playing

Arsenal in shock 3-0 loss at Brighton to lose top spot in the Premier League on goal difference to Manchester City.

Arsenal slumped to a first loss in their Premier League title defence – and it was a heavy one at Brighton.

After four straight wins for the champions, the 3-0 defeat at the Amex Stadium on Saturday came out of nowhere. Conceding the third goal from a corner — typically an area of strength for Arsenal – summed up an unusually sloppy performance from Mikel Arteta’s team.

Pascal Gross and Charalampos Kostoulas scored in the first half with shots from outside the penalty area, before Chema Andres completed the win with a header at the back post from Gross’s corner.

The victory will have been especially sweet for Brighton manager Fabian Hurzeler, who said “only one team tried to play football” after his team’s narrow home loss to Arsenal last season.

Arsenal have often struggled against Brighton, which was the last team to inflict such a heavy defeat on the Gunners in any competition — winning 3-0 at Emirates Stadium in May 2023.

It completed a brilliant week for Brighton, after beating Coventry 5-0 in the league last weekend and coming from two goals down in midweek to beat Manchester United 3-2 away in the English League Cup.

Manchester City — the other team to win their first four games — can now move three points clear in the standings by beating Sunderland on Sunday.

SINGAPORE: Thailand accused Cambodia on Tuesday of “playing the role of a victim” in a dispute over maritime resources, as the Southeast Asian neighbours brought their long-standing feud before international mediators.

The hearing at the Singapore outpost of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) comes after the countries fought two rounds of deadly border clashes last year.

In May this year, Thailand unilaterally pulled out of a framework agreement with Cambodia that aimed to resolve overlapping maritime border claims, but denied any link to their land dispute.

Cambodia subsequently initiated a UN-backed conciliation process at the PCA, saying it hoped to return to constructive negotiations.

Opening Bangkok’s case before a five-member panel of international legal experts, Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said Cambodia sought to “vilify Thailand through false narratives, distortion of facts, and unfounded accusations… including at international forums”.

“It does this by playing the role of a victim with a sense of self-righteousness aimed at claiming the moral high ground,” he said.

Last year’s clashes left dozens of people dead and displaced more than a million before a truce was agreed.

Thailand has said it withdrew from the framework agreement, called “MoU 44”, because “no progress had been made” in implementing it. Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul denied the move was linked to the fighting.

The 2001 memorandum of understanding covers a resource-rich maritime territory of around 27,000 square kilometres (10,500 square miles) to which both Cambodia and Thailand lay claim.

Cambodia said last week that it had resorted to conciliation “after Thailand unilaterally terminated the agreed bilateral framework” through which the two nations had “negotiated their overlapping maritime claims for more than two decades”.

Prime Minister Hun Manet said in June that the move was also to “protect Cambodia’s sovereignty and maritime rights in accordance with international law”.

Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn told the PCA panel on Tuesday that Phnom Penh saw the process “as a means to rebuild trust, not as a form of escalation”.

Cambodia’s goal was to agree with Thailand on a “single, all-purpose maritime boundary”, or alternatively agree to jointly develop and equitably share resources until a boundary is drawn, he said.

“Cambodia sincerely hopes that Thailand will engage constructively in this process.”

Sihasak said Thailand was also seeking maritime delimitation and to rebuild trust.

Set up in 1899, the PCA is the world’s oldest intergovernmental dispute-resolution body and resolves disputes between countries and private parties by referring to contracts, special agreements and various treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The PCA office in Singapore is the Hague-based court’s first in Asia.

The commission’s recommendations are not binding and will take about a year to be decided.

New headlines this week are raising concerns for parents of high school football players.

According to a study published from researchers at Mass General Brigham, Boston University and the Concussion & CTE Foundation, one in four former NFL players who died between 2016 and 2021 might have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). There were 338 brains donated to study, and 315 of them had evidence of CTE, a brain disorder that can happen because of repeated injuries to the head.

Allan Walsh, a sports agent and lawyer, said in a tweet: “This is a crisis.”

Parents have previously debated among themselves the risks and rewards in letting a son or daughter play a contact sport, but this new study regarding football head injuries is once again going to rattle, if not cause a retreat, from some allowing family members to participate in football.

“It causes concern,” said Mike Hamilton, a former high school football and basketball coach who has a son playing football at Chatsworth High. “Sometimes I’m like, ‘Do I want him to play?’ I’m apprehensive. He has a passion for the game. He’s conscience about his health. What gives me relief is knowing that practices are going well. There are protocols parents should abide by. We didn’t let our son play football until he got to high school because of the hits.”

Tim Moscicki, an athletic trainer at Loyola High for 38 years, said much has changed for the better in protecting football players from concussions and other head injuries. He said new policies, improved equipment, a focus on tackling fundamentals and new protocols are all having an impact.

Loyola athletic trainer Tim Moscicki doing baselining of students in 2014 to help diagnose concussions.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

He remembers the days when coaches would say, “He got his bell rung.” The player would sit out a few plays, then get put back in. Now that term is barred from everyone’s vocabulary. New rules requiring players to sit out a minimum of seven days following a concussion while needing clearance from a doctor to return and tackling restrictions put in during weekly practices show the CIF is taking CTE concerns in a serious matter for high school sports.

“To me. football has gotten a lot safer,” Moscicki said. “Right now, given what’s in place, it’s safe to play football. Kids are being held out now when they develop any kind of symptom. Back in 1990, if a kid had a concussion and they were free of symptoms for 24 hours, we’d give them their helmet back, ‘You can play.’

“My thing it’s still up to parents if they want their sons to play football. My youngest played football, oldest played lacrosse. There’s always a risk. There’s a risk riding a bike. There’s risk playing baseball. It’s a just a little higher in the full-contact sports. The standards have changed so much. There really wasn’t a return to play protocol in the ‘70s ‘80s and ‘90s.”

Moscicki was one of the first high school athletic trainers to do baselining of all students, giving them tests of their balance and brain functions so it can be used and compared with a similar exam if the student is suspected of having a concussion. Loyola also started a return-to-school program because students with concussions have headaches that also affects their school work.

Parents must understand “you cannot prevent a concussion,” Moscicki said.

“If you get hit hard enough, there’s nothing out there that would 100% prevent a concussion,” he said. “A concussion happens as a result of your brain hitting the inside of your skull.”

The good news is everyone seems to be endorsing funding research into head injuries, including the NFL. It’s still too early to conclude where the research is headed.

That’s where parental choice comes into play.

“Football is a sport,” Moscicki said. “You don’t have to play it. You don’t have to watch it.”

And yet, the Super Bowl is the most watched annual television broadcast in the United States, with lots of monetary rewards for those who participate.

There are many challenges ahead. Pierce College and Orange Coast College paused their junior college football programs this year for lack of players. Junior varsity programs at lots of high schools have been discontinued for lack of players. A CIF participation survey for 2025-26 found 11-man football is the most popular boys sport with 87,718 participants, a drop of 4% from last school year.

“Anything that’s a contact sport runs a risk,” Hamilton said. “You want to protect your son.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta made it clear Tuesday he holds the power to extract major concessions in the battle over the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger.

A day after canceling settlement talks, Bonta said he remains open to meeting with Paramount Skydance executives to find remedies to resolve the antitrust lawsuit stalling David Ellison’s $111-billion takeover, but called on the company to end its “amateur hour” conduct.

“If you want to have an adult, legitimate, serious settlement discussion — no problem,” Bonta said during an appearance in Los Angeles. “But if you want to play games, we’ve got better things to do.”

The attorney general, who is leading the coalition of 12 states that filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger, repeated his stance that Paramount must make significant concessions to end the court battle — such as selling cable television channels. However, Ellison has been resistant because his company will need the steady cash-flow from Warner’s basic cable channels, including TBS, TNT and CNN, to make payments on $80-billion in debt Paramount will take on to finance the industry-reshaping deal.

Ellison’s promise to release 30 movies a year, following the merger, won’t cut it, the attorney general said.

Bonta, who was speaking at press conference to highlight public safety, expressed frustration with Paramount afterweeks of drama.

Paramount first threatened to leave California if Bonta continues to wage his court battle. Then, on Friday, Paramount accused actor Mark Ruffalo (a staunch deal critic) of making antisemitic comments, prompting prominent Jewish organizations to join the fray. One Jewish leader suggested Bonta was in cahoots with Ruffalo.

That wasn’t the issue, Bonta said, specifically pointing to leaks about the settlement talks that appeared in various news outlets.

Some reports suggested Bonta’s office sought the negotiations amid withering political pressure. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra, the Democratic nominee for governor, have separately urged a settlement to end the antitrust fight.

Bonta set the record straight: “Paramount reached out to us to have settlement discussions,” he said. “They asked for them.”

Bonta’s beef was that the substance of the nascent negotiations appeared in newspaper articles despite both sides agreeing to hold confidential talks, Bonta said, adding that crossed the line. The Wall Street Journal reported that California’s top prosecutor planned to ask Paramount for agreements to keep Warner Bros. and the Paramount Pictures film studios separate units as well as an agreement to sell some cable channels.

“We thought they were reaching out to us in good faith … unfortunately, they violated the rules of engagement,” Bonta said. “They leaked lies to the press while we were in settlement negotiations. That’s not okay … That is amateur hour.”

Paramount declined to comment. On Monday, Paramount denied it was the source of the leaks.

Bonta’s comments appeared as a show of strength after major court wins.

The coalition of attorneys general, who also represent New York, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon, last month won a temporary restraining order that blocked Paramount from closing the deal. Rather than lose in a hearing over a more consequential preliminary injunction, Paramount voluntarily agreed that it would not finalize the transaction until after the trial or by June 1, whichever date comes first.

U.S. District Court Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín set a March 2 trial, which was in line with the plaintiff states’ request. Paramount had lobbied for a November date.

“We are winning in this lawsuit,” Bonta said. “They have eight of the biggest law firms in the country, making every imaginable argument under the sun. And they lost, the judge said: ‘You are likely to lose this case’… the states are likely to succeed on the merits.”

For now, no new settlement talks are scheduled.

Bonta expressed an openness to finding a truce.

“If they are willing to clean things up, put a lid on their lying leaks and engage in a way that is sincere and in good faith, we will be where we always are … happy to meet,” Bonta said.

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.