plan

FIFA executive Arsene Wenger backs decision to drop FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s World Cup sell-off plan.

FIFA executive Arsene Wenger has distanced himself from President Gianni Infantino’s failed plan to sell stakes in future World Cup profits to private investors and says it was “absolutely necessary” to drop the proposal.

Wenger’s statement on Tuesday on the controversy came after a preservation letter from UEFA, confirmed to Al Jazeera by European football’s governing body, was sent to FIFA, the world governing body.

Upon confirming the legal request was sent, UEFA said it would be making “no further comment at this stage”.

The Associated Press news agency, however, has reported that it has seen a letter from lawyers representing UEFA that has named Wenger, the French coaching great, among 18 executives whose data and communications should be retained as potential evidence.

“I was not involved in this strategic plan and first became aware of the project through media reports,” said Wenger, who was hired by Infantino in 2019 and is FIFA’s chief of global football development.

The statement by the former Arsenal coach did not name Infantino and comes after a weeklong furore across world football.

“The decision to withdraw the project was absolutely necessary and beyond question, because I firmly believe in an independent FIFA that serves our game with commitment, transparency, and integrity,” Wenger wrote.

Infantino withdrew his $20bn proposal early on Saturday after a furious backlash by global football officials and organisations, including UEFA warning of a boycott of all FIFA games and events.

The plan would have created a subsidiary, known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), to run the money-making parts of the nonprofit football body’s work, including organising tournaments like the World Cup and selling broadcasting and sponsorship rights and tickets.

It proposed raising $4.2bn from investors by selling stakes amounting to about 20 percent in FFE, based on an equity valuation of $20bn.

The “anchor investor” would have been Thrive Eternal, launched by Joshua Kushner, whose brother, Jared Kushner, is a son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump.

FIFA’s 211 member federations – already the essential owners of the governing body as a nonprofit association under Swiss law – were offered $20m each. The deadline to accept was September 19.

They also were promised a doubling of their FIFA funding for the four years through 2030 to $20m instead of the previously announced $10m.

Infantino shared details of the project to FIFA management just one week after the July 19 final of the financially successful World Cup in North America that drove FIFA’s revenues to $15bn for the 2023-2026 commercial cycle, almost double the income tied to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Wenger said his FIFA duties were to “oversee the data analysis of the game, the FIFA online training centre, the development of youth education through 60 academies across 60 countries where they are most needed, and youth competitions around the world”.

When Gianni Infantino was chosen to replace Sepp Blatter as president of FIFA, he was seen as a reformer, someone who would bring transparency and openness to soccer’s international governing body, which had long been mired in scandal and deceit.

A decade later the reformer has been exposed, hoisted by his own petard after a secret partnership with a member of President Trump’s family circle to sell 20% of the World Cup to private investors was exposed. It was a deal so brazen it made past FIFA transgressions seem quaint by comparison.

Less than two weeks after Infantino closed one of the most successful World Cups in history, one that brought in a record $15 billion in revenue, The Times of London revealed that Infantino had begun bribing FIFA’s 211-member associations, giving them until Sept. 19 to accept his plan to sell a stake in the commercial and tournament rights to the World Cup and other FIFA tournaments to a private equity firm headed by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and an inveterate White House counselor.

Sign on, the federations were told, and you’ll get $20 million. Decline, and FIFA will give you just a fraction of that.

Under pressure, Infantino announced Friday he was withdrawing the plan, known as the FIFA Forward Enterprise. But it turns out there was more to the proposal than originally thought.

Much, much more.

Which is why Infantino’s campaign for reelection to a fourth term as FIFA president next March, a campaign which had the support of more than 200 FIFA members two weeks ago, now appears doomed.

The national federations of Serbia, Sweden and Wales on Monday withdrew their support for Infantino and England’s FA is expected to do the ‌same. UEFA, the governing body for European soccer and the largest and most powerful of FIFA’s six continental confederations, is threatening legal action while two other confederations — CONCACAF, the largest of FIFA’s two confederations in the Americans and the AFC, which manages soccer in Asia — have issued condemnations.

Those three confederations together represent nearly 140 FIFA members, meaning if they hold together there is no path for Infantino to get the 106 votes he would need to win reelection.

So how did we get here? How did Infantino go from progressive reformer, the overseer of newly transparent and accountable FIFA, to the man who literally tried to sell the World Cup? The journey may not have been as long as it seemed because Infantino may never have been the Boy Scout he was initially perceived to be.

Days after his first election as president in 2016, his name surfaced in leaked documents indicating that, while a senior legal official at UEFA, he had co-signed a broadcast deal with a company subsequently linked to a U.S. investigation into FIFA corruption. Later that same year, a FIFA committee opened an investigation into whether Infantino breached the organization’s Code of Ethics.

Infantino was eventually cleared by that probe but another pattern soon emerged, one that saw the president morph from a soccer bureaucrat into someone who believes he should be mixing with presidents and kings.

Infantino inherited World Cups that had already been awarded to Russia and Qatar, but he aggressively downplayed the human rights abuses in the two countries. Russian President Putin rewarded that by presenting the FIFA chief with the Order of Friendship medal. Qatar did better than that, giving Infantino use of a luxury Gulfstream G650 jet from its government fleet.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino, far left, takes a selfie with (from left) President Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during the World Cup draw in Washington on Dec. 5.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

If Infantino, born to blue-collar Italian parents in Switzerland, had previously been driven by a desire for power and money, one former close associate told The Times of London that the FIFA president “views himself as one of the oligarchs now.”

And no government gave Infantino more access to the corridors of power than the Trump administration. Infantino rented office space in Trump Tower, attended Trump’s second inauguration, mingled with him and his guests at Mar-a-lago, accompanied him on diplomatic missions to the Middle East and was a frequent visitor to the White House.

Last October, Infantino took to Instagram to say that Trump “definitely deserves” the Nobel Peace Prize. When he didn’t get it, Infantino simply created his own award, presenting Trump with first FIFA Peace Prize last December.

But the access to the top levels of the U.S. government may have created Infantino’s Icarus moment. The beginning of Infantino’s fall may have started last year at the White House when he and Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo attended a black-tie dinner to honor Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Five days earlier Ronaldo had been given a red card and a three-game suspension for a serious foul, a penalty that would have forced him to miss the start of the World Cup. After the White House event, FIFA announced Ronaldo’s suspension had been lifted, allowing one of the World Cup’s star attractions to play in the tournament.

That was an incident Trump remembered last month when he personally — and successfully — petitioned Infantino to lift a red-card suspension for U.S. striker Folarin Balogun the day before a World Cup round-of-16 game with Belgium. It was just the second time in history a suspension was overturned during a World Cup.

Infantino also pushed through a number of other World Cup firsts for this summer’s tournament. He added three-minute hydration breaks each half, upsetting more than a century and a half of soccer tradition while giving six more minutes of advertising space to broadcasters; he introduced a halftime show for the final, nearly doubling the intermission break for the tournament’s most important game; and he pioneered a dynamic pricing scheme that more than doubled the cost of tickets from 2022.

Those moves were designed to boost FIFA revenues, and they did — as did Infantino’s push to expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams and 104 games. But his luck ran out with his plan to give outside investors a share of the tournament, a scheme known to the White House — Jared Kushner was originally involved, according to reports — but few others.

One damning part of the plan involved a potential future role for Infantino in the investment fund. As FIFA’s president, Infantino earns an annual salary of $6 million, but if reelected, he can serve just one more term, meaning he’d be out of a job in 2031. However, multiple reports, citing unnamed sources, said Infantino was positioned to be chief executive of the investment arm in his post-FIFA days, a job that pays $30 million a year.

FIFA said that idea was never discussed. It also denied reports that Infantino had been rebuffed Monday in efforts to contact Trump for help in saving his presidency. But should he be pushed aside and should his days as a private equity manager never come to pass, there is another job Trump thinks he could do.

The president is reportedly considering pushing Infantino to become the next United Nations secretary-general when António Guterres’ term expires in December.

⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

The Department of War is challenging the U.S. defense industrial base to transform the way it builds and supplies weapons for the military – stimulating manufacturers to find new ways to enable faster and more efficient procurement. It’s a necessary move, particularly when it comes to weapons stockpiles, as some have been placed on red alert due to high consumption in crisis abroad. Efforts to create a so-called “Arsenal of Freedom” involve shoring-up critical supply chains, injecting predictable long-lead funding, lowering costs, and increasing competition.

Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control (MFC) division is reacting by investing in production capacity to accelerate some of its most important munitions facilities – a reflection of how many of its missiles are in high demand. Speaking at a groundbreaking event at the company’s Troy, Alabama, site in May 2026, at which TWZ was present, Lockheed Martin chairman, president and CEO Jim Taiclet addressed employees about a “first landmark framework agreement” that will dramatically accelerate production of PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement) air defense interceptors, which are designed to destroy adversary tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones and aircraft.

Taiclet said the “agreement represented a new model for how government and industry could work together with greater speed, accountability and shared commitment to the mission’s execution.” In addition to PAC-3 MSE, Lockheed Martin is also boosting production of its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) lines to meet the urgent demand for more missiles. 

Both PAC-3 and THAAD have been integrated together in Joint All-Domain Operations, including with the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) and during exercises with the F-35 stealth fighter.

The company says it’s planning an $8-9-billion investment through 2030 to expand this munitions footprint across the U.S.. Lockheed Martin has invested more than $7 billion since President Donald Trump’s first term to expand capacity for priority systems, including approximately $2 billion dedicated to accelerating munitions

production. Investment is being channeled into MFC facilities, tooling, suppliers, as well as its workforce. “This effort reflects the power of a commercially-inspired partnership between government and industry,” Taiclet said, endorsing this approach as an obvious method to expand capacity for priority systems.

Paving the way for acceleration

The Department of War’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy is designed to create long-term stability that gives industry the confidence to make necessary investments to change the way it produces equipment. Lockheed Martin was the first in the defense industry to announce a framework agreement like this for munitions acceleration under the new government initiative – initially committing to the tripling of production capacity of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor and then quadrupling the production capacity of THAAD interceptors.

The U.S. government awarded Lockheed Martin a $4.7-billion undefinitized contract action (UCA) in April 2026 for the accelerated production of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), which built on a framework agreement signed in January 2026 to ramp up production of the missiles. Production of the PrSM short-range ballistic missile will also quadruple. PrSM, which succeeds the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), received Milestone C approval from the U.S. Army in July 2025, which led to a $4.94 billion contract award. PrSM then made its operational debut earlier this year in operations against Iran. 

“We’re rapidly ramping up a number of munitions. It’ll probably [expand to] include all the munitions that we build here at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control,” explained Tim Cahill, president of the company division. “We are working in partnership with the Department of War to identify go-quick contract actions that we can put in place, the suppliers we need and what investment is needed, and then determine what we call the enablers to make that happen.”

“It’s not just a case of let’s just go faster, it’s about what we fundamentally have to change across the entire business and in the technical process to go quickly to replenish stocks at a higher level than we ever have before,” Cahill added. “Ultimately, I would expect that we’re going to see all the munitions that we build in some sort of heads of agreement, some sort of a contract to increase the level of production.”

Lockheed Martin’s Master Plan For Accelerating Munitions Production

In addition to PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, and PrSM, the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) programs are also ramping up, and Cahill added that the AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile JAGM and Javelin shoulder-launched anti-armor weapon are expected to follow suit. “We have been ramping some of these munitions for several years already. Javelin production has increased, as has GMLRS [Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System] and GMLRS Extended-Range, but I would expect they’re going to ramp up beyond those numbers in the next few years.”

The manufacturing process for these advanced weapons is a complex business. It has typically taken as long as three years from contract signature to the delivery of a PAC-3 MSE. Lockheed Martin aims to dramatically cut timelines like this. “Lockheed Martin is not waiting – we have been taking proactive steps to ramp up production and secure materials well in advance,” explained Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager for integrated air and missile defense. “It takes time for each of those suppliers to actually create those individual subcomponents and ship them to places like our plants in Troy, Alabama, or Camden, Arkansas. Then we do the final assembly. Once we’ve completed that, we have to go through testing and qualification, packaging and signing off, then delivering them to the U.S. government or to our partners and allies that have placed that order. It’s a time consuming process, but we’re doing everything possible to shorten that in the near term.”

One of the critical keys to the change lies in contracting. Cahill says companies have become used to annual contracts, with incremental follow-on options. He says this drove industry to commit to a year’s worth of production at a time, with no real certainty over what the ensuing years would bring. The new government approach presents a commitment of between five and seven years, which provides far greater confidence and predictability for manufacturers to invest in long-lead items to help prevent bottlenecks in the complex production cycle, and ultimately streamlines and expedites the production process.

The long-term approach to procurement has an additional benefit of being able to secure lower prices for components and materials, enabling the prime contractor to invest in a supplier’s capacity with greater confidence. Keeping a production line moving and not having to pause to wait for components to arrive is a significant factor. Securing larger quantities of parts with plenty of lead time enables cost savings and production acceleration.

“For all of us, there’s also economic value there,” explains Cahill. “There is real money in being able to drive efficiencies, knowing what the next seven years will be like. We can take those efficiencies and effectively apply them into self-investment up front, so the U.S. government gets better value in the price of the munitions. They’re ordering more and business gets the opportunity for increased revenue and increased capability.”

“We have thousands of suppliers, particularly underneath our key suppliers all across this nation and in many cases across the world. It’s about what they need all the way down to raw materials. For example, one thing that’s held us up over the years is titanium. Titanium goes into a lot of things, including golf club shafts! So you’re out there competing on the commercial market for materials. Being able to get ahead of that curve and aggregate demand, first of all, increases our priority and allows us to deal with the lead times and plan for that so those don’t become bottlenecks. What we are doing with our suppliers is in effect addressing all those elements.”

It’s not just the contracting that is being overhauled, changing the way these complex systems are actually built is equally important. Lockheed Martin is now increasing both its workforce and the use of robotics, plus it’s bringing in additive manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing to reduce reliance on costly and time-consuming traditional tooling.

“Building missiles faster is a key priority for us, and we can do that a couple of different ways,” added Jason Reynolds. “You can shorten the span time and the lead times of all the different components, and you can actually increase the factory floor [footprint] to increase throughput. We’re doing all of that. We’re working with suppliers to reduce the individual span times, whether it be a rocket motor, a seeker, or a section that we make internally like the guidance section, so that we can build these things faster using automation and advanced manufacturing technologies at the same time. We’re increasing the actual capacity. We’re making additional tooling and test equipment, hiring additional people both here at Lockheed Martin and at our suppliers around the world.”

License production is another means to share the load and unlock expanded production capacity. Lockheed Martin has already licensed PAC-3 MSE production to Japan, which operates a final assembly and checkout facility. “That’s something we’re going to be looking at, because if we can expand our supply base in Europe, for example, where we have potential co-production in Europe, there are some great possibilities there,” says Tim Cahill. “We’re looking at all the elements, everything that might be a methodology to bring those numbers up and make sure that our nation and our allies have the capacity they need. Licensed production could very well be part of that.”

Rapid prototyping and speed to field

New start-up companies and industry “disruptors” are playing a fundamental role in changing the government’s expectations when it comes to driving down costs and rapidly developing and then producing new capabilities. Tim Cahill pulls no punches when acknowledging this and emphasizing how Lockheed Martin is similarly evolving its approach. 

MFC has set-up a Rapid Fielding Center at its Grand Prairie facility in Dallas, Texas, designed to promote the use of latest in production and prototyping technologies. “We are looking at how we can apply some of the emerging technologies to do things quickly, like using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to make our production more adaptive and able to build in mass quantities that we couldn’t build before. We are competing in that space.”

The use of commercial off the shelf products is a recognized means to accelerate, but Cahill cautions that it’s not always a suitable solution. “You’re looking for the most capable parts to meet the requirements and get you there fast. That’s always been part of the dynamic for Lockheed Martin. We always look at commercial parts. Some systems are more conducive to it than others. If you’re building a low-cost drone or a counter-drone system, you’re looking for something that’s treatable – it’s great for those kinds of systems. But as these become more complex – when they have to operate in environments that range from the Arctic to the high desert in the Middle East in the middle of summer – or if they have to go through extreme launch environments or whether they have to survive in the presence of our adversaries trying to counter them. As the requirements get harder and harder, commercial off-the-shelf parts just don’t meet those requirements. They fail because they’re not designed for that.”

“You can’t take an automotive guidance system and run it at Mach 5, run it through the atmosphere at high temperature and have somebody try and disrupt it. In most cases we have to make them more robust and capable, or build parts that are unique to those particular products. We always start with the questions of how we accomplish the mission? How do we give our warfighters what they need to prevail, and we will use commercial off-the-shelf if that fits what is necessary for that mission – sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. Any technology that you can imagine, we are looking for, how might we apply that just like all the new entrants and frankly all the traditional companies are doing much the same. We get the sense of urgency and that’s what we intend to do.”

Lockheed Martin is also involved in deep research around low cost weapons. “There’s a lot of people competing in that space,” Cahill acknowledges. “Sometimes for us when we’re applying our investment, our expertise, it’s more effective to focus on some of the other capability areas. For example, we have introduced a counter-UAS [unmanned aircraft system] called MORFIUS™ X-Rotor, a newly-released airborne high power microwave system that can neutralize more than 50 enemy drones in a single flight.”

MORFIUS is designed for field recovery and reuse and Lockheed Martin says it offers a very low cost-per-kill ratio.

Lockheed Martin is also ready to move ahead with a lower-cost Patriot missile interceptor. “Our PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or PAC-3 ACE, answers the call,” Cahill told TWZ, adding that it will probably be less than half as expensive as the current PAC-3 MSE, but that it would still retain a lot of the capability. “They’re never going to have that full capability because you’ve got to fundamentally remove parts, some of the things that are most expensive.” 

Cahill says that PAC-3 ACE is built on the PAC-3 fire-control system and will be fully linked to the Patriot weapon system and the Integrated Battle Command System. “There isn’t magic here and when you take some of those things off, they become less capable, but that’s absolutely part of the dynamic. This rapidly fielded, complementary PAC-3, will be deployed quickly and enhance the resilience of the U.S. defense industrial base worldwide.”

July 31 (UPI) — Federal officials on Friday released an updated framework for the Colorado River, requiring Arizona, California and Nevada to significantly reduce their water use in the coming years.

The plan, released by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, reduces the water available for use by the three states by 3 million acre-feet in the coming decade.

One acre-foot is enough water for as many as four households to use for a whole year. The cuts represent the largest proposed cuts for those states to date

“The [report] contains a framework that includes sideboards that are unacceptable for the state of Arizona,” the Arizona Department of Water Resources said in a statement to The Colorado Sun. “Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.”

The Colorado River’s resources are divided among seven states, combined into two groups: Upper Basin states include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, while Lower Basin states are Arizona, California and Nevada.

Upper Basin states have a target for voluntary cuts of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year, or 5% of their annual water use.

The Colorado River provides water for some 40 million people.

Federal officials said drought conditions over the past 25 years have dwindled the water capacity available to the states that rely on the river.

“The department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”

Strikes hit Gaza homes two days after US unveiled plan for Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal.

Israeli forces have killed at least five Palestinians in strikes across the Gaza Strip.

At least two people were killed and several wounded in a strike on a house in central Deir el-Balah, while three others were killed in a strike on an apartment in northern Gaza City, according to local officials.

The strikes came on Sunday, two days after US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace published a 15-point roadmap for implementing last year’s Gaza ceasefire agreement, extending a pattern of continued Israeli strikes despite diplomatic breakthroughs.

The roadmap has yet to be implemented on the ground. Hamas has said it will hand over its weapons for storage only after Israel halts military operations and withdraws its forces in line with last year’s agreement. An Israeli official told the Reuters news agency there would be no withdrawal from current positions unless Hamas undergoes “genuine disarmament”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not publicly commented on the initiative, but far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has called it unacceptable and said Israel should continue targeting Hamas leaders.

Former senior Fatah official Mohammed Dahlan, based in the United Arab Emirates, said Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a senior adviser on the US initiative, told him he was working with Israel to halt the attacks on Gaza. Dahlan said talks with Washington were continuing, and that the agreement’s success now depended on Israel fully ending its daily strikes.

Separately, Israeli strikes destroyed a medical supply warehouse in central Gaza on Saturday, leaving a crater 20 metres (66ft) wide and 10 metres (33ft) deep, part of a broader wave of attacks that has continued despite the ceasefire push.

Caracas, August 1, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government and the United Nations have launched a joint 60-day plan to assess the country’s recovery needs following the twin earthquakes that struck the country on June 24.

The initiative, announced in a press conference on Wednesday, is titled the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). It will be led by Venezuelan authorities with technical support from UN agencies, the European Union, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF), and other “strategic partners from various sectors.”

Under the proposal, a multidisciplinary team will work jointly to evaluate nine socioeconomic sectors in the hardest-hit regions and produce technical recommendations to guide reconstruction policies and investment decisions.

“The plan will provide a common and objective assessment of damages, losses, and recovery needs,” outgoing UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Venezuela Gianluca Rampolla told reporters in a televised broadcast with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Rampolla stressed that “the success of this process will depend on the commitment, collaboration, and continuous exchange among all participating institutions.”

For her part, Rodríguez forecast “extraordinary results” from the initiative and expressed confidence in her government’s ability to establish “highly effective coordination mechanisms with international organizations and the United Nations system.”

The acting leader emphasized that the objective goes beyond simply restoring damaged infrastructure.

“It is not only about recovering what existed before; it is about going further. The double earthquake also affected sectors already living in poverty,” she affirmed. “We must move beyond the humanitarian phase and advance toward a recovery process that places the human being at the center in every dimension,” she said.

Education Minister Héctor Rodríguez, who also participated in the press conference, said that the working groups would begin immediately and produce a “detailed and realistic report” with general policy guidelines within the 60-day deadline.

Real estate subsidies and reconstruction plans

The acting president had previously announced that both public and private banks would offer housing loans to affected families. Homes valued at up to US $70,000 will receive an 80 percent state subsidy for their purchase, with the remaining 20 percent provided via a bank loan to be paid over 25 years. For properties valued between $70,000 and $100,000, the state will subsidize 50 percent, while the remainder will also be granted 25-year financing plans.

Venezuela’s present minimum income stands at $240 a month for public sector workers.

Rodríguez added that residents who lost their apartments will retain their property rights to the land and receive support for reconstruction.

“I have requested that the Supreme Court establish a special jurisdiction to address civil matters related to property ownership and personal identity,” she explained during a meeting with government officials on Tuesday.

The Venezuelan acting president likewise met with a delegation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Wednesday to discuss the possible use of international reserves to finance the Venezuela Rises Plan, through which the government aims to deliver 4,000 homes before the end of the year and build at least 10,000 additional ones in 2027.

According to reports, the talks additionally focused on the Caribbean nation’s macroeconomic outlook and economic policy priorities.

On July 17, the acting president announced access to$346 million from Venezuela’s IMF reserve tranche, funds that are immediately available to address urgent humanitarian needs arising from the disaster. However, the fund has yet to release around $4.5 billion in Special Drawing Rights that have been frozen since being issued in 2021.

The World Bank has estimated the immediate earthquake damages at $19.6 billion and warned that a slow reconstruction process could hinder Venezuela’s economic recovery for the next decade.

According to the latest official figures, the twin earthquakes left at least 5,546 people dead, 16,740 injured, and over 20,000 people homeless.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

When they landed the diving competition for the 2028 Summer Olympics last year, operators of the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center in Pasadena trumpeted it as a gold-medal achievement. But swimmers and others who use the facility are now learning that pre-Olympic construction probably will force them out of three immensely popular swimming pools for more than a year.

The Aquatics Center will close as early as next April, and not be returned to its regular users until after the Olympics conclude in the summer of 2028, people with knowledge of the plans confirmed to The Times.

Such a prolonged closure will send the more than 400,000 people who pour through the center’s turnstiles each year scrambling to find other places to swim, dive, play water polo and aqua-aerobicize. The center’s two 50-meter pools and an adjacent therapy pool will be closed, along with two expansive hot tubs, the people said.

Aquatics Center operators declined to discuss details of the shutdown, saying they plan to make an announcement Monday. They said it’s premature for them to discuss what improvements the Games will bring to the 36-year-old swim complex, as those negotiations have not been concluded.

The Rose Bowl Aquatic Center in Pasadena, shown on Friday, is set to close next year to make way for reconstruction as the center will host diving in the 2028 Olympics.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Jacie Prieto Lopez, vice president of communications for LA28, the Olympics organizing group, confirmed that improvements would be made to the facility but said specifics were still being sorted out.

“We cannot comment on specific facility improvements as those remain under active discussion between LA28 and the Rose Bowl Aquatic Center,” Prieto Lopez said “But based on initial evaluations of the existing facility, improvements could include the pool, diving tower and mechanical systems.”

Opened in 1990, in part with profits from the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, the Aquatic Center was once viewed as a state-of-the-art facility. But it has grown somewhat shopworn and in need of a makeover. The operators of the center expect LA28 will pay for some of that work.

While LA28 officials wouldn’t discuss details, people familiar with their view said the Olympic organizers would balk at bankrolling every upgrade pined for by the city of Pasadena (which owns the facility) and the nonprofit that operates the center.

The massive deck around the swimming pools has grown rough in places. The locker rooms are cramped. Aged pumps and filters need an upgrade. Who should pay for these improvements has been the subject of prolonged discussion between LA28 and the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center operators, the people familiar said.

“At the end of the day, it’s going to be a win-win for LA28 and the Aquatics Center,” said one of the people, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. “The LA28 group is putting in a lot of investment. That should account for the fact the Rose Bowl will be losing revenue during the closure.”

Aquatics Center loyalists, however, wonder how they will cope with the loss of their pools.

“The pool helps me keep my weight down. It keeps my blood sugar down. It’s just everything to me,” said Elizabeth Ramirez, a social worker from Alhambra, after emerging from a morning aqua-aerobics class. “So when it closes down, it’s gonna definitely have an impact on my health. … Hopefully they will be able to tell us [about] another place where we will be able to go.”

Lynn Roberts, with one leg stunted by childhood polio, finds her time in the pool “life changing, because in the water I can do the things that everyone else does.” She knows that Rose Bowl is looking for alternative locations, but so far there are no details. The thought of the pool being closed for more than a year is “a big thing,” she said, adding “People are very, very concerned.”

The Rose Bowl Aquatic Center on April 6 in Pasadena. The facility will host diving in the 2028 Olympic Games.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Like a dozen other regulars, Bonnie Stern talked about the social hub the Aquatics Center creates. It’s been her gateway to new friendships, a walking group, brunches and even a regular happy hour.

“We’re all really concerned. There’s such a wonderful community here,” said Stern, who works in the entertainment industry. “We haven’t heard yet where we can go. And where are we going to be able to find what we have now?”

The complex also rents space to a cafe and a separate shop, the Swim Guy. Michael Eisenberg, who co-owns the swim equipment business with his brother, Craig, worries about losing clientele.

“We spent a lot of money setting this up and building our relationships with customers and teams,” Michael Eisenberg said. “The RBAC asked us if we could stay open and service the community during construction, but I don’t see how we can do that, since all our teams and the public will be scattered to different pools in the area. My brother and I are kind of freaking out about it about how best to serve the teams and the public and the financial cost of closing.”

Aquatics Center executive director Melanie Sauer said the nonprofit and its many user groups — for youth swimming, Masters swimming, water polo and more — are working fervently to find alternative pools. Rose Bowl Masters Swimming (to which the writer of this article belongs) already has launched new workouts at Occidental College in Eagle Rock and is talking to other pool operators.

The financial losses during the closure could be significant. The Aquatic Center reported $8.6 million in receipts from admissions, merchandise and services in 2024, the most recent year reported on its federal tax filings. Another $1.6 million came in via gifts, grants, contributions and membership fees.

Sauer said that an “RBAC on the Road” program will seek to draw payments from user groups when they relocate to other pools. She said it’s premature to provide any details of those arrangements.

Organizers of the Games announced the shift to the Rose Bowl center — in the Arroyo Seco just south of the more than 100-year-old football stadium — in September of last year. Previously, the Games planned to have divers compete at the LA84 Foundation/John C. Argue Swim Stadium, immediately southwest of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, which will host track and field events.

A drone view of the pool, lower right, at Exposition Park on Nov. 10, 2025, in Los Angeles.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

But the Exposition Park pool, used for the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics, was not deep or wide enough for diving. And it would have proven more costly to retrofit than the Rose Bowl pool.

“This facility requires minimal work, provides additional amenities for athletes, and accounts for up to $17.6 million in revenue increases and cost savings,” LA28 said when it announced the shift to the Rose Bowl pool.

People familiar with the plans for the Pasadena complex say that Olympic diving fans will be seated in bleachers that will be erected atop the “competition” pool, which sits closest to the parking lot. Additional seats may wrap around the north end of the dive pool.

That pool’s 10-meter platform, originally constructed with a donation from the late televangelist Gene Scott, will be torn down and replaced. One plan being considered by LA28 organizers would eschew the existing locker rooms in favor of temporary modular structures, the sources said.

LA28 officials believe that any short-term losses to the center will be more than made up for by the long-term gains from the international attention the pools will receive and the promise that other major swimming and diving events will be held there, according to people who have spoken to the Olympic organization. LA28 officials point to an analysis by the Southern California Assn. of Governments that projected the Games will generate more than $17 billion in gross domestic product for the region.

1

2

3

1. A child jumps off a diving board. 2. Margaret Shieh, 79, of San Marino, participates in a water fitness class. 3. Swimmers do laps at the Rose Bowl Aquatic Center. (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Both the 2028 Games and those future events will help fill Pasadena hotels, restaurants and shops, bolstering the local economy and adding tax dollars to the city treasury, according to supporters of the plan. The pool is being considered as the site of the 2028 Olympic diving trials, one source said.

“This historic opportunity will shine a global spotlight on our community,” the Aquatic Center proclaimed last year. “We look forward to keeping you updated as more details become available.”

As we head into August and look to the fall, two burning questions are front and center when it comes to the Dodgers.

Will they win a third straight World Series championship?

And will the $500-million proposal to ferry fans by gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium remain aloft or crash and burn?

I can’t answer the first question, although I wouldn’t bet against a three-peat.

As for the second question, if I were former Dodgers owner and aerial tram godfather Frank McCourt, I’d fasten my seat belt, because the gondola is about to hit some heavy turbulence.

The gondola would slice through a section of L.A. State Historic Park, wipe out dozens of trees and trample a space that was carefully designed with years of community input. And the mounting opposition now includes seven former state park officials and four former members of the state Park and Recreation Commission.

The former staffers have sent “don’t you dare” letters to the commission, and one of them argued that the view of the downtown skyline would be cluttered and commercialized.

“Gondola cars encased in digital ads, flying 26 feet overhead every 25-30 seconds would irreparably impair the vista, and the sense of calm and escape from urban life,” wrote former state parks director Ruth Coleman.

The four former commissioners have signed a joint letter arguing that the gondola proposal “would enable a private development to permanently and irreparably shrink, degrade, and destroy the integrity of a state park.”

They’re speaking up now because the state is considering an amendment to the park’s general plan that would allow for “consideration and review of the proposed Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART) gondola project.”

That was McCourt’s brainchild, back in 2018, and he’s a guy with lobbying muscle and friends in high places. McCourt later handed off the project to an environmental group, but the idea is still to deliver fans to Dodger Stadium, where he has financial interests.

A hearing on the matter is expected in the fall, and it’s sure to be a cage fight. Last December, throngs of supporters and foes squared off at a raucous Metro board meeting. The board ultimately green-lighted the gondola, which the L.A. City Council has almost unanimously opposed. So the showdown scheduled for this fall could be at least as interesting as the World Series.

For the record, I’m not anti-gondola. They’re fun, right?

But I’m not buying the proponents’ claim that this is a public transit project. They say several thousand people would soar up to Chavez Ravine and help relieve the miserable traffic in and out of parking lots, which McCourt took part ownership of after selling the team back in 2012 for a cool $2 billion.

But how much is gained if gondola riders ditch the free shuttle buses that now run to the ballpark from Union Station?

Then there’s a much bigger question, which my colleague Bill Shaikin explored in 2022: Is the gondola phase one of a plan to develop stadium property into some kind of Dodgertown commercial extravaganza?

Unclear, but let’s not be naive.

A Dodgers executive told Shaikin the Dodgers support the gondola project, although they are “really not involved” in it. But we’re talking about fabulously wealthy people whose only real job is figuring out how to make more money.

Team McCourt has suggested the gondola will be built with private money, perhaps from selling advertising rights, and that rides will be free to Dodger ticket holders.

But how would any of that pencil out with Dodger Stadium closed most of the year, and with gondola traffic chipping away at revenue from parking fees that start at a monstrous $40?

There’s something they’re not telling us, and if you think there’s no threat of taxpayers getting dinged one way or another at some point, you’ve either been hit in the head by a line drive or you’ve had too many $18 beers at Dodger Stadium.

If you want more details on the history of the gondola gambit, I suggest you check out all the reporting by Shaikin, who has been on the case for years, and offered up a far better idea than a gondola: Make it easier for fans to walk or bike to the ballpark.

But let’s get back to L.A. State Historic Park.

Much of the early gondola opposition was from Chinatown residents who didn’t like the idea of living under what would resemble an amusement park ride. But on Wednesday evening, I met with some people whose focus is the impact on the park.

“All of these trees would be gone,” said Sean Woods, a former state parks employee who penned one of the letters to Sacramento, and who was involved in some of the 65 public meetings and workshops at which community members helped with the design and mission of the park.

We were in a shady spot, where the gondola would run parallel to the existing Metro train tracks. There’d be supporting towers on park property, with cables dangling overhead, and a gondola station just outside the park. The gondola would occupy only a small slice of the 32-acre space, but it would be a visible distraction from every inch of the park.

“I think it’s a betrayal of California State Parks’ commitment to the communities that surround this park, that fought dearly for this park,” Woods said.

He was reflecting on a time when the former railyard was destined to become a giant industrial warehouse complex. And this followed the history of Chinatown having been relocated to make way for Union Station, and residents of Chavez Ravine being relocated to make way for Dodger Stadium.

Jon Christensen, Sean Woods and Susan Lai chat at Los Angeles State Historic Park.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Joining us was Susan Lai, who along with Woods represents Friends of Los Angeles State Historic Park.

Lai is small in stature, but she swings for the fences.

“This is called a historic park for a reason,” she said, “and McCourt … has no historical connection to the park, no community connection to the park, and no cultural connection to the park.”

Lai is steeped in the archaeology of the park, the Gabrielino establishment here, the Zanja Madre irrigation line that served the early pueblo.

As we strolled, she told me this is another case of politically connected profiteers trying to impose their will on the local community, and she won’t stand for it. Lai is carrying a torch lit by her husband, Collin, who died last year at the age of 96 after years of fighting to make the park a reality.

“She’s brought an extra fire to this whole effort, and really inspired a lot of young people,” said Jon Christensen, gondola foe and co-founder of the Los Angeles Parks Alliance.

Christensen led Lai, Woods and me to the top of a grassy hill. When the park opened in 2006, I thought it seemed too flat and shapeless, too hemmed in by Broadway and Spring. But it later expanded, the trees filled in and the whole park grew on me as a place to see and feel Los Angeles.

I loved two things most of all.

The unstructured activities enjoyed by a broad mix of people picnicking on the grass, napping under a tree, kicking a ball around or doing what 10 guys were doing Wednesday evening — playing a game of Frisbee football in the meadow below us.

And the unfettered skyline view, which could soon be lost. And consider the optics: Dodgers fans soaring over a public park enjoyed by families who might need to hit the lottery to afford tickets to a game.

It was almost Dodger game time, and if the gondolas were up and running, they’d be close enough overhead that you could hit one with a tomato.

Not that I’m recommending that.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Asian Football Confederation says FIFA future must be ‘shaped through proper consultation’ after World Cup plan fallout.

Asian Football ‌Confederation (AFC) President Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa has ⁠welcomed FIFA’s ⁠decision to walk back plans to sell a stake in the World Cup and stressed the need ⁠to discuss all such moves with transparency in the future.

FIFA’s plan was to raise up to $4.2bn by ⁠selling about a 20 percent stake to private investors in a new unit that would run FIFA events, including the World Cup.

The proposal, first announced on Tuesday, had faced a storm of ‌opposition from regional confederations, including the AFC, which said they were blindsided by the announcement.

Following the backlash, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said world football’s governing body had scrapped the plans after listening “carefully to all the views”.

In a letter posted on the AFC’s website on Saturday, Sheikh Salman ⁠said he expects “any initiative that has the ⁠potential to impact global football will be presented and discussed with the Confederations, the FIFA Council, Member Associations and other stakeholders in a timely, ⁠transparent and meaningful manner”.

“The future of global football must always be shaped through proper ⁠consultation, collective dialogue and respect for ⁠the established governance structures of our game,” he said.

On Thursday, Sheikh Salman, in a letter to member associations, had said the way the FIFA proposal had been made was “totally unacceptable“.

The Kuala Lumpur-based AFC is one of FIFA’s six confederations and is responsible for running ‌regional ‌club and national team competitions across continental Asia, the Middle East and Australia.

Gianni Infantino looked every bit the “King of Football”, as US President Donald Trump likes to call him, when the two allies sat together watching the World Cup final less than two weeks ago.

Sure, there were some boos inside MetLife Stadium near New York when the two men walked across the turf to present the trophy and medals to Spain and Argentina players on July 19.

Still, that 104th and final game capped the biggest-ever tournament seen as a vindication for the FIFA president – a consensus success on the field and a financial bonanza for global football. Infantino could look ahead to his likely re-election coronation next March.

The sunny scene must now feel an age ago since Infantino caused a seismic rift in global football.

The intensifying fallout has threatened the 56-year-old Infantino’s job after he seemed untouchable until this week.

Did Infantino have any choice but to abandon FIFA World Cup investment plan?

Infantino’s misstep was inviting private investors, led by Joshua Kushner, to buy a stake in future profits from World Cups and all FIFA events. The ensuing backlash – which included pledges by European nations to boycott FIFA events and claims from senior staff that Infantino deceived everyone – led Infantino to announce Friday that he was abandoning the plan.

“Having listened carefully to all the views, it has become clear that the project has created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place,” he said in a statement.

Infantino left New York City last week with letters pledging election support from about 200 of FIFA’s 211 national member federations who vote for their leader every four years.

Now, even after scrapping his divisive investment project, his support remains unclear at best.

What would the private investment plan have done to for FIFA?

Infantino’s proposal would have created a subsidiary – known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) – for the money-making parts of the not-for-profit football body’s work: running tournaments like the World Cup, selling broadcasting and sponsorship, tickets and hospitality.

Private equity and petrostate sovereign wealth money has been normalised in European club football, yet it still seems unthinkable to many observers in the context of the World Cup. Football’s ultimate prize is seen as being about glory, not money, and fans have long believed it belongs to them.

FIFA proposed raising $4.2bn from investors buying a stake of about 20 percent in FFE, based on an equity valuation of $20bn. The “anchor investor” would have been Thrive Eternal, launched by Joshua Kushner, whose brother Jared Kushner is a son-in-law of Trump.

FIFA’s 211 member federations – already effectively the owners of the governing body as a nonprofit association under Swiss law – were offered $20m each. The deadline to accept was September 19.

The members already are due $10m each from FIFA over the next four years, funded largely by its record $15bn revenue over 2023-26 tied to the World Cup that just ended.

FIFA says under FFE, that would have doubled to $20m each, then rise to $22m each through 2034, and $24m to 2038.

That’s a huge sum for tiny football federations in places like Andorra, Montserrat and Papua New Guinea. Deep-pocketed football powers like England, Spain or France have other priorities.

Who were the main opponents of Infantino’s plan for FIFA and World Cups?

Some FIFA vice presidents, some of its top executives, all the European football federations, the football bodies of Asia and North America, Britain’s prime minister, the global group of national leagues, a lot of fans worldwide.

Essentially, everyone.

Infantino was looking increasingly friendless on Friday. His senior adviser, former Goldman Sachs banker Carlos Cordeiro, resigned and called it a bad deal. FIFA chief operating officer, Kevin Lamour, gave a stinging statement to The Associated Press news agency in defence of colleagues that all but invited his boss to fire him.

A key move Thursday was European football body UEFA pledging to boycott all FIFA competitions until Infantino dropped the plan.

Europe’s teams routinely dominate and win FIFA trophies like the men’s World Cup and Club World Cup, which are its biggest revenue earners.

They collectively feared that private investors would seek – and demand – value from more games and bigger competitions that threaten the balance of global football.

That could jeopardise attention and revenues for club football, including the UEFA Champions League.

Fixture calendars are already congested, elite players are at their limits, broadcast and sponsor money is not unlimited.

All are angry that Infantino seems not to have consulted anyone while planning the project over the last year, when he was so focused on spending time in Trump’s orbit. Even Trump said Friday he had not spoken with the FIFA chief on his plan to sell stakes in the tournament.

Did Infantino have any support for his plans for FIFA and World Cups?

Infantino’s traditional support base in Africa, which has 54 of the 211 voting members, had been neutral about the offers of game-changing money for many of them.

The 10-nation South American group CONMEBOL said on Friday it had received the proposal and would evaluate the issue “with the rigour it demands”. CONMEBOL is led by FIFA’s vice president, Alejandro Dominguez of Paraguay, who is relying on Infantino expanding the 2030 World Cup to 64 teams.

That would give more games to minority cohosts Argentina, Paraguay and inaugural 1930 World Cup host Uruguay, who currently are set to get just one game each of the 104. The rest are in Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

What happens now for Infantino in his role as FIFA president?

The UEFA-led resistance succeeded in stopping the sell-off plan. Will that satisfy Infantino’s opponents to allow him to remain in office?

Does Infantino have the credibility to stay in office after interventions Friday by Lamour and Cordeiro that surely would make most presidencies untenable?

November 18 is the deadline for candidates to enter the next presidential contest, exactly four months ahead of the March 19 vote in Rabat, Morocco, where FIFA has its African headquarters.

Infantino was re-elected unopposed in 2019 in Paris and 2023 in Kigali, Rwanda. FIFA statutes allow him one more four-year term in office.

The FFE spinoff seemed a way to create a commissioner-like role for Infantino beyond 2031, likely paying much more than his current annual salary and bonus deal of more than $6m.

It would take 106 votes to ensure a majority in a contested election. Continents surely do not vote uniformly en bloc, but most of Europe’s 55, plus CONCACAF’s 35 and Asia’s 46 would be a solid base.

Speculation on a likely direct challenger typically lands on Paris Saint-Germain’s Qatari president Nasser Al-Khelaifi and the Canadian FIFA vice president, Victor Montagliani.

Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, the AFC’s longtime president from Bahrain, narrowly lost the FIFA presidential election to Infantino in 2016, so may decide to run again.

All such talk seemed fanciful until this week, despite long-term unease with Infantino’s style and previous attempts to force through unpopular projects.

The talk has never seemed more likely to become action.

Houthis say Red Sea route remains free to use, pushing back on report of new shipping fees.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have denied planning to charge ships for passing through the Red Sea, saying passage through the waterway remains free.

The denial came in a statement issued Saturday by the Houthi-run Humanitarian Operations Coordination Center (HOCC), which oversees vessel movement through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. It said its “safe transit service” was voluntary and free of charge, adding that anyone demanding payment for passage did not represent Yemen or the HOCC. It urged shipping companies not to make payments or share information with unauthorised parties.

The statement follows a Reuters news agency report on Wednesday, citing regional sources, that the Iran-aligned Houthis were considering imposing fees on ships transiting the strait – a week after the group declared a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia. Those sources said the idea was raised with Iranian officials during a Houthi visit to Tehran earlier in July, with Iranian advisers reportedly helping set up an authority to regulate the fees.

The Bab al-Mandeb Strait is a vital chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, used by ships carrying oil and other cargo between Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Any fee on passage would echo Iran’s own efforts to charge ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely shut since the US-Israel war on Iran began earlier this year.

Yemen’s foreign minister-designate, Afrah al-Zouba, said on Tuesday that the Houthis were seeking to “copy the Iranian model”.

A toll on Bab al-Mandeb would hit Saudi Arabia especially hard, since the kingdom has increasingly relied on the strait as an alternative export route while Hormuz remains disrupted.

The Houthis have waged a long campaign against Red Sea shipping, beginning in 2023 after the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, and only pausing attacks after a ceasefire last October. A United Nations expert report found that the group may have collected significant informal fees from shipping agents in 2024, though this was never independently verified. Traffic through the strait has still not recovered to pre-2023 levels.

In response to the renewed threat, Saudi Arabia this week announced a 14-nation maritime coalition aimed at protecting freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Heading into the final weekend of this summer’s World Cup, The Guardian reported that support for FIFA president Gianni Infantino had climbed to record levels. More than 200 of FIFA’s 211 member associations formally endorsed Infantino’s bid for a fourth term as head of world soccer’s governing body, the paper reported, making next March’s vote more of a coronation than an election.

Two weeks later, that support disappeared. Not only is Infantino’s reelection campaign in tatters, but there’s a chance he won’t survive until the spring, with British Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Javier Tebas, president of Spain’s soccer association, calling for his resignation and close confidants such as Carlos Cordeiro, the former president of U.S. Soccer, and Kevin Lamour, FIFA’s chief operating officer, publicly breaking with their boss.

At the center of that reversal was a closely guarded scheme to raise $4.2 billion by selling a 20% stake in the World Cup to private investors, who would be given influence in planning and executing future events, including broadcasting and commercial deals tied to the tournament.

In short, Infantino was planning, in secret, to sell shares in the World Cup. And once details began leaking in the media, he was forced Friday to scrap the whole thing, an embarrassing retreat that has left him vulnerable just two weeks after he had seemingly reached the heights of his third term as FIFA president.

Infantino’s idea, called the FIFA Forward Enterprise, was intended to turn the World Cup, FIFA’s milk cow, into a golden calf. But to do so, he needed the approval of at least 106 of FIFA’s 211 member countries, so he promised countries that backed him that they would receive $20 million each by mid-September. Those who declined would get just a fraction of that.

Infantino was certain the piles of cash would buy the acquiescence — or at least the silence — of enough members for the plan to go through. Instead, the bribe blew up in his face and FIFA issued a statement late Friday, under Infantino’s name, that basically said “never mind.”

“Having listened carefully to all the views, it has become clear that the project has created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place,” the statement read.

The question now becomes whether Infantino’s presidency will proceed.

He wouldn’t be the first FIFA president to be grievously wounded by unbridled ambition, but the speed and depth of his fall is staggering. The 2026 World Cup was, by nearly every measure, wildly successful. The largest and most complex sporting event in history the tournament, hosted by the U.S., Mexico and Canada, exceeded expectations, drawing more than 6.8 million live fans and a global TV audience of more than six billion. The four-year World Cup cycle brought FIFA revenues of about $15 billion, making it the first sporting event in history to earn more than $10 billion.

Infantino has never been shy about pushing boundaries despite heading a Swiss-based organization that, its wealth notwithstanding, is officially a nonprofit. Nor was this the first time he tried to bring private equity into the World Cup: In 2018, two years into his first term as FIFA president, he considered a plan to raise $25 billion to fund tournaments, only to cave in the face of massive opposition.

He didn’t give up the idea of squeezing more money out of the World Cup, though.

This summer, he introduced three-minute hydration breaks in the middle of each half — ostentatiously a nod to the heat and humidity, but in reality a ruse that allowed broadcasters to generate millions in additional revenue through TV commercials. FIFA also staged a halftime show for the first time ever during the final, sold VIP tickets priced at more than $1 million each and introduced dynamic pricing for the tournament’s 104 games, driving prices for some seats to four times what fans paid four years ago in Qatar.

That pushed the tournament beyond the reach of many of the sport’s most loyal supporters — and soccer, more than any other sport, belongs to the fans. It’s why teams are called clubs and fans are called supporters.

The World Cup, then, wasn’t Infantino’s to sell. So the pushback to his latest idea was immediate and unsparing.

“Football does not belong to investors,” Burnham said in an Instagram post. “Once you have sold a piece, you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

What really angered stakeholders, however, was Infantino’s brazen move to develop the FFE in secret, only to have its details leak out.

Bernd Neuendorf, president of the German soccer association and a member of the FIFA Council, the group’s most influential body, said he first learned of the FFE by reading about it.

“I was very surprised, and also annoyed, that we had to find out about something like this from the press,” he told a German news outlet last week.

Another self-inflicted wound was Infantino’s decision to launch the project with Thrive Eternal, a venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner, the 41-year-old brother of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and a kind of all-purpose White House advisor and negotiator. Thrive Eternal focuses on long-term investments in scarce cultural institutions that technology cannot replace, but it has little relevant experience in managing something as large and complicated as a World Cup.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino, left, and President Trump wave during an award ceremony following Spain’s win over Argentina in the World Cup final July 19.

(David Ramos / Getty Images)

Moreover, the partnership would draw Infantino further into the orbit of Trump, whom the FIFA president has openly courted for years. Infantino, who has been a frequent visitor to the Oval Office and Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, attended the president’s inauguration and accompanied him on visits around the world.

Trump’s relationship to Infantino was questioned when Infantino presented him with the first FIFA Peace Prize last December, then became even more controversial when Trump phoned Infantino three times to lobby to have the red-card suspension of U.S. forward Folarin Balogun overturned ahead of a World Cup elimination game last month.

FIFA eventually cleared Balogun to play, marking just the second time in tournament history a red card ban has been lifted. For some, Infantino’s decision to partner with someone close to Trump on his latest venture was a bridge too far.

“It’s a really bad look for Infantino given the concerns about political interference that were already there after Balogun,” said Steven A. Bank, a professor of business law at UCLA who has written and lectured extensively on the economics of soccer. “Especially with the fund led by Jared Kushner’s brother.”

Once details of Infantino’s secret plan began to leak, UEFA, the confederation that governs European soccer, held an emergency meeting during which all 55 members — including Spain, the reigning men’s and women’s World Cup champion — voted to boycott all FIFA competitions.

“Some things are simply too important to sell. The FIFA World Cup belongs to football. It always will,” UEFA, the largest and most powerful of FIFA’s six continental confederations, said in a statement.

CONCACAF, which oversees soccer in North America, Central America and the Caribbean, said its 41 countries also rejected the plan, an opinion the U.S. Soccer Federation backed in a sparse post on X.

“U.S. Soccer stands with CONCACAF and its members,” it wrote.

The Asian Football Confederation joined in, saying in a statement its 47 members stand “in solidarity with UEFA and CONCACAF in expressing serious concerns over FIFA’s proposal to introduce private investment into FIFA’s flagship competitions.”

When it became obvious Infantino would not get the votes he needed to go forward, he pulled the plug on his plan. But it may not have been so much that the idea was bad as it was the execution.

Soccer is awash with private investors. The biggest clubs are owned by billionaires or sovereign wealth funds and many leagues — including Spain’s La Liga, which Tebas oversees — have sold commercial stakes to private equity firms in much the same way FIFA proposed.

Alan Rothenberg, a former U.S. Soccer president and the driving force behind the 1994 men’s World Cup and 1999 women’s World Cup, among the most successful tournaments in history, said the idea of selling a private equity stake in the World Cup isn’t a bad idea. But the way Infantino tried to implement his plan led it to failure.

“What is proposed is not that revolutionary,” Rothenberg said. “There have been private equity investors in MLS, in one of the subsidiaries of the NFL, in F1.

“But I think the combination of everything has doomed it. It does raise the possibility that Infantino, he’s finally become Icarus and gotten too close to the sun. It actually may doom him politically.”

Others including Cordeiro, a former vice chairman at Goldman Sachs, questioned the need to bring in outside investors.

“FIFA already has access to extraordinary financial resources. The organization sits on billions of dollars in reserves and no debt,” Cordeiro pointed out in his resignation letter. “If member associations believe additional investment is needed to develop the game, FIFA already has the financial capacity to provide that support from its existing resources.”

Infantino has flaunted consensus before without significant consequence, cozying up to autocrats while overseeing the 2018 World Cup in Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the 2022 tournament in Qatar before being accused of awarding the 2034 tournament to Saudi Arabia in a rigged vote.

This time, however, the stakeholders within FIFA were pushed too far by Infantino’s penchant for wielding unilateral power, so they pushed back and the president blinked. Hours before he backed down, an ally of Infantino’s told the Financial Times that he would not bend, seeing the standoff as “a fight to the death.”

Infantino’s presidency might not be dead, but it is surely in critical condition.

Ambitious Harper Beckham is aiming for world dominance with her fledgling make-up brand, we can reveal.

The Sun told earlier this month how the teenage daughter of David and Victoria planned to name the new line Harlo by Harper.

Now we can also reveal that 15-year-old Harper’s team has lodged papers with the US Patent and Trademark Office asking to be granted sole rights to use the name across the Atlantic.

Her representatives have filed documents with the UK’s Intellectual Property Office to trademark the brand.

It comes after The Sun told how the youngest Beckham child plans to start rolling out the brand next year.

A source said: “Harper has been working on a name with the team working on the brand for a while and came up with Harlo By Harper.

BLEND IT LIKE BECKHAM

Behind-the-scenes of Harper’s beauty brand with new name revealed

GOLDEN GIRL

Harper Beckham’s World Cup outfit makes clear who she backs at Spain v France

“The trademark applications are signed and sealed.

“Although there is no set date for a launch yet, the aim is to officially start the roll out at some point next year.

“Victoria has been guiding and supporting Harper every step of the way in this venture.

“Both Victoria and David couldn’t be more proud of Harper.”

The Sun first revealed how Harper was working on her own beauty empire last year.

She is following in the footsteps of fashion designer Victoria, whose own beauty range has proved hugely lucrative since she launched it in 2019.

FIFA face global mutiny as Asian Football Confederation stand with Europe and North America after their boycott threats.

The ‌Asian Football Confederation has said it “stands in solidarity” with regional ⁠bodies UEFA and ⁠CONCACAF in opposing plans to sell a stake in the World Cup to private investors but stopped short of threatening ⁠to boycott events run by FIFA, global football’s governing body.

The confederation in a statement on Friday expressed “deep concern” over the proposed establishment of a $20bn commercial ⁠subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), to run the World Cup and FIFA’s other events.

“The fact that the situation has reached the point where the real possibility of a FIFA World Cup boycott has entered public discourse should concern everyone ‌who cares about the future of our game,” the statement said.

“Football should never have been placed in such a position.”

UEFA, European football’s governing body, voted unanimously on Thursday to boycott all FIFA events unless the plans were dropped. CONCACAF, the regional federation for North America, Central America and the Caribbean, has also rejected ⁠FIFA’s proposal.

On Thursday, AFC President Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa had said the way the proposal had been made was “totally unacceptable”, in a letter to member associations.

The AFC said “the proposed FFE cannot realistically achieve the necessary broad consensus and ⁠unity required to move forward.

“The FIFA World Cup ⁠is the pinnacle of global football and derives its strength from the participation of all confederations and the world’s leading football nations.”

The AFC also made a thinly veiled attack on the ⁠governing body’s president, Gianni Infantino, saying the plan “has exposed fundamental weaknesses in FIFA’s consultation and decision-making processes that ⁠must now be addressed”.

Even after FIFA issued ⁠a new statement on Friday, saying each national association “should be allowed to review the proposal and have a say in shaping their own future”, the AFC said “central concerns surrounding governance, ‌institutional process and meaningful consultation remain unanswered”.

It said the furore must become a catalyst for institutional reform at FIFA, and that “meaningful democracy is not ‌measured ‌solely by the opportunity to vote.

“It begins with transparent governance, timely consultation, informed deliberation and genuine participation throughout the decision-making process.”

Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s plan to sell stakes in competitions to private investors appears to be in jeopardy, with a third confederation expressing opposition.

In a statement published on Friday, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) said it “stands in solidarity” with its counterparts in Europe and North, Central America and the Caribbean.

The AFC added Infantino’s plan could not “realistically achieve the necessary broad consensus and unity required to move forward”.

“The Fifa World Cup is the pinnacle of global football and derives its strength from the participation of all Confederations and the world’s leading football nations,” it said.

“Any proposal that risks undermining the unity and universal character of the competition must be reconsidered.”

The AFC’s statement means Infantino’s plans are unlikely to be approved by Fifa members if put to a vote.

Infantino had indicated the proposals would need a straight majority to go through – meaning 106 of its 211 members to vote in favour for the proposal.

Uefa – the body that governs European football – has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46.

Asian football’s governing body accused Fifa of once again setting the “direction of travel” for a “significant initiative” before consulting stakeholders.

It said Fifa’s failure to consult its member associations on the proposals had “exposed fundamental weaknesses in Fifa’s consultation and decision-making processes that must now be addressed”.

The AFC also criticised Fifa for leaving “confederations, member associations and even Fifa’s own governing bodies, including the Fifa Council, feeling sidelined.

“The Fifa World Cup, and the game itself, belong to the entire global football family,” it added.

Their future must always be shaped collectively, through institutions that reflect the voices of all Confederations and member associations.

“The AFC calls upon Fifa to undertake an urgent review of its governance and decision-making framework to ensure that proposals of global significance are developed through proper consultation, meaningful engagement and appropriate oversight by Fifa’s statutory bodies.”

Fifa wants to create a commercial subsidiary to run its main events, including its World Cups, and external investors will be able to buy stakes in it.

It said it would “invite third parties to make minority, non-controlling investments” in a new subsidiary – Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE).

On Friday, Fifa said FFE had been proposed “to ensure all Fifa member associations have the opportunity to take meaningful ownership of the commercial opportunity of football in their respective countries”.

“This does not come at the cost of either the spirit or the governance of Fifa or football itself,” it added.

However, Uefa has accused Fifa of using football “to enrich themselves and their friends”.

Infantino previously wrote to Fifa members saying they will receive $40m (£30m) if they back his controversial proposal. He set a deadline of 19 September for federations to accept his plans if they want to access an initial $20m (£15m).

If approval is granted, Fifa says Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the proposed investor group for FFE.

Thrive is an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner – the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared.

Some victims of disgraced undertaker Robert Bush have not been refunded for fake funeral plans he sold them, a court has heard.

The 48-year-old defrauded 172 people over 11 years to the tune of £562,000, Hull Crown Court was told.

He previously admitted 67 offences in relation to his business, Legacy Independent Funeral Directors in Hull, including failing to bury and cremate people, theft from 12 charities, fraudulent trading in funeral plans, and fraud.

On the fourth day of his sentencing hearing, one woman said her parents, who paid £2,649 each for funeral plans, were not alive “to see the justice they deserved”. Another said she had not been refunded £5,000 for two policies.

This story contains details some might find distressing.

Wiping her eyes with a tissue, Maxine Hill told Mr Justice Hilliard the bank refused to refund the money fraudulently taken by Bush, whom Hill knew personally.

Bush visited both her parents, Margaret and John, in their own home and issued a handwritten receipt to her mother who paid him in cash.

The bank initially refunded the amount paid by Hill’s father but 90 days later, the bank took the money back saying “there was no evidence that he hadn’t received a product”, the court heard.

Both have since died – Margaret in May 2024 and John in June 2025.

FIFA’s president lobbies for latest proposal for investment in football’s governing body, which has met with criticism.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has set a September 19 deadline for the 211 member federations to accept a one-off $20m offer to each underwritten by the investment firm of Jared Kushner’s brother as part of a project to sell stakes in the World Cup.

Infantino set out the “singular and unique funding opportunity” in a letter detailing why he wants to create a $20bn FIFA subsidiary that would be 20 percent owned by private investors and would run the football body’s competitions and events like World Cups and Club World Cups.

“It is my duty and responsibility as FIFA president to present such game-changing opportunities to you, our members,” Infantino wrote on Wednesday in the letter seen by The Associated Press news agency.

The proposal, revealed on Tuesday and backed by Joshua Kushner’s investment firm Thrive Capital, was met with immediate fury by Infantino’s former colleagues at the European football body UEFA, which said the World Cup “is not FIFA’s to sell”.

UEFA is expected to call its 55 member federations to an emergency online meeting, likely on Thursday.

Joshua Kushner’s brother, Jared Kushner, is a son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump.

FIFA’s private equity plan is the latest ambitious project proposed during Infantino’s 11-year presidency, during which he has increasingly seemed to be an executive leader acting without consulting football’s major stakeholders.

Previous plans include creating a FIFA Peace Prize and trying to reorganise football’s calendar with World Cups every two years instead of four.

Concerns about the previously secret plan were aired on Wednesday by the continental football bodies for Asia and the North American, Central American and Caribbean region, known as CONCACAF.

“We are deeply concerned by the lack of due process,” CONCACAF said in a statement.

The Kuala Lumpur-based Asian Football Confederation said it was “disappointed that a matter of such significance entered the public domain before the AFC family had been afforded the opportunity to examine and discuss it.”

Continental bodies that organise their own international club and national team competitions – such as the Champions League, European Championship and Copa America – likely will see threats to those events from FIFA wanting to increase revenue and value for investors by playing World Cups and Club World Cups for men and women more often.

If the FIFA Forward Enterprise subsidiary is approved by a majority of the 211 members, they are each promised $20m in funding from the four-year commercial cycle tied to the men’s 2030 World Cup.

That would lead, Infantino wrote, to “a pool of diverse international investors” joining Joshua Kushner’s Thrive as the anchor investor. “This process will be led by J.P. Morgan,” his letter said.

If Infantino’s plan is rejected, those members will get their previously promised $10m over the next four years, the letter stated.

FIFA’s plan met quick opposition from British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, whose government is preparing to support hosting the 2035 Women’s World Cup in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. FIFA is to confirm that lone bid for 2035 at an online meeting in November.

“Football does not belong to investors,” Burnham, a longtime football fan, said in a video message on Instagram. “Once you have sold a piece of [the World Cup], you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

Resistance by British lawmakers – including threats of legislation by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021 – previously helped stop the divisive European Super League project that was criticised as an existential threat to UEFA’s Champions League and which Infantino had discreetly supported.

The dust has barely settled on the expanded 48-team FIFA World Cup 2026, yet further development of the competition’s future has already been mooted, as well as struck by a fierce backlash.

The shine on the trophy, now held by Spain after their defeat of Argentina in the final, still glitters brightly, but there were tarnishes to this year’s event.

Now, the game’s global governing body, FIFA, and its president, Gianni Infantino, face yet more criticism after a plan was released to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors.

From European football’s governing body, UEFA, to the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, FIFA’s plan has been slammed. There has even been a suggestion of a boycott by UEFA.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at what the latest proposals on FIFA’s desk mean.

What are Gianni Infantino and FIFA’s new World Cup plans?

FIFA announced plans on Tuesday to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors in a bid to maximise revenue for the sport.

The proposal is to create a $20bn subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events.

FIFA says it would retain the majority share of a newly created FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, meaning it would still preside over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

Minority stakes, however, would be sold to external investors to raise up to $4.2bn as part of the new proposal.

Why do Infantino and FIFA want to sell stakes in the World Cup?

Debate raged for months in the build-up to World Cup 2026 that FIFA’s ticket pricing was pushing fans out of “the people’s game”, as it has long been regarded.

FIFA’s defence was that the World Cup is their main source of income to support the game around the globe – from the sport’s grassroots to the administration of the major international events.

This latest proposal is FIFA’s attempt to stretch that revenue potential even further.

How would the new plan for the FIFA World Cup work?

Billions of dollars are already raised by FIFA tournaments, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals.

This new commercial subsidiary, the FFE, would extend beyond traditional means of raising funds and would be akin to the franchise model that many sports have now turned to.

The Indian Premier League (IPL), a T20 cricket tournament, was one of the first competitions to fully exploit the potential of franchise models, selling stakes in teams in a newly formed competition.

On Wednesday, the IPL – only formed in 2008 – announced its value had soared more than 11% this year to 20.6bn.

Teams in that competition are owned by majority investors, who therefore hold significant sway in how it is run.

Other models, including The Hundred of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – an attempt to rival the IPL – have sold minority ownership of the teams.

ECB, as a result, retains control of the competition, and this is what FIFA is proposing for the share of the World Cup and its events that it intends to sell privately.

Nonetheless, a share is a share and new investors, be it in cricket’s The Hundred or in the FIFA World Cup, will expect at the very least to be heard when it comes to decision-making.

This is where concerns are being raised about the proposals.

Who are the potential investors in the World Cup and other FIFA events?

Thrive Eternal, a United States venture capital firm, has been put forward to lead the proposed investor group, FIFA said.

The vehicle was founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Any potential investors would thereafter buy into the FIFA events via Thrive Eternal.

What benefits are FIFA claiming if the World Cup and events plan succeeds?

FIFA has said all net benefits will be reinvested in football, and that all countries should benefit from the ever-increasing profitability of the sport.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

‘It is not FIFA’s to sell’: UEFA and UK PM reaction to Infantino’s World Cup plan?

FIFA has already clashed with domestic and continental governing bodies during World Cup 2026. The European powerhouse, UEFA, was the first to speak out against the new proposals.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said.

“UEFA takes it extremely seriously. So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Andy Burnham, who only replaced Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister last week, wrote on X: “Let me say this very directly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.

“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will,” he added.

The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) said on Wednesday that it ⁠had not been informed of FIFA’s proposed sale of equity to outside investors and was “deeply concerned” over a lack of due process.

What will happen next for FIFA’s World Cup plans, and will UEFA boycott?

Any change will need to be voted through by FIFA’s 211-country membership.

Of that number, 55 nations fall within UEFA’s governance.

The European body will hold an emergency meeting later this week to discuss the proposals.

Were FIFA to implement such a plan, one possible response UEFA could take would include a boycott of FIFA competitions.

Although at just above a quarter of FIFA membership, Europe has produced the winner of six of the last eight World Cups.

Argentina and Brazil are the only teams to prevent a clean sweep by the Europeans in that time, and, indeed, are the only nations outside Europe to win the World Cup since fellow South Americans Uruguay won their second and last title in 1950.

What were the main criticisms of FIFA World Cup 2026?

The main criticism going into the 2026 World Cup, held in the US, Canada and Mexico, was pricing. From tickets to transport links, it was felt that football fans on median salaries around the world were being priced out of the game.

During the World Cup, the decision to suspend a red card shown to USA striker Folarin Balogun “undermined the game’s integrity and credibility,” according to UEFA.

US President Donald Trump said he called Infantino about the ban that Balogun faced – the forward lined up for USA in their next match against Belgium.

FIFA also faced a backlash over hydration breaks that were introduced midway through each half of those matches. Critics said the breaks functioned primarily as commercial opportunities for broadcasters and disrupted the traditional flow of football matches at the tournament.

Football’s world governing body announces plans to sell stakes of up to 20 percent in the World Cup and other events.

FIFA has proposed a plan to sell stakes in the World Cup and other events to private investors, provoking a furious response from the European football governing body, UEFA.

Under the plans announced by FIFA on Tuesday, a $20bn subsidiary would be created to run the World Cup and other events.

World football’s governing body said it would retain a majority share in the new FIFA Forward Enterprise, offering minority stakes to external investment to raise up to $4.2bn.

The plan still needs to be voted on by FIFA’s 211 member nations.

If successful, the proposed investor group is expected to be led by a vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, FIFA said.

UEFA said the proposal “crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross”.

Reinvested in the game

FIFA has just held a 48-team World Cup across the United States, Canada and Mexico – the biggest in the tournament’s history.

It is one of the world’s wealthiest sporting organisations, generating billions of dollars, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals linked to the World Cup.

But it says this proposal can increase funds to widen access to the sport and strengthen global participation, with all net benefits to be reinvested in football.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

FIFA said that in addition to retaining sole control of the subsidiary, it would retain authority over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

‘World Cup is not a product’

The proposal deepens the divide between FIFA and UEFA, with Europe positioning itself as football’s custodian, while FIFA, a not-for-profit organisation, says it is focused on broadening access with financial largesse.

In a statement, UEFA said it takes the new proposals “extremely seriously”.

“So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder: leagues, clubs, players, supporters, governments and everyone who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

The United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, joined critics, saying on social media that the sport does not belong to investors.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell,” Burnham wrote on X.

“Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.”