offer

Deion Sanders was just kidding.

The Colorado Buffaloes coach told reporters on Tuesday that he actually would not be willing pay them or any of their colleagues to refrain from covering him, despite what a close associate of his said during a livestream days earlier.

“Oh, no, no, no. I think you misinterpreted that,” Sanders said. “That was a joke. That’s what we were saying, like, some people live on your name.”

YouTube host and documentary maker Christopher Neely brought up the topic on Saturday during a livestream on “Thee Pregame Network.” A longtime videographer for Sanders, Neely mentioned that some members of the media seem to thrive off of negative coverage of Sanders, nicknamed Coach Prime.

“For the most part, the people that attack him wouldn’t be making the money they were making if he wasn’t here to attack,” Neely said, “which is why he told some of them, ‘Hey man, let’s just do this. I’ll give you $50,000 to not mention my name for a year.’ And ain’t nobody took the deal yet.”

Neely added: “You love talking about this man so much, and you make so much talking about this man that you turn the deal down. That’s what we’re dealing with.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Neely addressed the matter on “TMR Live,” the daily livestream he co-hosts with BiggDogg Chico. Neely clarified that Sanders made the so-called offer while joking around on the show in May and hadn’t actually floated the idea to actual media members.

“This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek, joking example to prove a point that there’s so many people who are negative toward us and they’re making so much money being negative toward us that even if I offered them what they were making or more, they still wouldn’t stop,” said Neely, who played the clip of a smiling Sanders making the comment in the spring.

“All I did this weekend on like October 26 was say, ‘Hey, by the way, ain’t nobody still reached out to Coach Prime and say, ‘Hey, give me that 50, I’ll stop talking about you.’ And then what do they do? [They said] ‘Neely says Coach Prime’s feelings are hurt and he wants to pay people to not talk about him.’”

Neely added: “He was clearly playing. Do you think this man with all he’s worth and been through and been talked about since he first caught a ball that he would literally pay somebody in Colorado to stop talking about him? He’s got better ways to blow $50,000.”

Although amused by the notion, Sanders made it clear that reporters aren’t going to get a dime from him.

“I would never offer a man money not to say — I don’t give a darn what you say about me,” Sanders said. “That was really a joke about someone who is prospering off of your name and your brand but they don’t like you.”

A two-time Super Bowl champion, one-time NFL defensive player of the year and a 2011 inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Sanders became Colorado’s head coach in 2023. Since then, the Buffaloes have gone 18-26, including a 9-4 effort from a 2024 roster that including his son Shedeur Sanders, who is now with the Cleveland Browns, and Heisman Trophy winner Travis Hunter, now with the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The team is 2-5 and 0-4 in the Big 12 Conference this year. It hosts conference foe Kansas State (4-3, 1-3) on Saturday.

Fifa is set to propose a $3.4bn (£2.6bn) increase in the amount of money it hands out for football development across the world.

World football’s governing body wants to release the money from its reserves in a move which BBC Sport has been told would double the level of planned distribution funding for 2027-2030.

The proposal will be made at a meeting of Fifa’s council on Thursday and comes at a time when the organisation is under pressure following president Gianni Infantino’s aborted Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) plan.

Infantino wanted to sell stakes in the World Cup and other competitions to private investors but faced huge criticism for the proposal, with Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation questioning his position.

Uefa and Concacaf wrote to Infantino in September calling on Fifa to pay at least $10m (£7.5m) from its cash reserves to each of the 211 member associations.

In a letter then sent to Fifa’s six continental confederations, Infantino – who will be standing for re-election for a fourth time in March 2027 – said he would support “the greatest level of additional funding that can responsibly be delivered”.

Fifa will now offer extra money from its reserves in addition to the current $2.7bn budgeted to be paid to all 211 member associations, the confederations, regional associations and certain non-Fifa affiliated associations.

The breakdown is as follows:

• $25m (£19m) per member association

• $99m (£75m) for each of the six confederations

• $8.25m (£6.3m) for each of the 13 zonal/regional associations

• $1.1m (£836,000) for 100 member associations for travel and equipment solidarity

The terms of the distribution would be as follows:

• One third would be allocated to women’s and youth football development

• One third would be allocated to infrastructure (of which there shall be equal access to women’s and youth football)

• One third would be allocated to projects

The plan, including the eligibility, application, approval, disbursement, control and audit requirements, will be finalised by the Fifa council at its next meeting in December 2026.

It will all be subject to approval by the 77th Fifa congress in March 2027.

Federal investigators have sent Los Angeles County elections officials at least five grand jury subpoenas for individual voter records as part of a criminal investigation into illegal voting, according to partially redacted records reviewed by The Times.

The subpoenas — released in response to a public records request — appear related to a nationwide effort by the Trump administration to identify noncitizens who have illegally cast ballots in U.S. elections.

The subpoenas were issued in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They were sent to L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan’s office at the request of prosecutors in the office of First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli.

“The enclosed subpoena has been issued in connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations,” Assistant. U.S. Atty. Michael Wheat — based out of the district’s Orange County office — wrote in a letter accompanying a Sept. 10 subpoena.

Wheat wrote that a custodian of records from Logan’s office must either appear before the grand jury to present the records or deliver the materials to a special agent from Homeland Security Investigations.

Four of the subpoenas — one issued on July 13 and three on Sept. 10 — request “any and all original and non-redacted voter records” from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present for a list of individual voters stretching across two pages. The lists were redacted by Los Angeles County officials, and it is unclear how many individuals each list contained.

Each of those subpoenas notes that records to be produced include information on individual voters, such as their “registration file” and “addresses listed, history and method of voting, [and] any and all attestation regarding citizenship status.”

A fifth subpoena, issued July 31, appears to request similar information for a single voter, and notes that the voter’s “ballot content or vote selections” should not be included.

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, declined to comment on the investigations Monday.

The Times first reported the existence of the subpoenas, but not details from the records themselves, last week, after Logan confirmed that his office was complying with the federal inquiry despite having concerns that investigators may be using incorrect or outdated information to produce their lists of voters to investigate.

“We’re responding appropriately as directed through a subpoena, but that doesn’t afford the dialogue for us to get the background on what they’re looking for and how they came up with the names that they did,” Logan said. “There’s really no information being provided to us on that.”

President Trump has alleged for years that illegal voting by noncitizens is widespread, though experts say the problem — which they acknowledge occurs — is exceedingly rare. Homeland Security officials have been leading a campaign in recent months to identify such fraud nationwide, and the subpoenas received by L.A. County appear to match others received by elections officials elsewhere in the country.

Essayli — a Trump loyalist who has not been confirmed to lead the Los Angeles prosecutor’s office by the U.S. Senate and whose de facto leadership has been contested in court — has been vocal about his office’s pursuit of voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

His office has announced two voter fraud cases in recent weeks, including one involving the arrest of 30-year-old Honduran national on two felony charges of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and fraudulently registering to vote. That man, Darwin Jonathan Rivera-Flores, has pleaded not guilty and is out on bond pending trial.

Rivera-Flores and his attorney declined to comment.

The Justice Department also recently announced it had charged 16 noncitizens in six other states with illegal voting and other election-related crimes.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin publicly claimed in July — without providing evidence — that there may be more than 190,000 such voters on California rolls, a claim California officials dismissed as baseless.

Three of the five subpoenas received by Logan’s office ask that the voter information be shared with Al Rossi, the acting assistant head of Homeland Security Investigations in Los Angeles.

Reached by phone, Rossi referred questions to an agency spokesperson, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Wheat had asked that the subpoenas be kept secret, so as not to impede an open investigation. Logan’s office released the records in accordance with California public records law, but redacted the names of voters on the grounds that doing so “protects those individuals from undue attention, harassment, intimidation, or possible harm” and “protects the integrity” of the investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld Trump’s expanded use of government data to search for noncitizens who are registered to vote. A lower court order had blocked use of the data over concerns — shared by the Supreme Court’s liberal wing — that the data are error-prone.

Voting rights experts have expressed concern that misuse of the data could lead to legitimate voters being purged from rolls.

States across the country, including California, have successfully fought off lawsuits from the Trump administration demanding the states’ complete voter rolls.

It is unclear why a subpoena for a single voter’s information would come between subpoenas for information on longer lists of voters. But it lines up with the case against Rivera-Flores.

In an affidavit filed with a criminal complaint against Rivera-Flores, Special Agent Christopher Kuzma — the same agent listed on the July 31 subpoena requesting a single voter’s information — said he received a series of texts he believed were from Rivera-Flores, who had previously been issued a misdemeanor citation on suspicion of disrupting immigration law enforcement operations at the federal building in Camarillo.

One text sent in April 2026 stated, “Your not the good guy I can’t wait until the mid terms you dont have qualified immunity then we can start and indict all you guys one bye one.”

Kuzma said in his affidavit that he took the message to mean Rivera-Flores “has both an interest in the voting process and an intent to participate in the election process.”

According to the affidavit, Kuzma said he conducted several record checks through public databases, including on the California secretary of state’s website, which “disclosed an online voter registration record” for a “Darwin Rivera” at Rivera-Flores’ address.

In July 2026, Kuzma said in the affidavit, he reviewed records from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office for “Darwin J Rivera,” which showed the applicant had checked a box stating he was a U.S. citizen.

Kuzma’s affidavit said in August 2026 he received certified voter registration records from Los Angeles County.

The spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a question about whether Kuzma’s July 31 subpoena was specific to Rivera-Flores, but the office has previously said Wheat is prosecuting the case.

When Rivera-Flores’ arrest was announced, Essayli said it was “the first of many to come.”

Iran’s foreign minister says his visit to the UN General Assembly last week was mainly to outline Tehran’s position on regional conflicts and the critical security situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most perilous choke point on the global map as Iran continues to disrupt traffic by attacking vessels. A recent proposal by the Islamic Republic to open the waterway within seven days raised hopes that the situation could go back to normal. United States President Donald Trump, however, rejected the offer.

To understand the strategic calculus behind his high-stakes decision, one must look beyond the immediate tactical noise and peer into the deeper logic of deterrence.

On its surface, the rejection of a temporary truce in the world’s most vital energy corridor appears to be a reckless gamble – a provocation inviting the very conflagration the West seeks to avoid. But viewed through the lens of cold realism, the rejection was not only a calculated necessity; it was the right decision.

The Iranian regime’s proposal was a classic exercise in asymmetric diplomacy. It offered a brief window of stability, a transactional pause, in exchange for what would have amounted to a de facto relaxation of American pressure. To accept such terms would have meant embracing the delusional belief that a terrorist power can be bribed into good behaviour by accepting its terms of engagement.

Had Washington accepted, it would have validated Iran’s self-assumed right to turn the spigot of global commerce on and off at will. By flatly rejecting the offer, Trump signalled that freedom of navigation is not a chip to be bartered in a week-long bazaar, but an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite of international order.

The timing of this gambit – on the eve of the critical midterm elections – has naturally drawn the ire of the domestic political class. Critics argue that risking an energy crisis and a subsequent spike in oil prices weeks before Americans head to the ballot box is an act of political self-immolation. This view, while superficially plausible, misunderstands both the nature of the electorate and the psychology of our adversaries.

The Iranians chose this moment to put forward their proposal precisely because of the midterm elections. They are sophisticated observers of American domestic politics. They calculated that an administration facing an electoral test would be paralysed by the fear of rising fuel prices and would eagerly grasp at any diplomatic lifeline, however flimsy, to keep the peace until November.

Had Trump capitulated to save Republicans a few points at the polls, he would have handed Iran a profound psychological victory. He would have demonstrated that American foreign policy is subservient to the domestic election calendar – a vulnerability that every autocracy from Moscow to Beijing would immediately exploit.

By taking the gamble before the midterm elections, Trump has turned the tables. He has demonstrated that his administration is willing to absorb short-term political pain in pursuit of long-term strategic clarity. This is the essence of credible deterrence.

Deterrence is not merely a function of military hardware; it is a function of perceived will. When an adversary believes you are too weak, too compromised, or too worried about the next election cycle to defend your core interests, deterrence fails. By rejecting the seven-day proposal, the Trump administration proved it could not be blackmailed by the electoral calendar.

Trump’s decision reflects a sophisticated understanding of the regime in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is currently facing an acute internal economic crisis, a direct consequence of the sustained American maximum-pressure campaign.

The seven-day proposal was not a gesture of Iranian confidence; it was a sign of desperation disguised as a diplomatic overture. It was an attempt to buy breathing room, fragment the expanding international coalition against Tehran and project an image of being in control to its own restive population.

To grant Iran that reprieve would have been to throw a lifeline to an antagonist regime on the ropes. Clearly, this offer was only made because US strategy is working and Iran’s economy is cratering.

History teaches us that truces with terrorist regimes are rarely precursors to permanent peace; they are merely opportunities for the aggressor to rearm, recalibrate and choose the next moment of confrontation on more favourable terms. A short-term guarantee of open shipping lanes implied that any day, the threat could return, magnified by the legitimacy Washington would have afforded to Iran’s leverage.

The critics who cry havoc at this decision are the heirs of the foreign policy establishment that spent decades managing decline through endless, inconclusive and failed negotiations. They prefer the comfortable fiction of a temporary deal to the hard reality of a sustained geopolitical contest.

President Trump’s gamble is risky, yes. The potential for miscalculation in the narrow waters of the Gulf is always present. But the risk of inaction, or of a pliant accommodation, is far greater.

By holding the line, the administration has reaffirmed a foundational principle of US global stewardship: the US will not permit rogue states to hold the global economy hostage.

The rejection of the Iranian proposal is the correct path because it chooses clarity of American resolve over partisan political convenience. It signals to the regime in Iran that its leverage is artificial and its economic isolation is permanent unless its behaviour changes.

This November, American voters will decide the composition of the US Congress based on a multitude of domestic and foreign policy factors. But on the global stage, Trump remains steadfast by demonstrating that principle trumps political expediency.

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