oust

Fifa has strongly criticised what it calls a “concerted and ongoing effort” to “undermine” the organisation and its president Gianni Infantino.

The statement follows a Daily Telegraph report, external which claimed Infantino’s alleged lover was given a severance payment by Uefa after he had an affair while he was its general secretary.

Fifa hit out at “unsubstantiated assertions and demonstrably false claims”, adding that “speculation and insinuation should not be presented as fact”.

Infantino has come under increasing pressure from Uefa and European football associations over his aborted Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) proposal.

FFE would have meant a new company being created to manage commercial and ticketing rights, with 21% sold off to a private investment company.

Uefa has said it has lost confidence in Infantino, while Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) president Lise Klaveness on Friday called on the Swiss-Italian to resign.

European football’s governing body says its threat to boycott Fifa events remains on the table, adding that certain conditions have not been met.

“The Fifa President was democratically elected by Fifa’s Member Associations and continues to serve with their mandate,” Fifa said in its statement on Saturday.

“It is increasingly evident that there is a concerted and ongoing effort by some to undermine Fifa and its president.

“Those who do not have the support of Fifa’s member associations should not seek to achieve through allegation, insinuation or misinformation what they cannot achieve through Fifa’s established democratic processes.”

Opposition to Infantino is largely from within Europe.

The Mexican Football Federation broke ranks with its regional governing body Concacaf to come out in support of Infantino.

It echoed a statement from Conmebol – South America’s governing body – in saying it would reject any attempt to remove Infantino without a vote involving all 211 Fifa member countries.

Infantino is also unanimously backed by the 54 nations of the Confederation of African Football (Caf).

Chadwick Boseman’s brothers, Derrick Boseman and Kevin Boseman, are taking the actor’s widow to court over her handling of his multimillion-dollar estate.

The pair filed a petition with a Los Angeles court to remove control of the “Black Panther” actor’s estate from his widow, Taylor Simone Ledward. They claim Ledward has mishandled distribution of the funds and “cannot be trusted with the continued administration of the estate.”

According to court documents reviewed by The Times, the brothers filed the petition last week on behalf of their parents, Leroy and Carolyn Boseman, whom they say each inherited 25% of their son’s “sizeable” estate while Ledward inherited 50%. The petition states that the estate included residuals and royalties, rights to his image and intellectual property, investments, insurance policies, personal property and multiple bank accounts. Because the actor did not leave a will, the estate was passed to his parents and Ledward.

Ledward, the petition claims, “was also appointed as administrator” but never “fully distributed [Boseman’s] estate. … Instead, she continues to exercise complete control over his estate without input from Leroy and Carolyn.” The filing asks the court to have Ledward distribute the remaining estate assets, make a case for why she shouldn’t be “held in contempt for disobeying the court’s order,” and provide a “full accounting with receipts for her time as administrator.” It also asks that the court remove her as administrator.

The brothers asked the court to pass Ledward’s role as administrator to a private fiduciary and forensic accountant, who they claim will be essential in investigating Ledward’s alleged “mismanagement of the estate and marshaling any unaccounted-for assets.”

Reps for Ledward did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

The actor’s brothers allege that, because of their lack of access to Boseman’s estate, they are “blocked from pursuing lucrative business opportunities” that might benefit their “elderly parents.”

“For years, our parents have sought clarity regarding matters connected to the estate of our brother, Chadwick Boseman, including his intellectual property and legacy,” the brothers said in an emailed statement shared by their representative. “On behalf of our parents, we are committed to ensuring that transparency, accountability, and respect guide the resolution of these matters. Our hope is that this process brings clarity, honors the Court’s orders, and ensures the responsible stewardship of Chadwick’s legacy.

“We love our brother, and we remain committed to preserving his legacy with dignity, integrity, and respect.”

The Oscar nominee died in 2020 at 43 years old after privately battling colon cancer for four years. He was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2016, the same year he made his debut as comics superhero T’Challa, a.k.a. the Black Panther, in “Captain America: Civil War.” The acclaimed actor also portrayed real-life icons Jackie Robinson in “42,” James Brown in “Get on Up” and Thurgood Marshall in “Marshall.”

Boseman and Ledward, an R&B artist who uses the stage name sahn, started dating in 2015 and quietly wed in 2020 before the actor’s death. In a December 2020 interview with “CBS Sunday Morning,” Boseman’s friend and the producer of the Netflix movie “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” Denzel Washington, said that while on the set of the film he watched Ledward care for the actor in the midst of his cancer battle and told him to “put a ring on that finger.”

In recent years, Ledward has advocated for colon cancer awareness and spoken at multiple events. In 2024, she spoke at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, saying, “Colorectal cancer is killing young people across the country, and most are vastly underestimating their risk. I’ve seen how this disease moves, and I know now how treatable it is when it’s detected early,” she said, per NBC Boston.

“My personal advocacy stems from this understanding, and from the disappointment I feel in the lack of awareness in my community,” she said. “We who have this knowledge have an obligation to inform our fellow man. Spreading awareness will save lives.”

Hungarian parliament passes amendment that would remove President Sulyok, appointed under ex-Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary’s parliament has approved a constitutional amendment to remove President Tamas Sulyok from his largely ceremonial position, the latest move to dismantle the power of figures associated with former Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The measure, passed on Monday with 139 votes in favour and only six opposing, would immediately bring an end to Sulyok’s term in office and pave the way for parliament to elect a new president.

Hungarians voted out the right-wing nationalist Orban in April, with new Prime Minister Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party winning in a landslide. The election result ended 16 years of power for Orban’s Fidesz party, which had come to dominate many aspects of the country.

Since Magyar’s victory, he has sought to erode that power, including by removing the current president. The constitutional amendment also introduces a series of judicial reforms, creates a body to investigate alleged financial abuses under the previous government, and imposes a 12-year term limit on lawmakers.

Sulyok now has five days to sign the constitutional amendment passed by parliament. Magyar has said that parliament will launch an impeachment procedure against Sulyok if he does not sign it.

The president and other members of Fidesz boycotted Monday’s parliamentary session.

Sweeping away the old order

The parliament elected Sulyok, a former chief of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, in February 2024. He was nominated to replace Katalin Novak, who resigned after pardoning a man convicted of covering up child sexual abuse.

But days after Magyar’s centre-right Tisza Party won a two-thirds parliamentary super-majority in April, the new prime minister declared Sulyok “unworthy to embody the unity of the Hungarian nation” and demanded that he leave office once the new government was formed.

In June, after the deadline to resign had passed, Magyar branded the president a “puppet” of Orban and promised to strip him and other holdovers from office by constitutional means. Weeks later, he unveiled a reform programme, dubbed “Operation Cleansing Fire”, which seeks to install a new constitution, purge state institutions and establish an anticorruption office.

While the presidency is a largely symbolic post, it is empowered to approve laws and can refer them to the Constitutional Court for review, raising fears that Sulyok might use his presidential powers to stymie Tisza’s ambitious reform agenda.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday night that Alabama Republican leaders may redraw their congressional voting districts to oust a Black Democrat and elect a white Republican.

The court’s conservatives, who ruled for Louisiana Republicans in a redistricting dispute, extended that decision to Alabama. The three liberals dissented.

The decision clears the way for the governor and state lawmakers to redraw their congressional voting map with six districts that favor Republicans and one that favors a Democrat.

“Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would ‘unleash chaos and … confuse voters,’ ” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

The justices granted an emergency appeal that was backed by the Trump administration and set aside the decision of a three-judge panel in Alabama.

The court in a brief opinion said the three judges should not have blocked Alabama’s new map.

“While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests,” the court said.

Alabama’s emergency appeal went to Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred it to the full court.

Those three judges, two of them Trump appointees, ruled that Alabama’s state lawmakers discriminated against Black voters, who made up a near majority in the center of the state.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices upheld the creation of a second district in the center of the state where Black voters had a near majority.

The result then was an Alabama state voting map that favored five Republicans and two Democrats for the House of Representatives.

But last month, in the wake of the Louisiana decision, Alabama’s lawmakers went back to court, arguing that the state may return to the voting map with only a single Black majority district.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Alabama’s Atty. Gen. Steven Marshall argued that the high court’s decision in favor of Louisiana “vindicates Alabama position on the lawfulness” of its earlier voting map. He said the state should not be penalized for “refusing to intentionally discriminate” to favor Black voters.

The court’s decision has cleared the way for Republican-led states in the South to flip congressional districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida and now Alabama.