That is what separated South Africa and New Zealand in the 2023 Rugby World Cup final, as the Springboks went back-to-back to become the first nation to win the tournament four times.
Rassie Erasmus’ world champions sit top of the rankings and have also won back-to-back Rugby Championships. They are indisputably the game’s dominant force.
Their predecessors as rugby union’s supreme team were the All Blacks, who won their own back-to-back World Cups, in 2011 and 2015.
The landscape may have changed and their roles may have reversed of late, but they remain the game’s most glamourous and marketable teams.
And now they are poised to begin that most rare of modern phenomenons – a multi-week tour that includes a proper Test series.
This year’s Rugby Championship – the southern hemisphere’s premier international competition – has been cancelled to make room for the All Blacks’ tour of South Africa, leaving Australia and Argentina to arrange their own fixtures.
The first Test is on Saturday, when Dave Rennie – just three Tests into his reign as New Zealand coach – takes his side into the first of three Tests in South Africa as part of what has been dubbed the ‘Greatest Rivalry’ tour.
A fourth game – not part of the official series – will also be played in Baltimore, marking the first Test between the two long-time rivals on American soil.
Within an increasingly competitive sporting landscape, BBC Sport looks at why the tour is happening and what it could mean for the future of international rugby union.
Get ready to wipe the steam off the TV screen. Season 2 of the Peabody Award-winning series about two hockey rivals entangled in a heated romance is still months away from premiering. But details are slowly emerging that paint a picture of what fans can expect from the sophomore season of “Heated Rivalry.”
The first season’s release schedule was accelerated in the U.S. after it was acquired by HBO Max from Bell Media’s streaming platform Crave, Justin Stockman, the VP of content for Bell Media, told Variety late last year.
Things will be different for the upcoming season, which was announced in December 2025, creator Jacob Tierney told Variety. Tierney wrote and directed every episode of the first season.
“It can’t be the same time next year, because this time last year I’d written five of [six episodes], and this time this year I’ve written zero of them. So it’s going to be a little bit later, but it’s still going to be soon.”
“Soon” has now turned into spring 2027, when it is slated to hit HBO Max.
Here’s everything to know about Season 2 of “Heated Rivalry”:
What book will Season 2 cover?
The first season was based on the second book in the “Game Changers” series by Rachel Reid. It followed the off-the-ice romance between two professional hockey stars that play for the rival teams the Montreal Metros and the Boston Raiders in a fictional Major League Hockey league.
The new season will continue their romance and will be based on the sixth book, “The Long Game,” which reads as a direct sequel to “Heated Rivalry.” The novel follows Shane Hollander, played by Hudson Williams, and Ilya Rozanov, portrayed by Connor Storrie, as they struggle with going public with their secret relationship.
The follow-up season will also introduce a new couple — from the fifth book in the series, “Role Model” — a player who’s traded to a struggling team finds support from the franchise’s social media manager.
Who will play the new couple?
Justice Smith (“I Saw the TV Glow”) and Charlie Gillespie (“Splitsville”) will be joining Season 2 of the hit romantic drama as Harris Drover and Troy Barrett, respectively.
Character descriptions were not released, but in Reid’s book Troy is a hockey player who gets traded to the Ottawa team after cutting ties with a Toronto teammate who is accused of sexual assault. Harris is Ottawa’s social media manager.
Who else is joining the cast?
Season 2 will also welcome new faces to the cast, including Emily Hampshire from “Schitt’s Creek,” Edvin Ryding from “28 Years Later,” Robert Naylor from “Mile End Kicks,” Sabrina Jalees from “I Used to Be Funny” and Priyanka from “Meet Me Next Christmas.”
Hampshire will play Vanessa, Ryding will portray Luca Haas, Naylor is cast as Wyatt Hayes, Jalees will take on Farah Jalali and Priyanka is Tarek.
How many episodes are in the new season?
Did Dylan Walsh, who plays Shane’s dad, reveal too much? The actor recently paused his account on the celebrity video app Cameo after he slipped up and released information about the new season.
“Getting ready to go back up to Canada and shoot some more episodes … I think we’re doing 12 this time,” Walsh said in a clip recorded for a fan.
The number is significantly more than the first season‘s six episode-run. However, Tierney told The Times early this year that he doesn’t want to make more than six episodes per season so there’s a possibility that they’re filming two seasons back to back.
Walsh’s Cameo account has been set as unavailable until August 2027 with a message under his profile that reads, “Stepping away because a video went viral that got me in trouble.”
Heated Rivalry will be retuning to Sky next year for UK audiences with two new leads
Fans will likely recognise Justice Smith already(Image: Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images)
Smash hit romance series Heated Rivalry will be returning to screens and there is one face that will be surprisingly familiar.
Having first been aired on Canadian streaming service Crave back in November 2025, it was then picked up by HBO Max in the US and was renewed for a second series just a month after it became a huge hit around the world.
Based on the bestselling book by Rachel Reid, it follows two elite professional hockey players who have a secret love affair. According to Sky: “The first season told the story of rival hockey players Shane Hollander (Williams) and Ilya Rozanov (Storrie).
“Bound by ambition, rivalry and a magnetic pull neither of them fully understood, what began as a secret fling between two fresh-faced rookies evolved into a years-long journey of love, denial, and self-discovery.”
Confirmed to return to Sky and NOW in Spring 2027 in the UK, it was today announced (August 7) that Justice Smith and Charlie Gillespie have also been confirmed as new cast additions playing Harris Drover and Troy Barrett.
Justice Smith may already appear familiar to some fans, but who is the star and where have you seen him before?
Who is Justice Smith?
Justice Smith is an American actor well known for his role in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as well as I Saw the TV Glow and Pokemon Detective Pikachu.
Aged 30, Justin made his on-screen acting debut back in 2012 with thriller Trigger Finger and some television programmes before his first major role as Radar in Paper Towns in 2015.
Fans may also recognise the star from his appearance in Every Day (2018) as well as Sharper in 2023 and more recently, Now You See Me: Now You Don’t.
Writer, director, and executive producer Jacob Tierney and executive producer Brendan Brady said about the cast announcement: “Rachel Reid has given us two beautifully layered characters in Harris and Troy who you can’t help but root for.
“From the start of the casting process, we knew we were looking for actors who could create something truly special together and bring that same depth and heart to the screen.
“Justice and Charlie do exactly that. They immediately connected with the vulnerability and resilience at the core of these characters, bringing an instinctive understanding of who Harris and Troy are.”
Heated Rivalry season 2 will be coming to Sky and streaming service NOW in Spring 2027.
The schools announced they agreed to a four-year series starting in 2030 during Week 1 of the season at the Coliseum. The following year the teams will play in Week 1 at Notre Dame Stadium. The 2032 and 2033 games will be played during Week 1-3 of the season.
“We felt like the best thing for our program was to play this game early in the season,” Riley said. “As I’ve said publicly, we’re a part of a conference. We have a conference schedule to answer to. We don’t make our own schedule, we don’t choose our own kickoff times. And so with that, we have much less flexibility and so it made more sense for us to play this game in a traditional nonconference window.”
Riley, who took many jabs locally and nationally for letting one of college football’s most prestigious rivalry series expire, has been steadfast in noting the inequity between USC playing Notre Dame amid a grueling Big Ten schedule and independent Notre Dame’s ability to surround the contest with less taxing matchups to aid its College Football Playoff push.
USC owns a 37-53-5 all-time record against Notre Dame, excluding the Trojans’ 2005 victory, which was later vacated due to NCAA sanctions (original record: 38-53-5). Riley is 1-3 during his Trojans tenure against the Irish. The teams battle for the Jeweled Shillelagh.
“I think this benefits everyone,” Riley said. “I think this benefits USC. I think this benefits Notre Dame. I think this benefits college football. This is important. We know its important to our fan base, we know it’s important to alumni, we know it’s important to former players and coaches.”
Son Heung-min scored his first goal of the season, Denis Bouanga continued his scoring streak in El Tráfico, and LAFC beat the Galaxy 3-0 on Friday night at Dignity Health Sports Park following an international break for the World Cup.
LAFC (8-5-3) evened the all-time series with the Galaxy at 10-10-7. The Galaxy (5-6-5) entered unbeaten in their last three meetings with LAFC.
Mark Delgado, who played for the Galaxy from 2022-24, opened the scoring in the 26th minute. Delgado’s initial header was blocked but it came right back to him for a shot past goalkeeper Novak Micovic.
Bouanga made it 2-0 in first-half stoppage time on a penalty kick that Micovic got a hand on. Bouanga has scored 11 goals in 10 matches against the Galaxy across all competitions and has scored in the last seven meetings, the longest streak in the rivalry’s history.
LAFC forward Denis Bouanga does a flip after scoring on a penalty kick against the Galaxy in the first half Friday.
(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)
Son scored in the 57th after getting a pass back from Delgado.
Up next for LAFC: Hosts Real Salt Lake on Wednesday.
Up next for the Galaxy: Host St. Louis on Wednesday.
Was this the moment the footballing rivalry between the two sides really developed? Possibly. Probably.
The two teams met in the quarter-finals in a match Argentina, to this day, insist they were robbed in, claiming Geoff Hurst’s winning goal was offside.
That was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to controversy though, with Argentina captain Antonio Rattin sent off after just 33 minutes for two offences in the space of three minutes.
The first was for a trip on Bobby Charlton, the second was for continuing to argue with German referee Rudolf Kreitlein.
The match was delayed for almost eight minutes as Rattin refused to leave the pitch.
England held on, in an incredibly ill-tempered affair, with Three Lions boss Alf Ramsey describing the Argentine side as ‘animals’ and insisting that his players did not swap shirts.
England’s 1966 World Cup-winning defender George Cohen reflected on the match in the Guardian in 2009.
“Tackling is fine,” he said. “But it was some of the snidey things, the spitting and pulling the short hairs on your neck, pulling your ear. They were trying to intimidate us. The trouble was when they found out they weren’t going to get their way they fell into some of the worst excesses I’ve ever seen.
“I just consider it the greatest shame that they didn’t play the game they were capable of. We might even have got beaten but they just should have got on and shown what they could do.
“There was a lot of commotion in the tunnel after the game. Nobody was allowed out so we didn’t see it.”
The match is also believed to have led to the introduction of red and yellow cards, which were first used in the 1970 World Cup in Mexico. Previously, referees had to rely on verbal warnings.
England and Norway renew a rivalry better known for one famous piece of commentary rather than football when they meet in the World Cup quarter-finals in Miami on Saturday.
It was 45 years before Jude Bellingham and Erling Haaland were illuminating the current tournament that a Norwegian by the name of Bjorge Lillelien delivered the speech that has assumed legendary status.
Norway, nowhere near the dangerous force they are now in September 1981, had just beaten an England side boasting players of the class of Bryan Robson, Glenn Hoddle, Kevin Keegan and Trevor Francis 2-1 in a World Cup qualifier.
The win was a seismic shock, regarded as a national embarrassment for England and Norway’s greatest triumph at Ullevaal Stadium in Oslo.
Lillelien was not going to let the opportunity to pile on the agony for England pass him by as he directed a message aimed at the country’s political and sporting figures – especially then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
A reserved man in private, he warmed up by accusing Polish referee Jerzy Kacprzak of being “close to receiving English citizenship” by playing what he felt was too much added time as Norway protected their lead.
When Kacprzak finally blew the whistle, Lillelien was ready to let rip on the airwaves as the main radio commentator for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, known as NRK.
A slightly edited version of his wonderfully excitable commentary is: “Lord Nelson. Lord Beaverbrook. Sir Winston Churchill. Sir Anthony Eden. Clement Atlee. Henry Cooper. Lady Diana. We have beaten all of them.”
And then came Lillelien’s most famous words.
“Maggie Thatcher. Can you hear me? We have a message for you. We have knocked your boys out of the World Cup. Maggie Thatcher. As they say in your language, in the boxing bars around Madison Square Garden New York, your boys took a hell of a beating.”
He then repeated for good measure: “Your boys took a hell of a beating.”
The last line, in particular, has been repeated – and altered to suit the occasion – ever since Lillelien delivered it.
England did, contrary to Lillellen’s claim, qualify for the 1982 World Cup in Spain, but no matter.
Social media did not exist in 1981. The impact and traction of his commentary, had it happened now, would be mind-boggling.
Lillelien, who was a hugely popular figure, died six years later aged 60, but has been immortalised by those words, which he always insisted were spontaneous, not prepared.
The emotional speech has been preserved forever by the wonders of YouTube, helped by Lillelien, fluent in English, switching from his native tongue when he said: “Maggie Thatcher. Can you hear me?” and “your boys took one hell of a beating.”
England’s defeat was one of the biggest shocks in their history, having won the first qualifier 4-0 at Wembley a year previously.
In Norway’s moment of triumph, Lillelien’s colourful commentary meant those who represented England in that defeat will never be allowed to forget it.
Every time England meet Norway, Lillelien will be remembered with affection by everyone except those who still have to suffer those painful recollections.
Until not so long ago Latin America had been considered a quiet region, located far from the world’s superpower main strategic confrontations, with sporadic but crucial moments that helped to shape the international order as we know it today. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the clearest example: it became the starting point for a series of agreements and treaties on nuclear and strategic security, involving both the US and the Soviet Union at first, and later extending to other actors of the international community, from Europe, Asia and Latin America, which became the first region free from nuclear weapons after the signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967, 5 years after the crisis. After this episode, the region’s relevance seemed to fade, and Latin American countries appeared condemned to a destiny of surfing between weak political cohesion internally and relatively stable economies, even as most of its governments remained closely aligned with Washington on foreign policy matters.
It was precisely during this period of perceived irrelevance that China began building its presence in the region, very gradually and over the course of a little more than two decades. Washington largely ignored this process, even as it became clear that the Asian giant was becoming the largest trading partner for several South American countries, such as Peru and Brazil, and in many cases also the main investor in their economies. This neglect was not born of ignorance: it reflected, instead, a confidence that local governments would remain compliant regardless of who was investing in them. President Trump’s first term illustrates this well. Despite isolated clashes with the governments of Mexico and Venezuela, these episodes looked minor when compared to the “tariff wars” waged against the EU and China. In fact, the only time Trump ever set foot in the region during his entire first term was in November 2018 when he attended the G20 Forum in Buenos Aires. Significantly, there was a planned short visit in Colombia after this event, but I was cancelled. This was widely read at the time as a confirmation that Latin America remained a low priority for Washington’s foreign policy agenda, more due to the expectable compliance of local governments than ignorance of the importance of the region as a resource base capable of fueling US power projection in other regions.
It was only during Trump’s second term that American foreign policy has shifted towards the Western Hemisphere, attributing strategic importance to the region and setting the objective to maintain a near-absolute dominant presence, involving both economic and military dimensions, as is stated in the latest National Security Strategy of 2025.
By the time this shift was formalized, China’s footprint in the region was already deep and country-specific. In Brazil, China had been the largest trading partner since 2009; bilateral trade hit a record $171 billion in 2025, with China accounting for 27.2% of Brazil’s total foreign trade, besides, EV plants and a still planned bi-oceanic railway linking Brazil to Peru’s Pacific coast were being negotiated as part of the Chinese investment strategy in both countries. In Argentina, China became the primary supplier of mobile network infrastructure, part of a broader Chinese push into Latin American 5G and data-center markets. And in Peru, China invested around $1.3 billion in the strategic port of Chancay, a deepwater facility that entered full operation stage in November 2024, and set a new phase for trade between China and South America, bypassing the traditional deepwater ports located in the US, like the ports of Oakland and Stockton. Reinforcing this, China pledged in May 2025, at the CELAC forum ministerial meeting in Beijing, to ramp up its regional engagement even further. These were not isolated transactions but a structural presence, one that the 2025 National Security Strategy now identifies strictly as the rival foothold it intends to dislodge.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Now, within this context in 2026 the declared shift of interests proved it wasn’t merely rhetorical. The year started with the launching of Operation Resolve, when a group of American special military forces conducted a military raid and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, transporting them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. Trump declared that the US was now “in charge” of Venezuela until a transition takes place. This meant in practice that the US would hold control over the country’s oil exports, which during the first four months after Maduro’s capture were estimated at $8 billion, but the data on how much oil has been sold, the revenue from it and the use given to those funds remains secret. The main importers of Venezuelan oil during this period were the United States (43 percent), India (26 percent, part of the strategy to reduce Indian import of Russian oil), and Spain (8 percent). This episode, condemned by critics as a return to the old days of imperialism, set the tone for the rest of the year: a hemisphere where Washington would use military force, tariffs, and other mechanics for pressuring countries to sign economic deals where American core interests prevail.
An example of this is the new and controversial Trade and Investment agreement signed by the United States and Argentina in February of this year. According to the text, Argentina shall adapt the regulatory framework to implement US trade standards and prioritize American direct investment in the country, while the counterpart shall “try to review its tariffs” and “consider supporting investment financing”. Milei’s government has justified this as the price for ideological loyalty and continued financial support after the $20 billion credit line that helped to stabilize the local currency (peso) last year.
On the other hand, Brazil took the opposite path: rather than just seeking accommodation to this policy, the government of Lula da Silva accelerated diversification, finalizing the long-delayed EU-Mercosur agreement in January, deepening trade with China and signing a memorandum of understanding with aims for further strategic partnership with Russia. Notably, the US has implemented another mechanism of pressure here, condemning the imprisonment of former president Jair Bolsonaro and holding a meeting with his son Flavio Bolsonaro, who will participate in the presidential elections this October. This gives clear signs of indirect support for this far-right candidate, following the regional trend with Milei in Argentina and Keiko Fujimori in Peru.
Peru, meanwhile, illustrates a third pattern and an interesting case, because alignment here is imposed less by negotiation than by sheer state fragility. Amid a presidency turning over for the ninth time in a decade, the US State Department warned in February that China’s control over the Chancay megaport threatens Peru’s sovereignty, following a Peruvian court ruling that exempted the port from national oversight. Peru’s case pictures a scenario where both counterparts keep pushing for concessions and more privileges. Under the government of José María Balcázar, the ninth president in 10 years, the country has been involved in the controversial purchase of 12 F-16 jetfighters with a cost of around $3.5 billion. On April he postponed the official ceremony where this deal was supposed to be signed arguing that it would have to be the responsibility of a new president, the decision was met with pushback, both internally, with declarations from the Ministry of Defense and in the US Embassy, with ambassador Bernardo Navarro declaring “If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of [President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region.” After this, with both internal and diplomatic pressure, the deal was signed on the 17th of April.
Taken together, these cases suggest the current US approach to Latin America is not fueled by a single ideological logic, but by transactional calculations that value compliance and heavily punishes resistance, exploiting weaknesses here and there and aiming to these policy goal indifferently to whether the country in question is led by a right, left or ideologically undefined government. What seems quite clear is that the decades of quietness in Latin America have ended, not necessarily because the region has changed, many of the deep challenges for development are still present, but because the rivalry that once defined the Cuban Missile Crisis has returned, this time fought over trade tariffs, infrastructure and technology access rather than missiles.
