scrapped

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.

This building was so loathed that it inspired a construction ban.

Bursting skyward from one of the most iconic skylines in the world is a building that was so hated after its construction, a law was passed to stop any more like it being built.

Tour Montparnasse is a towering, 210 metre high office skyscraper which juts up above the Montparnasse area of Paris. It was built in 1969, and is the fourth tallest building in all of France still to this day.

The tower does have an observation deck which offers views across Paris. However, there is a common joke amongst Parisians that it is the most beautiful view in the city purely because it is the only place from which you cannot see the tower itself.

Designed by architects Eugène Beaudouin Urbain Cassan and Louis de Hoÿm de Marien, the tower is a simple monolithic office block that is at odds with the rest of the surrounding buildings.

It was so strongly disliked that two years after its construction was finished, a law was passed banning the construction of any building over seven storeys in Paris.

This law stayed in place up until 2015 and was reinstated in 2023 after the construction of the Tour Triangle, the 180 metre tall pyramid-shaped glass skyscraper at Porte de Versailles.

The construction of the building was delayed by 12 years due to the backlash and multiple legal and planning battles.

In 2017, Paris approved a £680 million renovation project to revitalize Tour Montparnasse by stripping it back to its frame and replacing the dark facade with transparent glazing.

There were plans for sky gardens to soften the outline, and openings to allow natural ventilation to the building.

There was even a plan to transform the upper floors into a luxury hotel, but the entire project was scrapped earlier this week.

According to sotiraparis, this is because the asset manager of the building told the co-owners that it no longer wished to pay for the transformation and instead wants to opt for a more modest renovation which isn’t so expensive.

The future of the building now looks uncertain. A new team of architects will need to make a new plan for the renovation, but the building permit expires in November of this year, which makes things even more challenging.

There has been no timeline announced for the new project as of yet.

SEVERAL UK airports have scrapped the 100ml liquid rule, just as the summer holiday rush gets underway.

The policy change comes in as airports prepare for their busiest time of the year.

Until this year, liquids in hand luggage were restricted to 100ml, with all bottles required to be removed to go through security.

However, seven UK airports are removing the 100ml liquid hand luggage rule in a major change to security measures.

Due to technology developments, a number of airports will accept containers of up to two litres in hand luggage.

This includes Heathrow, Gatwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Bristol, Belfast International, and Belfast City.

PLANE RUDE

What YOUR aeroplane habits say about you…armrest hogs, barefoot brutes & callers

HOL-D OFF

Two countries where holidays are now BANNED – months after warning was lifted

Heathrow Airport has confirmed that containers of up to two litres can be taken in hand luggage in Terminals 2, 3, 4 and 5, but metal or insulated bottles must be emptied first.

Gatwick, Edinburgh, and Bristol similarly require metal, or double-walled containers, to be completely emptied before security checks.

Birmingham and Belfast City allow liquids, as well as gels and pastes of up to two litres to stay in cabin bags.

17 major airports, however, have reported to retain the 100ml liquid limit throughout the summer period.

Airports not introducing the rule have made some changes, with Manchester, London Luton, London City, and Teeside allowing 100ml liquids to remain inside hand luggage, and not be put in plastic bags.

Passengers, however, have been urged to check the rules at overseas airports, as many may not operate on the same regulations as the UK.

Items that are commonly treated as liquids include drinks, creams and lotions, mascara, lipgloss, toothpaste, hair gel, shaving foam, and liquid-filled toys.

Before travelling, it is important to check the exact rules of your departure airport before packing any restricted items.

Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon after escalating violence threatened to derail potential peace talks regarding the ongoing war in Iran. This ceasefire was announced just before 4 p.m. Lebanon time, with a U. S. official confirming that negotiations, facilitated by the U. S. and Qatar with assistance from Iran, had led to this agreement. Both sides indicated they would uphold the ceasefire, with an Israeli official stating that Israel would remain in southern Lebanon but would not engage in conflict unless attacked.

The recent conflict included intense airstrikes that resulted in 18 deaths and injuries to 33 others in Lebanon. Four Israeli soldiers were also killed by Hezbollah. This violence could complicate U. S.-Iran negotiations, as establishing peace in Lebanon is key to a broader agreement. The recent memorandum signed by the presidents of the U. S. and Iran postponed discussions on critical issues like Iran’s nuclear program, granting parties 60 days to agree on a lasting solution or extend the current deal.

Technical talks were planned in Switzerland but were postponed, and officials from both the U. S. and Iran indicated that their respective negotiators would not be attending. Hezbollah lawmakers suggested that further discussions hinge on a complete ceasefire and urged the Lebanese government to reject any negotiations with Israel as long as hostilities continued.

The interim agreement seeks an end to military operations in various regions, including Lebanon, but Israel maintains that it is not a part of these deliberations. The fighting began when Hezbollah fired at Israel, prompting Israeli military responses, including strikes targeting Hezbollah’s positions.

Lebanon’s health ministry confirmed the heavy toll from recent airstrikes, and its President condemned Israel’s actions while emphasizing the commitment to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire. The broader conflict, which originated on February 28 with U. S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, has reportedly resulted in at least 7,000 deaths, primarily in Iran and Lebanon.

Despite the conflict’s impact on oil prices, which had risen due to concerns over regional stability, the signing of the interim deal resulted in a drop in prices as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz resumed. Under the terms of the agreement, Iran will receive economic relief and unfreezing of assets, with negotiators tasked with addressing the status of Iran’s nuclear program and establishing a reconstruction fund within the next 60 days.

In the face of criticism in the U. S., former President Trump defended the deal, arguing that the war had weakened Iran and affirming that the terms would lead to significant concessions from Iran without offering direct financial support.

With information from Reuters