honour at the Royal Albert Hall, to be shown on BBC1.

Called David Attenborough’s 100 Years on Planet Earth it aims to showcase his groundbreaking career at the forefront of natural history storytelling and will feature the BBC Concert Orchestra plus special guests expected to include Prince William.

The event will take audiences on “a journey through a century of exploration and discovery in the natural world, seen through the prism of David’s extraordinary life”. It will feature wildlife stories accompanied by live music from his programmes, plus reflections from leading advocates for the natural world and those he has collaborated with over the decades.

Accompanied by the BBC Concert Orchestra, it will feature original compositions from some of David’s best-known landmark series. Alongside the music, guests will include some of those he has collaborated with from the world of conservation and wildlife filmmaking.

It was commissioned by BBC specialist factual boss Jack Bootle who said at the time: “It’s impossible to overstate what Sir David Attenborough has given us. His programmes have changed how we see our planet and our place within it.”

He added: “It’s also a moment for all of us at the BBC to say thank you to David — for his generosity, for his brilliance, and for a lifetime spent bringing the wonders of nature into our homes.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

“I have all the cards,” posted the White House on its X account on Sunday, alongside an image of President Donald Trump holding playing cards from the Uno game, in a message appearing to signal Washington’s confidence in its ongoing war on Iran.

Uno is a card game in which the winner is the first to get rid of all their cards.

The post came after Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that the US military would begin guiding ships stranded around the Strait of Hormuz by the war on Monday, in a sign that the conflict could further escalate, despite the near-month-long fragile ceasefire. Tehran has been effectively blocking nearly all shipping from the Gulf for more than two months, after the US and Israel attacked Iran two months ago, disrupting global energy supplies.

“We have told these countries that we will guide their ships safely out of these restricted waterways, so that they can freely and ably get on with their business,” Trump said, dubbing the campaign “Project Freedom”. “They are merely neutral and innocent bystanders!”

The president added that US negotiators were engaged in “very positive discussions” with Tehran, which could lead to “something very positive” without further elaboration.

Iran, however, reacted by insisting that the security of the waterway was in the hands of its armed forces, and warned that “any safe passage and navigation in any situation” should be “carried out in coordination with the armed forces”.

On Monday, the Iranian Fars news agency reported that a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones, the claim was denied by US Central Command.

So what leverage do the US and Iran hold over each other, and what happens next?

In response to Trump’s “I have all the cards” social media post, Iran’s Consulate General in Hyderabad, India, posted its own image on X.

“Yes, we have less cards,” Iran’s consulate in the Indian city of Hyderabad wrote on X, together with a photo of an Iranian military spokesperson holding four Uno cards compared to Trump’s five, pointing out that usually holding all the cards means you are losing, not winning, in the game of Uno.

In response to Trump’s “Project Freedom” declaration, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that ships deemed to be in breach of its rules in the Strait of Hormuz “will be stopped by force”, while insisting there has been no change in how it manages traffic through the strategic waterway.

On Monday, it issued a new map of the Strait of Hormuz with boundaries extending further to the east than its previous one, and said any ship travelling between the two sides must coordinate with the IRGC first.

“There has been no change in the management process of the Strait of Hormuz,” spokesperson Sardar Mohebbi said, adding that vessels that comply with the “transit protocols issued by the IRGC Navy” will be “safe and secure”.

“Other maritime movements that are contrary to the declared principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks. Violating vessels will be stopped by force,” he said.

What leverage does the US have over Iran?

Sanctions

The United States’ most enduring source of leverage over Iran remains its sanctions regime, which was launched in 1979 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic Republic.

Successive US administrations over the past 47 years have hit Tehran with a series of financial restrictions targeting Iran’s banking, oil exports and access to international markets – the US says the sanctions are a response to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Sanctions have significantly constrained Iran’s economy, limiting government revenue and contributing to inflation and currency depreciation. Measures enforced through the US Treasury also deter other countries and companies from engaging with Iran, further strangling its economy.

The economic pressure has been central to US strategy towards Iran, particularly during its attempts to force Tehran back to negotiations over its nuclear programme, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Military power

Beyond economics, the US maintains overwhelming military superiority, especially air power. Aircraft carriers, long-range bombers and precision strike capabilities give Washington the ability to target Iranian infrastructure with relatively low risk to its own forces.

US bases across the Gulf, as well as military partnerships with regional allies – most notably Israel – reinforce this advantage.

American forces, together with the Israeli army, have killed more than 3,000 people, and struck thousands of sites across Iran in the current war, including Iran’s energy and nuclear sites.

Naval blockade

Since mid-April, the United States has enforced a widespread naval blockade of Iranian ports and ships. The operation began on April 13 after talks between Washington and Tehran collapsed, with US forces ordered to stop or divert vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports.

US forces have since intercepted or turned back dozens of ships, and seized a container ship, the Touska. On Monday, the US announced that its crew had been repatriated to Iran from Pakistan, where they were taken after their ship was captured in the Gulf of Oman last month.

According to Trump, the blockade is designed to choke Iran’s oil exports, its main revenue source.

US officials say the measures have severely disrupted Iran’s trade, which relies heavily on sea routes.

What leverage does Iran have?

Strait of Hormuz

The vital waterway is Iran’s most significant strategic asset, the narrow passage ships one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies in peacetime.

Tehran has effectively closed the strait since the war began on February 28, sending global oil and gas prices soaring and energy markets into turmoil. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to target shipping, seize vessels, or conduct military exercises, demonstrating its ability to close or restrict the strait.

The result is soaring energy prices globally, forcing many countries to implement severe austerity measures to soften the blow.

Last week in the US, the average price of a gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline (petrol) rose to $4.30, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), up from less than $3 before the war.

Surging energy costs have driven up inflation and deepened economic uncertainty in the US, compounding Trump’s political troubles amid overwhelming disapproval for the war amongst Americans.

Even if the US does begin escorting ships through safely – the threat from mines or Iranian strikes may be enough to prevent tankers from attempting to sail, experts say. Insurance companies are also unlikely to underwrite voyages.

Regional allies

Iran’s network of allied groups across the Middle East is another asset that Tehran relies on heavily. These include armed groups in Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen

Through these groups, Iran has exerted pressure indirectly, targeting US interests and allies without engaging in direct confrontation.

One critical threat Iran has previously made is for the Houthis to disrupt shipping in the Bab al-Mandeb, another vital maritime chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

The Houthis, an Iran-aligned group in Yemen, have previously targeted shipping in this area, most notably during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, further raising concerns about the security of global trade routes.

Roughly 4.2 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum liquids flowed through the strait in 2014, accounting for about five percent of global supply.

Cheap drones and cluster bombs

While nowhere near the military capabilities of the US, Iran’s investment in missile and drone programmes has proven to be an effective means of deterrence. That is particularly through its ability to threaten regional US bases and impose significant costs on regional countries hosting American assets involved in military operations against Tehran.

While the US undoubtedly has a more sophisticated and powerful arsenal at its disposal, the interceptors it uses to combat Iranian drones cost around $4 million each, while Iran’s Shahed drones can be mass-produced at $20-50,000 each.

Furthermore, Iran’s ballistic missiles have proved capable of breaching Israel’s much-lauded “Iron Dome” defence system on several occasions. Iran has also dropped cluster bombs, which divide before they can be intercepted, making them much harder to stop.

So does the US really hold the most cards?

Michael Clarke, visiting professor at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, said Trump’s overwhelming conventional military strength has failed to translate into strategic leverage on the ground.

“President Trump thinks he is a great poker player,” Clarke told Al Jazeera. “He thought America’s sheer destructive potential put all the ‘cards’ in his hand” when starting the war on Iran.

But Iranian forces have consistently disrupted US expectations through asymmetric tactics, he said.

“At every turn, the Iranians have come up with asymmetric tactics – vicious, reckless tactics – that have negated everything the Americans have tried to do,” Clarke noted, describing a pattern in which traditional US military superiority has been blunted by unconventional responses.

Despite significant American forces and assets in the region – including “no fewer than three US Carrier Strike Groups, two Marine Expeditionary Units, hundreds of combat aircraft and thousands of troops”, Clarke argued that Washington has struggled to find an effective use for its multi-billion-dollar resources at its disposal.

Moreover, he said, domestic pressure on Trump is growing. Trump “can’t find a way to use them [US forces] that will make any real difference to the current stalemate in the limited time he has before his own MAGA base concludes he has lost the game”.

Clarke also highlighted the willingness of Iran’s IRGC to escalate tensions. “Whatever this war might do to Iranian society, the IRGC is prepared to gamble with its own existence in the fight,” he added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s artistic skills have earned him the reputation of a public relations genius acknowledged by both friends and foes. United States President Donald Trump, who has openly attacked him in public, famously called the Ukrainian leader “the greatest salesman on Earth”. A much more sympathetic voice, New York Times columnist David French, has recently portrayed Zelenskyy as “the new leader of free world”.

But Zelenskyy’s PR genius can do very little when it comes to changing the dynamics of the battlefield in the Russia-Ukraine war. In recent weeks, his administration and allies have tried hard to create the impression that the war might be approaching a turning point. But realities on the ground tell a different story.

For example, there were official claims that in February, Ukraine made more territorial gains than Russia did. Some pro-Ukrainian war monitoring platforms have supported these claims while others have not. It is important to note  these calculations can be tricky given that along the frontline there is an extensive grey zone in which control is unclear. The advances themselves are measured in 150-200 square kilometres per month. In other words, methodology can be manipulated in order to produce the desired conclusion: that Ukraine is gaining ground.

In reality, there is nothing at all that suggests a significant change in the battlefield dynamics that have been in place for at least two years now.

More importantly, Russian troops are currently besieging a number of industrial cities in the north of the Donetsk region. Their advances all along the northern border, in particular, are extending the active front line by hundreds of kilometres, which is making Ukraine’s personnel shortages even more acute.

Four years into the war, the Ukrainian army has had to resort to brutal campaigns to enforce mandatory conscription, pulling young men off the streets of towns and villages. Meanwhile, Russia is still able to lure volunteers by offering lavish compensation.

Ukrainian officials have also claimed that Russia is losing more troops than it is able to recruit based on dubious casualty data. Zelenskyy, in particular, has stated the Russians suffered the highest number of monthly casualties in March this year – 35,000. But his statement contradicted his own Ministry of Defence, which claimed that the highest Russian monthly losses crossed 48,000 in January 2025, with an average monthly rate of roughly 35,000 throughout 2025.

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, former military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, also contradicted this narrative that Russia is having major difficulty with deploying personnel. He acknowledged in a recent interview that the collapse of the Russian mobilisation effort was not forthcoming.

It should be noted that Ukraine is waging a successful drone campaign to damage Russian oil facilities. But it is doubtful that it could change anything beyond providing dramatic footage of oil tanks on fire for TV networks to broadcast.

In April, Russian oil revenues surged to $9bn, thanks to the US-Israel war on Iran. The windfall Russia got in a month is equivalent to 10 percent of the loan Ukraine is to receive from the European Union over the next two years to help fund its war effort.

It cannot be denied that Russia has sustained major economic losses due to the war, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has acknowledged as much. But the Russian economy displays much the same downturn as other European economies, also affected by wars in Ukraine and Iran.

Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (an indicator reflecting living standards) currently exceeds that of less affluent EU countries, such as Romania and Greece, according to the IMF charts. The same indicator for Ukraine is on par with Mongolia and Egypt, while the country’s critical infrastructure lies in ruins and millions of Ukrainians have fled the country, most of them for good.

With Ukraine’s prospects bleaker than ever, pro-Ukrainian audiences jump on every news from Russia, which they hope may signify “cracks in the regime”. Last month, an Instagram video by Russian influencer Victoria Bonya made Western headlines for its daring criticism of government policies. There may be frustration in Russia, but the regime is far from approaching a downfall.

This narrative, however, serves to distract Ukrainian and EU citizens from the painful truth that the war is heading towards a deadlock at best and Ukraine’s collapse at worst. Zelenskyy may have received a lifeline with the $90bn euro loan, but his and his allies’ lack of vision and winning strategy is staggering.

The reality has already begun to kick in. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently suggested that Ukraine would have to concede some of its territory to Russia to end the war but get a faster track to EU membership in exchange. The EU’s defence chief, Andrius Kubilius, has gone further by claiming that NATO membership for Ukraine was out of the question and EU membership was going to be a “complicated process”. Instead, he proposed a military union of Ukraine and other European countries – an idea that Moscow will reject, interpreting it as NATO through the back door.

What these contradictory statements manifest is that the main bargain over the contours of peace is currently going not so much between Zelenskyy and Putin, but between Zelenskyy and his Western, primarily European, allies.

As Budanov recently claimed, the positions of Kyiv and Moscow can be moved closer to what is realistically attainable in peace talks. But Zelenskyy needs to show at least some kind of gain for Ukraine when a very unpalatable version of a peace treaty is finally signed. Ideally, that gain would be EU membership or real security guarantees, but as Merz and Kubilius’s statements suggest, the chances of attaining either are slim.

The frustration among Ukrainians is already palpable. The head of the Ukrainian parliament’s fiscal committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, said European officials should stop seeing Ukrainians as “a tool for solving someone’s geopolitical tasks” or as a “human shield”. They have no right to define Ukraine’s destiny, he insisted.

But Zelenskyy, who is dogged by a large-scale investigation into corruption involving his immediate entourage, seems to hold no cards to play against Russia or his Western allies. The status quo in which he retains the position of a war leader serves him well, but it is increasingly becoming untenable.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

May 1 (UPI) — South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) reportedly decided Thursday to suspend the business operations of Lotte Card for 4 1/2 months over a data breach.

The financial watchdog is also reported to have finalized the disciplinary measure, including a $3.4 million penalty and a reprimand warning for its former CEO Cho Jwa-jin.

The FSS declined to confirm the reports, while Lotte Card acknowledged it.

“Imposing a business suspension over a hacking case would be an unprecedented level of sanction,” Lotte Card said in a statement.

“As follow-up procedures remain, including a resolution by the Financial Services Commission (FSC), we will fully explain our position regarding the severity of the punishment, as well as our post-incident response efforts,” it added.

Nearly 3 million Lotte Card customers had their personal information compromised last year. The state-run Personal Information Protection Commission has already imposed a $64 million fine on the firm over the incident.

Following the FSS decision, the FSC is expected to make the final call in the coming months.

In 2019, South Korea’s leading private equity company, MBK Partners, teamed up with Woori Bank to acquire a 79.8% stake in Lotte Card for about $1 billion. MBK took 59.8%, and Woori held the remaining 20%.

MBK Partners sought to sell its stake in Lotte Card in 2023 but failed to find a buyer, and a similar effort last year also yielded limited results.

Lotte Card is not publicly listed.

Players at the World Cup could face a red card if they cover their mouths when speaking to opponents during confrontations.

The decision was taken during a special meeting of the Fifa Council in Vancouver, Canada, on Tuesday, where two Fifa-proposed law amendments were approved.

Players who leave the pitch in protest at a referee’s decisions could also now face a red card, following ugly scenes at the Africa Cup of Nations final between Morocco and Senegal.

Both law changes have been approved as competition opt-ins by the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

Fifa has confirmed they will be adopted at this summer’s World Cup.

The issue of players covering their mouths became high profile in February when Benfica winger Gianluca Prestianni raised his shirt while speaking to Real Madrid’s Vinicius Jr during a Champions League game.

The Argentina international was accused of racist abuse and provisionally banned for one match. Following a Uefa investigation, Prestianni was found guilty of homophobic conduct and banned for six matches – three of which were suspended.

The issue was discussed at the Ifab annual general meeting in Wales later that month where it was agreed the matter would be on the agenda at the Fifa Council.

The decision remains at the absolute discretion of the referee, who will consider all circumstances before issuing a red card.