ignoring

UEFA and FIFA may get a red card at the ICC for ignoring Israeli violations | Israel-Palestine conflict

On February 16, a group of Palestinian footballers, clubs and advocacy groups referred the heads of FIFA and UEFA to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The 120-page filing accuses Gianni Infantino and Aleksander Čeferin of “aiding and abetting war crimes (specifically, the transfer of civilian population into occupied territories) and crimes against humanity (specifically, apartheid)”.

This historic case marks the first time sports leaders are being accused of these crimes and sends a warning to presidents of all other corporate entities in and beyond athletics. It offers a perfect opportunity to challenge the impunity of Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide.

Football is the world’s most popular form of cultural expression, with some five billion fans across the planet. Therefore, the stakes of this charge are immense in terms of the spectacle of accountability and legal precedent.

In the course of its campaign in Gaza, of genocide generally and “athleticide” particularly, Israel has killed 1,007 Palestinian sportspeople and destroyed 184 sports facilities, while damaging 81 others.

Although this “athleticide” cannot be directly attributed to the Israel Football Association (IFA), its activities linked to clubs from illegal Israeli settlements located on the occupied Palestinian territory and their participation in domestic and international tournaments can be seen as abetting Israeli crimes of occupation and apartheid.

Despite facing demands for the suspension of these clubs or the IFA, UEFA and FIFA leadership have taken no action. In a recent interview, FIFA chief Infantino said he opposed a ban on Israeli teams from participation in global football, calling it “a defeat”. He went on to add that he was in favour of enshrining in FIFA statutes that no country should ever be banned from “playing football because of the acts of their political leaders”.

Ironic, when you consider he is the very person who oversaw the suspension of Russia from FIFA in 2022 and the banning of Crimean clubs from playing in the Russian league, linked to UEFA, after the Russian occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014.

The complaint is filed against Infantino and Čeferin because private organisations cannot be defendants before the ICC, but those individuals responsible for their policies can be.

The focus of the complaint is the fact that the IFA has been permitted to materially support, recognise, and include in domestic and international competitions clubs that are based in the stolen settlement land of the occupied West Bank.

Article 64(2) of FIFA Statutes prohibits member associations and their clubs from playing on the territory of another member association without the latter’s approval.

The complaint alleges that by allowing the IFA to oversee clubs that operate on stolen land, Infantino and Čeferin are accountable for normalising illegal Israeli settlements, in direct contravention of a 2024 pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and a resolution from the United Nations General Assembly, which found the settlements to be “unlawful” and required Israel to “cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

The existence of sanctioned Israeli clubs in West Bank settlements, the referral argues, contributes to the transfer of the civilian population into the occupied territory, contrary to the Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(viii), by normalising colonisation.

Likewise, because Israeli clubs in the occupied territory prohibit Palestinians from spectating matches or playing for or managing these teams, the continued sanction of these organisations falls under the definition of aiding and abetting apartheid (a crime against humanity pursuant to Rome Statute Article 7(1)(j).

In continuing to allow the membership of these clubs and the IFA in global and European sport, the filing alleges that Infantino and Čeferin have acted in full knowledge that they have participated in the violation of international law based on the fact that they have deliberately ignored numerous reports and letters advising them to intervene.

Now that the complaint has been formally filed, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC will conduct a preliminary examination to confirm that the elements of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the interests of justice have been satisfied. They will then have the option to either decline to open the investigation or proceed to investigate the legal issues raised in the complaint.

If an investigation does ensue, evidence-gathering will occur and arrest warrants or summonses may ultimately be issued. If that happens, this would set an important precedent and give momentum to the campaign for justice for Palestine.

It is notable that while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been able to dodge an ICC arrest warrant by cowering away from Rome Statute signatory states, it would be impossible for Infantino and Čeferin to do so while still fulfilling their roles, assuming it is enforced.

Football is, without question, one of the most popular sports on the planet. When such a cultural juggernaut is connected to business, what emerges is an industry like no other. FIFA and UEFA are global regulatory monopolies, meaning their rules and regulations act the same way a country’s legislation acts on its population. They also preside over a huge, lucrative industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Given the amount of eyeballs and money at stake, the impact of a ban on participation is enormous, as Russia understands all too well after being subjected to suspension. This is no doubt exactly why the presidents of these organisations have refused to act against Israel under the guise of “political neutrality”.

As former UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Michael Lynk, told us: “When an occupying power is blatantly committing war crimes by creating civilian settlements in occupied territory, the rest of the world – including states, corporations and international sporting organisations – is required to ensure the enforcement of international law by doing everything in their power to bring the violations to a swift end. Yet, FIFA and UEFA are sportswashing the illegal Israeli occupation by allowing the Israeli Football Association to include clubs based in the illegal settlements to participate in their domestic leagues. Nothing could be further from the rules of fairness and equity.”

The bottom line is that sport is and has always been political. The veneer of “political neutrality” conceals the reality that politics is the name of the game for FIFA and UEFA.

Nobody is entitled to stand above international law. It is time for the ICC to prove it.

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

Source link

A Shock to the System : Few people paid much attention to Carol Moseley Braun in the Illinois Democratic primary. But no one is ignoring her Senate campaign now.

Before she had toppled the moneyed and the mighty, back when perhaps a dozen people thought she had a chance to be a U.S. senator, Carol Moseley Braun went to Washington to drum up support for her ragtag campaign.

Waiting in the drafty outer hallways of power, she was treated like a poor relation. And the results were pathetic.

The official gatekeepers of money and political advice simply dismissed Braun and her candidacy for the Democratic Senate nomination from Illinois, recalls Tony Podesta, a college friend who is now is a Washington political consultant. He walked her through receptions, and she got nothing more than a few polite hellos. And although established women’s groups said, “Right on, keep going,” they kept their pocketbooks closed.

“Talk about your underdogs,” Podesta says, laughing. “I couldn’t even find a professional fund-raiser who she could pay to work for her.”

But with no organization, little money and a quintessentially Chicago political title as the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Braun knocked out a three-term senator, Alan J. Dixon, in the March 17 Democratic primary.

This week, Braun went back to Washington for money and backing. And this time, it was the difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

With the head of the Illinois State Democratic Party in tow, she met with party powerbrokers, including Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. All are members of the white man’s club she ran against, but the reception was ecstatic.

Such is the nature of power in Washington. Braun had just eliminated one of their entrenched cohorts, “Al the Pal” Dixon, 64, who has been winning elections for 42 years. But now she stands a fair chance of making history as a double outsider: If she wins against Republican nominee Richard Williamson in November, she’ll be the first black woman in the Senate and only the fourth black to serve in that august chamber.

Although she dismisses political post-mortems that credit anything but her determination, there is evidence she was also buoyed by luck, timing and a third candidate, Al Hofeld, a 55-year-old personal-injury attorney who spent $4.5 million of his own personally injuring Dixon in negative TV advertisements.

“I think it’s fair to say that if this were hockey, Hofeld would get an assist,” quips Hofeld’s media consultant, David Axelrod.

Braun may have had one other unlikely man on her team: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In fact, without him she might never have entered the race.

Last autumn she was so disgusted by the tone and substance of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thomas’ nomination to the high court–before and after the allegations of sexual harassment by Prof. Anita Hill–that she decided it was time to break into the men’s club on Capitol Hill.

“I was completely focused on how badly the process had failed,” she says. “If the Senate had done its job right from the start, we all would have been spared the mess. And who were these guys anyway? Where were the women, the minorities and the regular working people?”

She said as much, twice, on a public television talk show and was overwhelmed with letters, phone calls and friends urging her to take on Dixon, who had voted for Thomas. After several meetings, Chicago women activists identified three potential female candidates to challenge Dixon; it was decided that Braun, a University of Chicago Law School graduate who had served 10 years in the state Legislature, had the best qualifications and the best shot.

But she was not a shrinking violet thrust forward into the limelight. Now 44, she has been in the cut and thrust of Chicago politics since her early 20s, and she knew the risks. When a friend warned her that she could be a sacrificial lamb, she reportedly retorted: “If the best my party can do for me is recorder of deeds, then I don’t care about the future.”

With the backing of a coalition of women activists, suburban liberals and her most critical base, blacks throughout Chicago, Braun garnered 38% of the vote compared to Dixon’s 35% and Hofeld’s 28%. Less than two weeks before the upset, Braun had been 12 percentage points behind Dixon.

Hers was a last-minute sprint that came together through a confluence of events, including a television debate in which Hofeld hammered Dixon for his conservative voting record. For the first time, a broader spectrum of the public saw Braun demonstrate her speaking savvy and natural warmth.

In addition, Gloria Steinem came twice to Chicago on Braun’s behalf, attracting attention and contributions to the campaign. And the network of liberals in the suburbs–mostly white women–mounted a word-of-mouth effort to turn Braun into a winner.

In fact, women did well up and down the ballot in the Illinois primary. “I think women, more than men, are convincing elements of change,” says Axelrod. “That will give Carol an edge in November.”

But the “women’s vote” has never materialized consistently in past elections, and it’s still too early to tell whether Braun can make a convincing argument in November that she is a “change agent,” as Washington insiders are fond of saying.

“She’s got to broaden her base beyond blacks and some women and focus, focus, focus, on economic issues,” advise Axelrod and others.

Both Braun and Williamson are positioning themselves as outraged outsiders and setting each other up as a symbol of what catapulted America into an economic morass.

“The fundamental difference between my opponent and myself is that she has made her living for the past 14 years as a career politician and voted 13 times to raise taxes,” says Williamson, 42, a partner in a Chicago law firm who serves on President Bush’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Speaking from a car phone as he made an eight-city campaign swing last weekend, he added: “I’m not saying it’s always evil to be a career politician–George Bush certainly is. It’s just among the elements that makes differences between my opponent and myself so stark.”

Although exhausted from her sudden status as a political phenomenon–already she’s done “Nightline” and the “Today” show–Braun last week offered her assessment of those differences:

“He’s a typical Reaganite and will have to answer for the policies of the new federalism that screwed up this country. He was part of it.”

Braun doesn’t expect this race to be more challenging than the primary seemed last November–but she does see land mines.

“It’ll be a tough race only to the extent that Williamson (who is white) plays the racial card, directly or subtly, by manipulating symbols like talking about my views on welfare reform,” she says.

Illinois has elected blacks statewide, but many more have been defeated. “If the election was held next week, she’d probably win because of the post-primary euphoria around her,” says Don Rose, a Chicago political consultant. “But we have a way to go, and we don’t know how the wild card–race–plays, and we don’t know how the national ticket plays.”

Williamson insists that he’ll fire anyone in his campaign who uses racism to attack his opponent.

“I won’t hold my opponent accountable for the race of her parents if she doesn’t hold me accountable for the race of mine,” says Williamson, who grew up and lives with his wife and three children on Chicago’s wealthy North Shore.

As he describes it, Williamson has spent most of his career in “public service,” although he has never run for office. He was an aide to the most conservative congressman in the Illinois delegation, Rep. Philip Crane, and later worked for the Reagan Administration as intergovernmental affairs director and for the Bush campaign in 1988.

A fiscal conservative who has etched out more moderate positions on social issues, Williamson is known as an intellectual who reads Hermann Hesse and gives windy speeches on public policy.

So far, he says, his status as a novice campaigner has created the biggest hurdles for him in formulating positions on the spot. For example, while the former Princeton University religion major personally opposes abortion, he decided after consulting “with my wife and others” that he was pro-choice–although he does not support federal funding for abortion. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, Williamson would support legalizing abortion. But when asked how that law should be defined, on a state or federal level, he bristled: “I’m not going to say any more; I think (reporters) are more interested in this subject than the public.”

The Braun-Williamson competition is as much a horse race for the locals made blase by the oddities of Chicago politics as it is for the national touts who haven’t seen its like since Shirley Chisholm ran for President in the 1970s.

Already, local pundits are joking on the radio that for the first time the Bridgeport neighborhood, home to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley and his son Richard M., the current mayor, may support a black candidate.

“Carol will get the vote,” says the radio announcer, “because Daley wants her out of town and safe in Washington, where she can’t run for mayor.”

The daughter of a policeman and a medical worker, Braun grew up in Hyde Park, an integrated neighborhood near the University of Chicago, admiring such women as Amelia Earhart and Bessie Coleman, a black aviator. After graduating from law school, Braun married a classmate and joined a Republican-controlled federal prosecutor’s office.

Her initiation into politics came in 1977, when she was pushing her young son in his stroller on Hyde Park Boulevard and ran into Kay Clement, a neighbor. Clement was on a search committee to find a replacement for Robert Mann, a well-known liberal state legislator who was among a group that called itself the “Kosher Nostra” and prided itself on being a constant burr in the elder Daley’s side. Clement asked Braun if she’d run.

“She was well-spoken, congenial, and I thought she had the character to continue on in the tradition of us Young Turks,” recalls Mann, now retired.

Braun served 10 years in the Illinois House, eventually becoming assistant majority leader and Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s floor leader in the mid-1980s.

In the Legislature, she dealt with Democratic politics skillfully but not always defiantly, which angered some of her radical black supporters. Similarly, she riled her white liberal cohorts at times and had problems with Mayor Washington when she formed alliances with his enemies and attempted to run without his approval for lieutenant governor.

“Carol is an ambitious woman, and that’s a sin in our society,” says Mann. “It’s OK for everybody else to be trading horses, making deals, being rainmakers–but not her.”

Braun left the Legislature to be the Chicago recorder of deeds in part to spend more time closer to home; she had been divorced and had a young son and an ill mother to care for.

As an administrator, she updated the deeds system with modern technology and created committees to eliminate patronage. Speaking of the deeds office, a Realtors association spokesman recently told the Chicago Tribune: “It’s not a dungeon anymore. You don’t have to carry your own candle.”

But the administration of Braun’s grass-roots primary campaign did not win as much praise; several members of her staff quit amid reports of conflict over the leadership of campaign manager Kgosie Matthews. And although Braun is likely to draw on the Chicago Establishment, organization is considered her weak point.

Kay Clement, who is on Braun’s committee, says the candidate has confidence in Matthews but plans to bring in more professionals once the money starts rolling in–which is expected at any moment.

Emily’s List, a fund-raising group for women Democratic candidates, gave $5,000 to Braun in the last weeks of the primary campaign and has vowed to support her further. “We will be in the mail for her in the next two weeks and plan to raise an incredible amount of money for her,” vows Ellen Malcolm, the group’s president.

And Chicago women such as Susan P. Kezio are determined that this time around, Braun will get the full respect due her in her hometown.

Kezio, 37, founder of the company Women in Franchising, says she tried during the primary to get Braun as a lunchtime speaker at the city’s Rotary One, the first Rotary Club in America.

“After Dixon spoke to us, I ran up to our director and proudly said, ‘Hey, I can get Carol Moseley Braun to speak,’ ” Kezio recalls. The director suggested they wait until after the primary. Then, a few weeks later, Hofeld came to speak.

Kezio was furious. She complained to the director, who said Hofeld had asked to address the Rotarians and Braun hadn’t. Apparently, Kezio’s request for Braun hadn’t registered.

But this week, according to Kezio, the Rotary director hunted down Braun and eagerly invited her to be a speaker. She said she’d be honored.

“Believe me,” Kezio says, “this time nobody is going to ignore Carol Moseley Braun.”

Source link

Ryanair warns that ignoring ‘reminders’ could see you charged £55 before flying

In November 2025, Ryanair also made a major change to its ticketing system by discontinuing the use of physical tickets

It’s no secret that Ryanair is among the UK’s most popular airlines. Between 2024 and 2025, it celebrated reaching 200 million passengers, a first for any European airline in a one-year period.

Yet future passengers should know that a single oversight could incur a hefty charge. Dealing with this at the airport generally costs £55 in the UK, £30 (€30) for departures from Spain, and even £40 (€40) for departures from Austria. The fee is charged per passenger, per ‘sector’, which includes connections.

You may be surprised to learn that the mistake is simply forgetting or choosing not to check in with Ryanair before arriving at the airport. Customers are urged to check in for flights ahead of their journeys and use a Digital Boarding Pass (DBP).

Official online advice from Ryanair explains: “All Ryanair passengers will still receive email reminders to check-in online 48 and 24hrs predeparture. If any passenger arrives at airport but hasn’t checked in online (having ignored these reminders), they will still be required to pay the airport check-in fee.”

In November 2025, Ryanair made a major change to its ticketing system by discontinuing the use of physical tickets at most airports and instead operating as ‘100%’ DBPs. This scheme, originally planned for May 2025, aims to lower costs, save approximately 300 tonnes of paper annually, and enable travellers to receive direct flight updates.

To get one, travellers should check in online via the website or the Ryanair App, available on the Apple App Store and Google Play. After check-in, a DBP will automatically show up in the Ryanair App. This should be presented at airport security and the boarding gate before flights.

Overall, the budget airline insists that this method is ‘quicker, easier’ and results in ‘less stress’ compared to using paper tickets. Plus, travellers should still be able to board the flight even if their phones are lost or run out of battery.

READ MORE: ‘I took a full-body health MOT – it uncovered a surprising issue’

This is primarily because personnel will have each traveller’s ‘sequence number’ at the departure gate. Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary explained on The Independent’s daily travel podcast last year: “The big concern that people have is: ‘What happens if I lose my battery or what if I lose my phone?’

“…If you lose your phone, no issue. As long as you’ve checked in before you got to the airport, we’ll reissue a paper boarding pass at the airport free of charge.”

Advice on Ryanair’s website mirrors this, adding: “If you have already checked in online and you lose your smartphone or tablet (or it dies), your details are already on our system and you will be assisted at the gate.”

Despite this, it’s important to note that Ryanair isn’t the only airline to issue check-in fees at airports. Wizz Air similarly charges between €40 and €50 for airport check-ins, which also apply per flight, per passenger.

For more information on airline fees, refer to Ryanair’s fee list here or Wizz Air’s fee list here.

How can I check in online with Ryanair?

  1. Visit Ryanair.com or access the Ryanair app on your device.
  2. Log in to your existing account or create a new one if needed.
  3. Click on the ‘Check-in’ option.
  4. Follow the on-screen instructions and enter the required details from your travel documents.
  5. Once check-in is complete, either print out your boarding pass or save it to your mobile device for easy access.

Get all the hottest shopping deals, cash saving tips and money news straight to your phone by joining our new WhatsApp Community – The Money Saving Club. Just click this link to join https://crnch.it/eutplxS1

We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice here https://crnch.it/jeQqC872

Source link