Three-quarters of the world has abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, according to Amnesty International.
Published On 12 Aug 202612 Aug 2026
Lebanon has become the first country in the Middle East to abolish the death penalty.
On Tuesday, a majority of the 128-member parliament voted in favour of scrapping capital punishment. Death sentences will be replaced with life imprisonment with aggravated hard labour.
Lebanon has observed an unofficial moratorium on executions since January 2004, but its courts have continued to issue dozens of death sentences.
At the end of 2025, 85 people were facing death sentences, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Justice’s Directorate of Prisons.
Which countries still have the death penalty?
According to the latest Amnesty International report on death sentences and executions, as of December, close to three-quarters of the world’s countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, meaning they have not carried out executions for the past 10 years.
Some countries have abolished the death penalty for “ordinary crimes” only, which refers to exceptional crimes such as those committed under military law or those committed in exceptional circumstances
Overall, this includes:
Abolition for all crimes: 113 countries
Abolition for ordinary crimes only: nine countries
Abolition in practice: 23 countries
Retention: 54 countries
The map below highlights where each country stands on capital punishment:
Amnesty International’s monitoring of worldwide use of the death penalty recorded 2,707 executions in 2025, up 78 percent from 1,518 in 2024. Amnesty attributed that spike primarily to executions in Iran, which more than doubled from 972 in 2024 to at least 2,159 in 2025.
Amnesty’s figures exclude what it says are thousands of executions that have been carried out in China. Executions were carried out in 17 countries, consistent with the historical lows seen since 2018.
Memphis Depay has accused Corinthians of “unacceptable behaviour” and of breaching an agreement after the Brazilian club decided against renewing his contract.
The former Manchester United and Barcelona forward joined Corinthians on a two-year deal in 2024, but is now out of contract after he said the club withdrew a previously agreed extension.
“This renewal was explicitly agreed upon by the president as well as the sporting, legal and financial department. Some people decided however to breach this engagement,” Depay wrote on social media.
“I didn’t want this situation and always respected the club throughout the process, but now I am forced to react strongly in order to preserve my interests.
“In the upcoming days I will speak publicly but rest assured that I will not leave this unacceptable behaviour unsanctioned.”
Depay scored 20 goals in 79 appearances for Corinthians and helped them win the Copa do Brasil in 2025 and the Supercopa do Brasil this year.
The Sao Paulo-based club, currently seventh in Brazil’s Serie A, said the decision not to extend the 32-year-old’s contract was because of finances.
“It became clear that taking on a new commitment of this magnitude would not be compatible with the financial balance we need to preserve to ensure the institution’s sustainability,” said a club statement.
“We recognise that this was a difficult decision, but it was undoubtedly necessary for the future of Corinthians.”
Corinthians said club president Osmar Stabile will hold a press conference in the coming days to address the decision.
Depay is the Netherlands’ all-time leading goalscorer but failed to score in three appearances as his side exited the 2026 World Cup in the last 32.
“Things had been really good between them but it felt like their relationship had run its course and they both thought it was best to move on.
“It was all very amicable and although it’s never fun when a relationship ends, Louise has thrown herself back into her social life and her busy work schedule.
Drew’s thought to have moved abroad for work so it’s been a clean break.
“She’s in no rush to jump back into another relationship because she feels very fulfilled with her life right now, but she’ll see what happens.”
The former couple sharing a kiss at Glastonbury festivalCredit: InstagramLouise with ex-hubby Jamie RedknappCredit: Getty – Contributor
Louise, who shares sons Charley, 22, and Beau, 17, with Jamie, added: “Drew is great with my boys.
“He’s just a really great guy.
“I feel very lucky to have met him.”
Louise’s pals insist she is thriving as a singletonCredit: GettyDrew and Louise looking loved-up before their splitCredit: Instagram
She is now gearing up for her Naked Confessions UK tour nextspring, when she will perform songs from her latest album and mark 30 years since her solo debut, Naked.
Critics say the 39 percent cap was a safeguard against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US.
Published On 6 Aug 20266 Aug 2026
The United States Federal Communications Commission has voted to rescind the rule that bars local broadcast station owners from reaching more than 39 percent of the total number of US TV households in a move that could help spark industry consolidation.
The FCC on Thursday voted 2-1 to lift the cap in favour of a new case-by-case approach. The commission’s sole Democrat, Anna Gomez, said the proposal was illegal and argued only the US Congress can lift the cap. Many critics argue the move will lead to excessive market power among station owners.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Under the rules, stations with weaker over-the-air signals can be partially counted against a company’s ownership cap. The FCC has limited ownership of local broadcast stations since 1941 and most recently raised the cap to 39 percent in 2004.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the move is about helping local broadcasters survive and pointed to the sharp decline in local newspapers.
“We should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions,” Carr said.
“The FCC kept a rule on the books in the name of localism that contributed to the gutting of local newspapers … I don’t want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers.”
The FCC said the new rule would consider applications on television company mergers that would go above 39 percent on an individual basis to determine if they are in the public interest. The agency said it would “remove artificial restrictions on opportunities for broadcast television to attract capital and generate revenue”.
Gomez said the decision is “an invitation to bring in a lot of transactions”.
‘More control’
Lifting the cap hands “more control of the public airwaves to a small number of companies whose coverage pleases this administration … It is putting its thumb on the scale in favour of content that this administration likes,” she added.
Carr has said the change would allow local television owners to increase investment in local programming and give them more leverage against national networks.
In March, the FCC approved the $3.54bn sale of local television station owner Tegna to Nexstar despite objections from Democratic-led states.
The acquisition, if not reversed by courts, will expand Nexstar’s presence to cover 80 percent of US TV households. The FCC has said it was waiving the 39 percent rule in approving the deal.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz, a Republican, said last month that he is sceptical the FCC can hike the 39 percent cap without an act of Congress.
Clayton Weimers, executive director at Reporters Without Borders North America, said in a statement that with this latest move, the FCC has “abandoned” one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US, which ensured that “no single company or individual should be allowed to dominate what millions of Americans see, hear, and understand about the world”.
“Today’s vote eliminates that safeguard and only benefits a handful of already powerful media conglomerates. This is not deregulation in the public interest. It is consolidation in the interest of the powerful,” Weimers said.
He said that the action exceeds the FCC’s legal authority and that Reporters Without Borders was evaluating every available legal avenue to challenge this decision.
The spouses and parents of US service members have been reportedly detained or deported after the Trump administration ended protections for military families. The Associated Press believes the dozens of cases its investigation found are just the beginning.
SAN DIEGO — Emanuel Lexius’ market in El Cajon is typically bustling.
Not lately.
Lexius is Haitian, and so are most of the shoppers at Miche Caribbean Market. They come to stock up on familiar Haitian staples — Ti Malice vegetable oil spread, long-grain heirloom rice, Cola Couronne soda.
“People don’t want to be out,” he said, and “no one wants to be exposed.”
A wave of fear swept Haitian American communities in San Diego County and nationwide last week after the Trump administration revoked protections for Haitian immigrants living in the U.S. under temporary protected status, or TPS. The program has allowed roughly 350,000 Haitians — including thousands in San Diego and Los Angeles — to live and work in the U.S. because their home country is unsafe.
A federal district judge temporarily blocked the action for nearly five months before the Supreme Court upheld the Trump order in June. The Department of Homeland Security officially moved to remove the protections last Monday.
That has left Haitians in Southern California in a state of anxiety over whether and when they could be deported. Community leaders say the repercussions could be widespread, with people now scared to leave their homes or go to work — or at risk of losing their jobs because they no longer have work authorization.
“People who applied for a program that the U.S. government laid in place … they came to the U.S. in search of safety and protection, only for that to be pulled from under them without any support,” said Guerline Jozef, the executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, a local nonprofit that provides legal and social services to Haitians and other immigrant groups.
Along with Haiti, the Trump administration has moved to roll back temporary protected status for people from 13 countries, all of them majority Black or brown.
“Temporary Protected Status is exactly that — temporary,” said a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson. “For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent.”
TPS was established for Haiti in 2010, after a catastrophic earthquake killed more than 200,000 people and destabilized the country. The protection was extended in 2021 amid the civil chaos that unfolded after Haiti’s president was assassinated and again in 2024 due to ongoing safety concerns. Today, armed gangs control sections of the country, presidential elections haven’t been held in a decade, and millions of people struggle with daily needs, per a recent United Nations report.
Today, the Trump administration says conditions in Haiti have improved enough for Haitians to return. But Haiti remains under a “Do not travel” advisory from the U.S. State Department, and the country has been under a state of emergency since March 2024.
Since their deportation protections ended Monday, local Haitians say they can’t go back to Haiti, pointing to safety concerns for themselves and their families.
“I had no choice but to leave Haiti,” said Galencha, a Haitian TPS holder who works in San Diego and requested his last name be withheld for fear he might be deported.
The 42-year-old, who is married with two young daughters, has lived in San Diego for seven years. He said his mother and uncle were killed in Haiti; his older brother was shot. His father is still there, but his sisters and close friends have left.
A Homeland Security spokesperson declined to comment on plans for any enforcement operations targeting Haitians but said enforcement actions are happening every day.
“Whenever we go out, it makes me feel bad,” said a 43-year-old Haitian man who lives near El Cajon. He too just lost his temporary protected status.
He arrived in the U.S. two years ago, alone, leaving behind his family. He typically waits in a Home Depot parking lot with the hope of getting picked up for a job, but it hasn’t been easy to find steady work.
Now, he and other local Haitians say they have been keeping their head on a swivel for immigration enforcement.
Even with temporary protected status, immigrants face a host of challenges to find work in the first place, said Maria Chavez, immigration legal director at the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. The process to qualify for a work permit and a reauthorization can take over a year with delays, she noted.
Most Haitians who have settled in San Diego since 2010 have found work in the hospitality, healthcare and construction industries — though many arrive with an entrepreneurial mindset forged in their home country, explained Jozef, from the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
“Due to the lack of a formal job market, the majority of the people have to find ways to create small businesses in Haiti,” she said. “So they come with that mindset of creating businesses.”
Right now, Haitian Bridge Alliance is focused on helping former TPS holders create a family plan — including getting their financial documents in order and creating contingency plans in case they’re deported. It’s also helping get basic needs like food to Haitians who are scared to leave home and connecting them with legal representation.
Since going back to Haiti is not an option for many Haitians in the region, now is the time for former TPS holders to pursue alternatives such as asylum or seeing if they qualify to stay in the U.S. through marriage, Chavez said.
“None of these are fast options,” she noted.
PANA and Haitian Bridge Alliance are fighting in court against the Trump administration’s termination of temporary protected status for Somalia. But Chavez says that fighting the termination for Haiti is largely off the table, since the Supreme Court has already upheld that order.
In the meantime, the end of Haitians’ temporary protections has created heartbreak throughout the community.
Husband and wife Martha and Feret Milliem own Caribbean Pleasure, a Point Loma restaurant serving Haitian cuisine in a dining room hung with Haitian flags.
The couple have lived in San Diego for nearly half a century and aren’t personally affected by the end of TPS protections — but it’s been painful to watch their community grow fearful and lose their grip on the American lives they’ve worked to build.
The impact extends to families back in Haiti, too, they add, if relatives in the U.S. who suddenly lose their legal jobs are unable to send money back to them.
“Right now, the Haitians are living under hell,” Martha said.
New York’s Haitian community is living in limbo and fear after Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was terminated on Monday. Around 300,000 Haitian nationals rely on the special designation to live legally in the US.
NEW YORK — Kyle Tucker’s first home run in nearly a month lifted the Dodgers to a 4-2 victory over the New York Mets on Friday night.
Starting pitcher Roki Sasaki held the Mets to just three hits, which included a solo homer from Luis Roberts Jr. that accounted for the only run Sasaki surrendered. He threw seven innings for the third time this season.
The extra velocity that Sasaki mustered in his last start against the New York Yankees — when he surpassed 101 mph in a regular season game for the first time in his MLB career — didn’t make an encore against the Mets (43-61).
Instead, Sasaki leaned on his splitter, throwing it 47% of the time, compared to his season average of 26%.
The Dodgers tied the score 1-1 in the fourth inning. Freddie Freeman, who finished with three hits, led with a single. Mookie Betts matched him, then Miguel Rojas stayed back on a changeup and sent it to deep right field for a sacrifice fly.
The Dodgers twice fell victim to Mets right fielder Carson Benge’s arm in the fifth and sixth. First, Shohei Ohtani was thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple after a relay throw by Francisco Lindor. Benge threw out Freeman at the plate in the sixth on a Rojas popout to right.
Kyle Tucker follows through on a two-run home run for the Dodgers in the eighth inning of a 4-2 win Friday night over the New York Mets.
(Jim McIsaac / Getty Images)
In the seventh, the Dodgers (66-38) started to build another rally. Dalton Rushing laid down a bunt with runners on the corners. But it bounced right to pitcher Brooks Raley, who flipped the ball to the plate to eventually snare Tucker in a rundown between third and home.
On the next at-bat, Ohtani drove in Teoscar Hernández from third on a sacrifice fly to center field.
Tucker’s two-run homer in the eighth provided the Dodgers some insurance they would end up using when Evan Phillips gave up a solo homer to Francisco Alvarez in the bottom of the inning. It was Tucker’s first home run since June 27.
Injury updates
Right-hander Tyler Glasnow (back spasms) has progressed to the live batting practice phase of his rehab progression, manager Dave Roberts said. It’s a promising sign for a pitcher who twice had to shut down throwing early in his rehab when he aggravated the injury.
Closer Edwin Díaz (arthroscopic elbow surgery) came out well from throwing on back-to-back days in a triple A rehab assignment.
“We talked about him flying across the country; doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Roberts said. “So I think he’s supposed to pitch on Sunday, and then if that goes well, he should be back with us when we get back on Tuesday.”
The Dodgers begin a six-game homestand Tuesday, against the Seattle Mariners and Boston Red Sox.
Catcher Will Smith’s timeline to return from a neck injury remains unclear, after the Dodgers temporarily shut him down from baseball activities, beginning around the All-Star break.
“He’s pain free,” Roberts. “He’s getting back into being more active.”
Governments have become remarkably efficient at producing information. During crises, official statements, emergency regulations and public updates appear almost instantly. Yet recent global emergencies have exposed a fundamental paradox: more information does not necessarily create greater public trust.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this with exceptional clarity. Around the world, governments introduced unprecedented public-health measures, revised policies at remarkable speed and communicated with citizens almost continuously. Despite these efforts, public responses varied dramatically. Accurate information competed with rumours, institutional confidence fluctuated and misinformation often spread faster than official corrections.
The challenge extended well beyond the pandemic. Whether societies face natural disasters, armed conflicts, cyberattacks or public-health emergencies, governments confront the same question: how can accurate information become trusted information?
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
These principles remain indispensable.
Yet they share an important assumption-that once reliable information is produced, effective communication naturally follows.
Recent experience suggests otherwise.
Between governments and citizens lies an often-overlooked stage of communication. Official information rarely reaches the public directly. Instead, journalists, editors, producers and broadcasters interpret complex events, provide context and translate institutional language into messages ordinary audiences can understand.
This intermediary role becomes especially important during uncertainty.
People rarely judge information on facts alone. They also respond to clarity, consistency and the credibility of those delivering the message. Two governments may release nearly identical information yet receive very different public reactions because the communication itself inspires different levels of confidence.
Television illustrated this particularly well during the COVID-19 pandemic. While social media accelerated both verified information and misinformation, television remained one of the most trusted sources of crisis reporting because journalists explained changing regulations, interpreted complex developments and provided continuity during uncertain periods.
In such moments, credibility becomes inseparable from presentation.
This raises a broader question. If governments are responsible for making decisions, who ensures those decisions are understood?
Despite its practical importance, that question has received surprisingly little attention.
One researcher exploring this overlooked dimension of crisis communication is Kazakh journalist Kydyr-Zhan Mukhatayev. His work examines what happens after official information reaches television audiences.
Using Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, Mukhatayev argues that broadcasters should not be viewed as passive channels transmitting government messages. Through editorial judgement, presentation and audience engagement, they actively influence how information is interpreted, trusted and ultimately acted upon.
When Information Isn’t Enough
One of the most persistent assumptions in crisis communication is that accurate information naturally leads to public understanding. In reality, the relationship is far more complex.
Citizens rarely interpret official messages in isolation. They assess institutional credibility, the clarity of explanations and the consistency of communication over time. Trust therefore develops not through information alone but through the interaction between governments, professional media and public perception.
This helps explain why countries facing similar crises often achieve different public outcomes. During uncertainty, people seek more than facts. They look for reassurance, competence and evidence that those responsible understand the situation themselves.
Professional journalism therefore becomes central to crisis communication.
Broadcasters do far more than repeat official announcements. Through editorial choices, language and presentation, they transform complex information into something audiences can understand and trust.
The pandemic made this responsibility especially visible. As governments adapted policies almost daily, broadcasters helped distinguish verified information from speculation and placed individual developments within a broader context.
Rather than treating broadcasting as a technical process of information delivery, Mukhatayev presents it as a dynamic relationship between institutions, journalism and public trust.
A Case Study with Broader Implications
Mukhatayev explores this relationship through two complementary studies based on Kazakhstan’s broadcasting experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The first examines the professional role of television journalists during prolonged uncertainty. Rather than focusing exclusively on government communication, it considers how broadcasters themselves contributed to public understanding through responsible reporting, editorial judgement and effective communication.
The second expands the discussion beyond the pandemic, presenting crisis broadcasting as an interconnected system in which institutional credibility, journalism, visual communication and audience psychology continuously influence one another.
Although grounded in Kazakhstan’s experience, the questions raised extend far beyond one country. They suggest that successful crisis communication depends not only on what governments say but also on how professional media transform official information into messages citizens are prepared to understand, trust and follow.
How Trust Is Actually Built
If trust is not created by official statements alone, what determines whether crisis communication succeeds?
Kazakhstan’s experience suggests that public confidence is shaped not by a single government message but by the interaction of several interconnected factors.
The first is institutional credibility. Citizens are far more likely to follow official guidance when public institutions are perceived as competent, transparent and consistent. Even accurate information quickly loses its impact if communication appears contradictory or uncertain.
The second is professional journalism. During a crisis, broadcasters become interpreters rather than mere messengers. Through editorial decisions, language and context, they help audiences understand not only what is happening but also why it matters.
The third factor is visual communication. Television communicates through images as much as words. Live reporting, graphics and interviews shape public perception and emotional responses long before audiences consciously evaluate facts.
Finally, there is public perception. People’s reactions are influenced by previous experience, culture, emotions and existing levels of institutional trust. Crisis communication therefore becomes an ongoing interaction between governments, media and society rather than a simple transfer of information.
Together, these factors suggest that public trust is rarely created by institutions acting alone. It emerges through the combined influence of credible governance, responsible journalism and informed public engagement.
Mukhatayev’s research brings these elements together into a single analytical perspective. Rather than viewing broadcasting as a channel for delivering official information, it presents television journalism as an active component of crisis management capable of strengthening-or undermining-public confidence.
Beyond COVID-19
Although these observations are drawn from Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, the issues they highlight extend far beyond public health.
Future crises may involve cyberattacks, geopolitical instability, climate-related disasters or AI-driven misinformation. While each presents different challenges, all require governments to maintain public trust under conditions of uncertainty.
The information environment has also changed dramatically. Television now operates alongside social media, digital news platforms, messaging applications and AI-generated content. Information spreads faster than ever-but so does misinformation.
This makes professional journalism more important, not less.
In an environment where virtually anyone can publish information instantly, audiences continue searching for reliable sources capable of explaining complex events with accuracy, responsibility and context. The principles of credible journalism-verification, editorial independence and clear communication-remain essential regardless of the platform.
For this reason, Kazakhstan’s experience deserves attention beyond its national context. Although every country has its own political and media landscape, the relationship between governments, journalism and public trust has become a shared international challenge.
The Next Crisis Will Test More Than Governments
Every crisis eventually ends.
The real question is what remains once it does.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that governments cannot manage crises through policy alone. Success depends equally on whether citizens understand those policies, trust those communicating them and believe the information they receive.
Mukhatayev’s work contributes to this discussion by shifting attention toward a stage of crisis communication that has often been overlooked. Rather than asking only how governments should communicate, it examines what happens after official information enters the public sphere-and how journalism influences whether that information ultimately earns public confidence.
As artificial intelligence reshapes the global information landscape and misinformation becomes increasingly sophisticated, this perspective is likely to become even more relevant. The future of crisis communication will depend not only on producing accurate information but also on ensuring that trustworthy information remains understandable, credible and persuasive.
Kazakhstan’s experience therefore offers more than a national case study. It illustrates a challenge that governments, journalists and policymakers around the world are likely to face repeatedly in the years ahead.
Governments can always produce more information.
Whether societies choose to trust it is another matter.
In the end, people do not simply need information. They need information they are willing to believe.
1 of 3 | On July 21, 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tenn., in one of the great confrontations in legal history, ended with John Thomas Scopes convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution in violation of state law. UPI File Photo
July 21 (UPI) — On this date in history:
In 1861, the first major military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Bull Run Creek, Va.
In 1918, a German U-boat fired on the town of Orleans, Mass., on Cape Cod peninsula, damaging a tug boat and sinking four barges, and severely injuring one man. It was the only place in the United States to receive an enemy attack during World War I.
In 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tenn., in one of the great confrontations in legal history, ended with John Thomas Scopes convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution in violation of state law.
In 1969, U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, lifted off from the moon in the Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle and docked with the command module Columbia piloted by Michael Collins.
In 1970, after 11 years of construction, the massive Aswan High Dam across the Nile River in Egypt was completed, ending the cycle of flood and drought in the Nile River region but triggering an environmental controversy.
In 2000, a report from special counsel John Danforth cleared U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and the government of wrongdoing in the April 19, 1993, fire that ended the Branch Davidian siege near Waco, Texas.
In 2011, Greece continued efforts to climb out of a financial chasm with a second bailout pledge from other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund worth $157 billion. Earlier, the nation dealt with its debt crisis with the help of a $146 billion loan package.
In 2024, President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid in the 2024 presidential race, formally endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris. Former President Donald Trump defeated Harris in November 2024 to win his second term in office.
In 2025, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee announced that it plans to follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender women from women’s sports.
Facing Holloway at UFC 329, Irishman McGregor seemed to injure his right knee in the first round when jumping in with a kick.
Published On 12 Jul 202612 Jul 2026
Conor McGregor’s much-hyped return to the octagon lasted just over a minute on Saturday after the Irishman blew out his knee and retired injured in his UFC 329 fight with Max Holloway in Las Vegas.
Former two-weight world champion McGregor, who had not fought since breaking his leg against Dustin Poirier in July 2021, attempted a flying kick to start the opening round but landed awkwardly and immediately looked in trouble.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
He tried to fight on for a few seconds but looked towards the referee to signal he could not continue.
Conor McGregor of Ireland falls after sustaining an injury on a kick in the first round against Max Holloway of the United States in their welterweight bout during UFC 329 at T-Mobile Arena [Ian Maule/Getty Images via AFP]
Former featherweight champ Holloway said he would discuss the possibility of staging another fight with McGregor when the Irishman recovers.
“It is what it is, I’m going to sit down with the UFC,” Holloway added. “(There was) so much hype for that right there. We’ve got to run it back one more time. One more time for the boys.”
Saturday’s bout was the second between the pair, with McGregor winning by unanimous decision in 2013.
Max Holloway lands a punch on Conor McGregor during the first round in their welterweight bout during UFC 329 [Ian Maule/Getty Images/AFP]
Injuries and issues away from the sport have derailed McGregor’s career.
After breaking his leg against Poirier five years ago, the 37-year-old was slated to meet Michael Chandler in June 2024, but that was cancelled after McGregor suffered a broken toe in training.
Later that year, a jury in an Irish civil court found him liable for the rape of Nikita Hand in 2018.
In October 2025, he accepted an 18-month ban for “whereabouts failures” after he missed three attempts by Combat Sports Anti-Doping to collect biological samples from him in 2024. The ban was backdated and expired in March.
In the co-main event at the T-Mobile Arena on Saturday, Britain’s Paddy Pimblett also needed less than a minute to secure victory, choking out Frenchman Benoit Saint-Denis in their lightweight bout.
Harry Styles wrapped up his 12-night Wembley residency last night and paid an emotional tribute to Liam PayneCredit: X/@hsdtogethertourHe spoke about all of his One Direction bandmates while on stageCredit: Getty – Contributor
As he reflected on his career, Harry touched on being in the group One Direction, and name checked each of the boys – including Liam who sadly died in October 2024.
Harry thanked all four band members before singing Carla’s Song.
According to concert goers and various videos circulating online, Harry said: “I wanna thank Niall, Zayn, Louis and my dear friend Liam.
“Nights like these couldn’t happen without every friendship, I wouldn’t be up here without my friends and family, some of who are here tonight.”
The penalty awarded against the Senegalese national team in the final moments of their match against Belgium on Wednesday caused widespread controversy after it led to their elimination from the Round of 32 at the 2026 World Cup, in a harsh turn of events that saw the “Lions of Teranga” go from leading 2-0 to losing 3-2.
Honduran referee Said Martinez awarded a penalty kick at the end of the second period of extra time, after a VAR review, following a challenge by Senegal’s Lamine Camara on Belgian captain Youri Tielemans, with the score tied 2-2 and the match heading towards a penalty shootout.
The “Archivo VAR” platform, which specialises in analysing refereeing decisions, said that VAR intervened excessively during the match, confirming that it was Tielemans who extended his foot in front of Camara, causing the contact.
The platform added, via its account on “X,” that the incident did not warrant VAR intervention, explaining that it was the Belgian player who forced the contact entirely, and that the situation did not amount to the clear and obvious error needed to justify the referee reviewing the decision.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The decision triggered a wave of controversy on social media, with one fan writing: “This is 100% robbery. Senegal have been robbed. How is this a penalty? Belgium do not deserve to go through corruption.”
Sports content creator Sneako blamed the result on match ‘”rigging”.
“Rigged! Senegal should storm the pitch right now. Leave the pitch and go home. This is rigged!”
Another sports fan wrote: “I’m sorry, but this was never a penalty. Camara went to clear the ball, but it was Tielemans who got in his way. Senegal was robbed, and it should have been Belgium going out.”
Spanish sports journalist Manolo Lama commented: “They stole the Africa Cup of Nations from them, and now they’re stealing all the solidarity with Senegal at the World Cup too.”
Senegal’s Habib Diarra, front, celebrates scoring their first goal with Ismail Jakobs, back, during the World Cup round of 32 soccer match between Belgium and Senegal in Seattle, Wednesday, July 1, 2026. (AP Photo/Abbie Parr) (AP)
Egyptian journalist Mohamed Saeed linked the incident to what happened in the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final against Morocco, writing: “You can feel that the penalty awarded against Senegal in the final seconds was a harsh lesson and a difficult test. After the scenes from the Africa Cup of Nations final, I think that if it weren’t for the change in the rules around the withdrawal incident, this scene could have repeated itself.”
Another sports fan, Fares Ahmed, wrote that football ”teaches lessons” and the outcome brought back the memory of Senegal at the tournament in Morocco.
“They took advantage of the tournament’s vulnerable position and the host’s need to make it a success, and used that to impose their pressure,” Ahmed wrote. “Today, the scene was almost repeated against Belgium — a penalty in the final minutes, objections, and disbelief over the decision — but this time there was no threat of withdrawal, because you can’t risk penalties like that in a tournament the size of the World Cup.”
Drawing a connection between the two events, one follower wrote on “X”: “When there was a clear penalty in the Morocco final, they rebelled against the decision and tarnished the reputation of African football, just because the tournament was in Morocco. But when an unclear penalty came along that eliminated them from the World Cup, they stayed silent, because this time it was in the West.”
Senegal’s Pathe Ciss #6 kneels on the pitch after Belgium were awarded a penalty during the World Cup Round of 32 match in Seattle, on Wednesday, July 1, 2026 [Maddy Grassy/AP Photo]
After the dramatic penalty was awarded, Tielemans stepped up to take it and scored successfully, netting Belgium’s third goal and capping off an unexpected comeback that eliminated the Lions of Teranga.
But back on the pitch, Senegal had the run of play for 85 minutes. The African team held a two-goal lead, and had all but secured a spot in the round of 16 at the World Cup.
Within five minutes, it crumbled and the players were feeling it.
“We were at the heart of writing the beautiful pages of the history of our football in this world,” defender Krepin Diatta said. “And we have to accept that we failed at our mission.”
Senegal midfielder Habib Diarra said. “We had a good first half, but it wasn’t enough. A match lasts 90 minutes, and we’re devastated. It’s very tough. I don’t know what to say. When you’re on the pitch, you have to give your all, and that’s not what we did. We’ve only got ourselves to blame.”
MEXICO CITY — Mexico once again enjoyed a night of celebration with its fans, this time after defeating an old nemesis — the knockout stage of the World Cup.
El Tri won its first knockout match at a World Cup since 1986, beating Ecuador 2-0 on Tuesday night at the majestic Azteca Stadium packed with 80,824 fans.
From 1994 to 2018, Mexico failed to win a World Cup knockout game and, in 2022, failed to advance past the group stage — its worst showing at a World Cup since 1978.
“Bringing joy to the fans is the best thing that can happen to us,” Mexico coach Javier Aguirre said after the win. “Our duty is to give it our all on the field. Our duty is to defend our crest and represent our country with dignity.”
Thanks to an expanded 48-team World Cup format with a knockout round of 32 teams and a formidable home-field advantage, Mexico achieved a goal that had seemed impossible.
Mexico players celebrate after the World Cup round of 32 win over Ecuador in Mexico City on Tuesday.
(Fernando Llano / Associated Press)
Ecuador, which finished second in the South American World Cup qualifiers, put up a strong fight, bombarding the Mexican team with crosses, albeit without much organization.
Fans roared their approval for the Mexican national team, which took a lap of honor after the match, as the crowd sang “El Rey” and other songs to express their love for their team.
Julián Quiñones scored the first goal for Mexico in the 22nd minute on a counterattack, while Raúl Jiménez added the second in the 31st minute, in a match where El Tri had numerous scoring opportunities against an Ecuador side that did not appear to be well-organized defensively despite having advanced after defeating Germany in the group stage. The victory over Germany helped Ecuador become one of the third-place finishers to advance to the knockout round.
Mexico will play one more match in Mexico City, facing the winner of the England versus the Democratic Republic of Congo match to be played Wednesday in Atlanta. Mexico’s round of 16 game is scheduled for Sunday. The team is one step away from matching its best World Cup performance — a run to the quarterfinals it achieved in 1970 and 1986 when Mexico hosted both tournaments.
El Tri is now 4-0 in World Cup matches and has yet to concede a goal, both firsts for the Mexican national team.
Tuesday night’s showdown with Ecuador was delayed by an hour because of lightning.
The Ecuadorian team complained before the match that their fans had not received the tickets required by FIFA and that Mexican fans made noise all night outside the Ecuadorian team’s hotel — a common practice in Latin America designed to prevent the opponent from getting a good night’s sleep the night before a decisive match. Finally, Ecuador’s coach, Argentine Sebastián Beccacece, complained about the logistics of the trip to Mexico, claiming it involved long journeys that were an undue burden for his team.
Frustration flared up throughout the match, with both teams briefly crowding the sideline after a hard foul.
When Ecuador could not earn shots on target and time was running out during the second half, Piero Hincapié ran toward forward Santi Giménez and covered his mouth while speaking.
The referee saw the exchange and stopped play, calling for video review. Once he confirmed Hincapié’s action, the referee issued a red card and the Ecuador player became the second player this World Cup for violating FIFA’s restriction against players covering their mouths during heated exchanges. Since Ecuador lost, Hincapié will serve his red-card suspension during the team’s next international match.
FIFA established the new rule to prevent players from trying hide use of offensive language.
Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón was the first player to get a red card for the infraction against Turkey earlier in the World Cup.
Other players have covered their mouths while speaking to opponents during the World Cup, but a red card is only issued if the conversation occurs during a confrontation or heated exchange.
Lionel Richie brought the first stop on his summer tour with Earth, Wind & Fire to an abrupt stop Wednesday evening, citing his health.
The 77-year-old Grammy winner, hitmaker of “Hello” and “Say You, Say Me,” unexpectedly hit pause on the concert at the Grand Casino Arena in St. Paul, Minn., after taking a seat on stage multiple times during his performance of “Dancing on the Ceiling” and telling his audience he felt “dizzy,” according to videos shared on social media.
“What I have learned about my years of being in the business, when you are feeling dizzy, sit your a— down,” he joked, according to a TikTok posted Wednesday evening by user ynaffitmocha. “When you are feeling strange about yourself, sit your a— down.”
Moments later, saxophonist Dino Soldo informed the audience that the singer was “not feeling well” and would not continue the concert. A representative for the singer did not respond to a request for comment, but TMZ reported on Thursday the singer-songwriter was hospitalized after the health scare. Paramedics reportedly met the artist backstage and transported him to a nearby hospital out of precaution.
A spokesperson for the Saint Paul Fire Department did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation on Thursday.
Live Nation announced “American Idol” judge Richie and Earth, Wind & Fire’s joint tour in January, unveiling a 26-city circuit that includes stops in Chicago, Orlando, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Richie and the “September” group are next set to perform at the United Center in Chicago on Friday and again at Schottenstein Center in Columbus, Ohio. It is currently unclear whether Richie will resume performing for those concerts.
Richie and Earth, Wind & Fire are scheduled to play Inglewood’s Intuit Dome on Aug. 9. The tour ends Aug. 14 with a show at the Moody Center in Austin.
The US Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in its bid to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians. The ruling allows the policy to take effect before the courts have reached a final decision on its legality.
LIONEL Richie has been reportedly taken to hospital after he took a funny turn on stage and was forced to end the concert.
The 77-year-old was performing at the Grand Casino Arena in Minnesota when his ill spell happened and had to take a moment to sit down.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Lionel is touring his Sing A Song All Night Long show throughout the summer (pictured in May)Credit: GettyThe Commodores frontman was performing in Minnesota when he had to cut the gig early due to a dizzy spell (pictured back in April)Credit: Getty
TMZ reports that the star halted his gig and was attended to paramedics backstage where he was subsequently sent packing to hospital.
Sources told the publication that the hospital trip was part of a precautionary measure.
The Sun has contacted representatives for Richie for comment.
In a video from the gig shared online, the music icon is seen attempting to finish performing his hit Dancing On The Ceiling while sat on the steps leading up to the live band.
Lionel had to sit down while singing hit song Dancing on the CeilingCredit: GettyThe 77-year-old was subsequently taken to hospital in an ambulance after the funny turnCredit: Getty
While he got back to his feet to carry on, he was forced to sit down again amid a second dizzy spell.
He is seen in the footage catching his breath, perched on the edge of the stage, while trying to continue with the song.
As explained in the post shared to X, Lionel managed to perform one more song, sat at the piano.
After departing the stage, Lionel’s saxophonist Dino Soldo told the crowd that the hitmaker wasn’t feeling well and wouldn’t be returning to the stage, ending the show.
Lionel was appearing with Earth, Wind & Fire as part of their joint tour hitting 26 venues across the States.
The Easy musician is next expected to appear for a gig in Chicago on Friday night.
The 26-year-old went viral as the Ibiza Final Boss last August when a clip of him boozing and grooving was viewed over 20 million timesCredit: TikTok / @zerosixwestibizaAfter Jack went viral Alisha took to TikTok to make sure every knew her man was the Ibiza Final BossCredit: TikTok/@alishaacookk
The 26-year-old was spotted boozing and grooving while holidaying on the Spanish island of Ibiza.
A clip of the former builder was viewed over 20 million times last August and fans became obsessed as they felt his distinctive look perfectly encapsulated the party isle’s clientele.
Jack became known for his bowel haircut, oversized chain, vest top and square shades and it wasn’t long before his girlfriend, Alisha Cook, decided to stake her claim.
Stunning Alisha dumped Jack after he flew out to Ibiza but they later reconciled before ending things for goodCredit: InstagramJack has now hinted that he could find the one on the party isleCredit: Instagram/@jack.kayy1
Jack told The Sun he was single and doesn’t see a Mrs Final Boss on the horizon for quite some time.
Although the Misfits boxer did hint that he could find the one over on the party isle.
He said: “I might do.
“But I haven’t found Mrs Ibiza Final Boss yet, but probably a couple of years for that.”
It seems Jack’s partying days are not yet behind him as he admitted he’ll be making his way back to Ibiza this summer.
As Washington and Tehran move towards a long-term ceasefire agreement, Gulf states will likely look for new long-term security solutions when a war in their region – which they did not start – finally ends.
It comes as United States President Donald Trump cancelled new strikes on Iran saying that a deal with Tehran was imminent, and that a “time” and “place” for signing would soon be announced.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
In Tehran, officials appeared more cautious with one senior Iranian official telling Al Jazeera that the government was still reviewing a proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Washington.
Subsequent comments by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif point to a deal being made, and what follows in the coming days could have important implications for collective regional security.
Attacks on the Gulf
The United States operates military facilities in at least 19 locations across the MENA region, including permanent bases in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Between 40,000 and 50,000 US troops were stationed across the region before the war on Iran started.
This US-Gulf nexus appeared to insulate states from conflicts engulfing other parts of the region, but over the past four months, Gulf states hosting US military facilities have been targeted by Iran.
“If there is a way to describe the prevailing security model in the region since the 1980s, the concept of security partnerships best encapsulates it,” said Mahjoub Al-Zuwairi, an academic and expert on Middle East politics.
“The countries of the region have chosen to align their security with broad international alliances. For decades, this model has provided a reasonable deterrent and logistical and intelligence depth that is difficult to replace.”
Iranians in Tehran at the funerals of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders, army officers and others killed in the early days of the United States and Israeli strikes on Iran, March 11, 2026 [AFP]
A security umbrella with holes
The war on Iran has exposed a paradox – while Iranian officials have repeatedly referred to their Gulf neighbours as “brothers”, they have also repeatedly targeted them during the war.
Despite the protestations of Gulf states that no attacks on Iran were launched from their soil, they have been repeatedly targeted.
“Just the war itself has pierced that sense of security, the US security umbrella is moribund at worst, or ineffective at best,” Simon Mabon, professor of international relations at Lancaster University, told Al Jazeera.
“They’ve long relied on it for their own security. Yet the presence of US forces on their territory directly meant they became targets. They can’t escape their geography [and] despite the tensions, despite the hostilities, despite the attacks, Iran isn’t going away. They have to find a way of dealing with this reality.”
The economic cost of war
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has proven be a setback for some Gulf states working to diversify their energy-reliant economies towards tourism, services and finance, but not all have been affected equally.
Saudi Arabia was able to redirect some oil exports through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea, while Oman – whose main ports are outside the Strait of Hormuz – has also benefited from rising energy prices.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar have been more heavily affected due to their dependence on the waterway for their energy exports, but the war has encouraged new thinking on long-standing security and economic arrangements.
“There are new pipelines being set up, but the capacity of these alternatives is infinitely smaller than the Strait itself,” said Mabon. “It will take enormous investment and years of development before they can come close to replacing it.”
Moving closer to Iran?
One possible lesson from the conflict is that Gulf states may seek engagement with Iran rather than confrontation, something that Gulf states had already made some groundwork on before the US-Israel war began.
Al-Zuwairi says that the conflict could revive plans for MENA-led regional security arrangements, as envisioned in the 2019 Hormuz Peace Initiative, which proposed a Gulf security framework involving Iran, Iraq and the six GCC states.
But the distrust fostered since then – notably Tehran’s strikes on its Gulf neighbours – would make such a formation unlikely in the near future.
“The recent war has opened the door wide to reconsidering the Gulf security system with its neighbours,” Al-Zuwairi said.
“How can Tehran propose a non-aggression pact while raining missiles on neighbouring cities? The initiative appears theoretically sound but practically bankrupt unless Iranian behaviour changes.”
Looking beyond Washington?
The solution for the Gulf could be a hybrid arrangement where ties with Washington are maintained, but other regional and domestic options are explored, including greater investment in local defence industries.
A possible blueprint for this could be the mutual defence agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan last September, stating that an attack on one country would be considered an attack on both.
Yet previous instances when Gulf states felt abandoned by the US have led to divergent responses, with the UAE and Bahrain deepening ties with Israel, but a new paradigm means that a more collective action to the issue of security might be considered.
“The war has demonstrated that every guarantor, no matter how many banners it flies, primarily protects its own interests,” said Al-Zuwairi.
“The region ends up paying the price for a war it did not choose … The security of the Gulf will not be created in Washington … It will be created when Gulf countries recognise that they must build it themselves, because when fires start, it is always those closest to the flames who pay the price.”
The series centred on her character Amanda, a woman whose seemingly flawless life begins to unravel after she inherits a mysterious fortune.
The four-part series reached its conclusion on Wednesday, June 10, with Amanda uncovering the secrets behind the enigma as the truth finally emerged, reports Wales Online.
The Fortune ending explained
Amanda was concerned with the disappearance of her mother Linda from her care home, while also dealing with her husband Jimmy disappearing.
Initially, she feared the worst, and confronted Sandy about secret meetings with Jimmy, only to find out that he only wanted Sandy to pressure Amanda to keep the money.
As she struggles to know what to do, and is warned not to contact the police, Amanda tries to find clues from the box of photographs she was sent.
She also gets a call from Fiona, who wants to take 50% of the money from Amanda, and cut out Anthony from the deal.
Amanda eventually manages to track down Jimmy’s last known location but while hoping to find him, is threatened by Anthony, who wants more of the money’s share.
Secrets continue to disrupt Anthony and Fiona’s relationship, as at their home, she finds a shirt full of blood, though he offers no explanation.
Amanda, on her way to find Jimmy, locates her mum in an old fishing hut that was pictured in one of the photos, but Linda isn’t alone.
She finds a stranger there, later confirmed to be Barry, with Linda revealing that Barry is actually Amanda’s dad, who she thought was dead for decades.
All along, Barry had wanted Amanda to keep the money for herself, explaining that the money had originally been his, but Martin had taken it for himself.
Martin had also asked Boots to kill Barry, but Barry had set up a trap and escaped, leaving Amanda thinking he was dead.
Barry also reveals he had asked Jimmy to help him, who returns, apologising to Amanda for keeping secrets.
Going to meet Anthony and Fiona at their estate, Amanda gets a call from their lawyer, who informs them that Anthony isn’t really Martin’s son.
Confronting them, Amanda tells the truth about the Worrall’s money, that it actually came from her dad.
Though Fiona had no idea of the truth, Anthony tries to hide behind lies and denies killing Boots, but Barry walks in, a ghost from the past.
In a moment of despair, Anthony threatens to shoot Fiona and Barry, before pointing the gun at himself.
The final scenes, after Linda’s heartbreaking death in the fishing hut, see Amanda return to Sandy’s to ask for her job back, and revealing she accepted the money, but let Fiona keep the house.
The Fortune’s replacement confirmed
The Fortune has been airing on Channel 5 for two weeks, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Next week on Tuesday, June 16, after Reuben Owens: Life in the Dales slots at 8pm, Little Disasters airs at 9pm on Channel 5.
Its synopsis reads: “As the investigation continues, shocking discoveries are made. Cracks form in the Carrisford family as their friends become increasingly involved, and hidden secrets come to light.”
Then on Wednesday, at the same time, a repeat episode of Surgeons: A Matter of Life or Death will air, as per Freeview.