The consortium is led by British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal.
Published On 21 Jul 202621 Jul 2026
Liverpool are in talks with British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia over a potential deal for a minority stake in the Premier League football club.
Fenway Sports Group (FSG), Liverpool’s United States-based owner, confirmed the approach from Bhatia’s group on Tuesday.
“An investment consortium led, managed, and represented by Amit Bhatia has expressed interest in making a strategic minority investment in Liverpool Football Club,” an FSG spokesperson told the AFP news agency.
Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal, is heading a consortium interested in buying into the 20-time English champions.
The Financial Times reported that Bhatia has hired advisers to work on the offer, which the newspaper said could value Liverpool at more than $6bn.
Just hours after Bhatia’s interest in Liverpool emerged, the London-born 46-year-old stepped down from his role as a director and co-owner of English Championship side Queens Park Rangers (QPR).
Bhatia, who spent 18 seasons with the west Londoners, will transfer his ownership of the club to majority owner Ruben Gnanalingam.
“I step back from my formal responsibilities with pride, gratitude and affection. I want to thank the players, managers, staff, the community trust, my fellow board members and, above all, the fans, who have made me and my family feel part of the QPR family for so many years,” Bhatia said.
Bhatia’s discussions with FSG – who bought Liverpool for 300 million British pounds ($400m) in 2010 – are believed to be at an early stage, with no deal struck yet.
Any investment from Bhatia would be made to further position Liverpool for success, following FSG’s move in 2023 to sell a minority stake in the club to global sports investment firm Dynasty.
Reports at the time valued that transaction between $100m and $200m.
NATO leaders are meeting in Ankara, Turkiye on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The summit gets underway as US President Donald Trump renews pressure on member states over defence spending. European nations are expected to respond with billions of dollars in new military contracts.
At the NATO summit last year, members agreed to increase their target to 5 percent of GDP: 3.5 percent on military spending by 2035 and 1.5 percent on security-related needs.
Leaders from all 32 NATO member states are at the summit in Turkiye this week.
Two non-alliance heads of state will also be there: Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung.
Australia, Japan and New Zealand are sending defence or foreign ministers, as are Gulf countries affected by the US-Israel war on Iran: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is not expected to attend the summit but is holding a bilateral meeting with Trump in Ankara.
Trump has questioned NATO’s value since his first presidential campaign. He argued that the US carried an unfair share of the costs. At the time, only five countries spent the agreed two percent GDP on defence.
His questions about shared defence responsibility have produced some results in recent years within the alliance as member states pledged an increased defence budget.
Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the German Marshall Fund’s regional director for Turkiye, believes NATO this year will focus on implementing its promises from last year. “NATO allies just decided to increase their defence spending to five percent last year at The Hague and European allies took action to upgrade their defence industries,” he said. “This year in Ankara the discussion will be on how to translate spending to capabilities. It is therefore stronger than it was last year.”
But Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, noted that any capability gains from increased spending are years away, saying that more orders mean more military hardware but only eventually. “You can spend a lot and obtain not too much,” he said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting Trump for a bilateral meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine is not a NATO member.
Zelenskyy will be using his face-to-face with the US president to request additional Patriot air defence systems as Russian attacks are intensifying on Ukrainian cities. A drone attack on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv killed at least 11 people on Monday morning.
Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute said that Ukraine is looking for ongoing political and military technical support from alliance members, to signal to Russia “that this support will be sustained”.
The idea, he said, was “to show Russia that there will be no diminution in its defensive capacity over the next 12-24 months”.
“There is a direct correlation between the number of interceptors supplied to Ukraine and the damage that Russia can inflict with ballistic missiles,” says Watling.
The billions in contracts expected to be announced by European nations at this summit are seen by some analysts as trying to appease the Trump administration.
When European nations didn’t join the war on Iran, Trump stated he didn’t want their money, just their “loyalty”. He added he might not have attended the summit if it wasn’t hosted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has in recent years not only increased its defence spending, it also has grown into one of NATO’s largest military exporters.
For now, the tone around defence spending remains sharp. On the eve of the summit, Trump called Germany’s defence spending “ridiculous”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended his country’s budget, saying that “this is the greatest effort we have ever made to strengthen our defence capabilities”.
Meanwhile, the US has gone a step beyond rhetoric and announced a phased withdrawal of warplanes, destroyers and submarines from NATO countries. “Less US infantry or armour in Europe has an impact on messaging but little else,” Watling said. But, he added, “the withdrawal of US air power has a more tangible impact”.
Whether the alliance can project unity amid the rhetoric and withdrawals is a key question, said analysts.
“The main value of this summit is political, it shows that the allies are still talking, still meeting, still trying to project unity, even if the underlying disagreements and doubts haven’t disappeared,” von Schirach of the Global Policy Institute said. “Ankara is more about reassurance and signalling than about concrete, immediate changes on the ground.”
England famously found itself on the wrong side of World Cup history at Azteca Stadium, surrendering Diego Maradona’s iconic “Hand of God” goal and another strike known as the tournament’s “most beautiful goal.”
Maradona and eventual champion Argentina eliminated England 2-1 in the quarterfinals of the 1986 World Cup, leaving the Brits to stew over their link to a soccer legend.
England will return to Azteca Stadium on Sunday to take on World Cup co-host Mexico in a round-of-16 match kicking off at 5 p.m. PDT and airing on Fox and Telemundo.
England coach Thomas Tuchel said during interviews before their departure for Mexico that this will be a way to “make amends” with the stadium that hosted a goal Maradona punched in with his fist, and “karma will come back for us.”
Argentina’s Diego Maradona punches the ball past England goalkeeper Peter Shilton to score his “Hand of God” goal during a 1986 World Cup match at Azteca Stadium.
(Getty Images / Getty Images)
“It’s one of the most beautiful, most exciting matchups you can have — playing Mexico at the Azteca,” Tuchel said during a news conference after defeating the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the round of 32.
But the road to Azteca Stadium hasn’t been easy for England.
England enters this matchup after a hard-fought victory over Congo. The African team took the lead and had chances to extend it, but ultimately paid dearly for squandering those opportunities. Top England scorer Harry Kane stepped up with two decisive goals that helped his team advance. It was England’s first World Cup victory after trailing 1-0 since the 1966 final, which the English team won as a tournament host.
The English have to contend with not only the ghost of Maradona’s two goals, but also the altitude in Mexico City, which is about 7,350 feet above sea level.
Mexico has lost only two of 89 matches at Azteca Stadium, winning 70 and tying 17. The last time it lost an official match there was a 2-1 defeat to Honduras in a 2013 World Cup qualifier.
“There will be many obstacles — the altitude will be a major disadvantage because we can’t acclimate to it,” Tuchel said. “Let’s hope that when we face difficulties along the way, we’ll find the answers.”
Mexico players celebrate after the team’s World Cup win over Ecuador at Azteca Stadium on Tuesday.
(Luke Hales/Getty Images)
Tuchel noted his team got accustomed to heat and humidity while training in the United States.
“At the end of the day, it’s a soccer game,” said England’s Marcus Rashford, who also plays for Manchester United. “We’ve all been playing soccer since we were kids, and we’ve played in different environments and under different conditions — some more difficult than others, some in terrible places. But it’s up to us to find a way to win and to work as a team.”
England expects to face an intense atmosphere, with the majority of more than 80,000 fans backing Mexico.
“It’s one of the great stadiums in soccer. Playing there is a blessing. Mexico is probably the favorite. They’re at home, playing on their home turf; it will be a big challenge for us, but we’ll be ready,” England’s Marc Guehi told the BBC.
The match also will pose a significant challenge for the Mexican team, which has not conceded a goal during the World Cup but will face an English side that excels in aerial play, with lethal scorers like Kane and Jude Bellingham. Mexico’s defensive performance has been credited to the direction of Rafa Márquez, a former Barcelona player who is one of Mexico’s assistant coaches.
“They’re high-caliber players who can make a difference at any moment, and we have to take advantage of playing at home and maintain our current level of play because no one has given us anything for free,” said veteran backup goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa, another key voice supporting Mexico’s defensive effort.
Less than 72 hours before the game, FIFA explored moving the evening kickoff to noon local time — a change that would have completely disrupted the sporting, logistical and emotional planning of both teams.
FIFA first weighed the unprecedented change reportedly because of the threat of thunderstorms. The Athletic and media outlets covering both teams later reported security concerns after the death of four Mexico fans during round-of-32 postgame celebrations triggered the potential change, but both team pushed back, and Mexico’s security officials assured FIFA they could keep fans safe. FIFA relented and did not change the start time.
Mexico’s Álvaro Fidalgo celebrates after scoring against Czechia during a World Cup match at Azteca Stadium on June 24.
(Silvia Izquierdo / Ap Photo/silvia Izquierdo)
“No one wants a celebration — such an important moment, a once-in-a-lifetime moment — to turn into a sad occasion because of certain things. We don’t want anyone to lose a loved one,” Mexico midfielder Álvaro Fidalgo said.
Contrary to what many experts expected, Mexico has breezed through the group stage and the second round at home. Coach Javier Aguirre has eased some of the pressure on himself by leading the team to its fifth World Cup match — a feat Mexico had not achieved in eight consecutive World Cups. Two of those failed attempts came under Aguirre’s leadership: in 2002, when Mexico lost to the United States, and in 2010, when it lost to Argentina — both in the round of 16.
“We’ll try to keep this momentum going at home,” Aguirre said. “We’ll try to play a complete game.”
With the support of its fans and a sense of hope that grows with every game, the Mexican team will seek to match its best performances from 1986 and 1970 — World Cups it hosted, though with fewer participating teams.
Mexico’s Raúl Jiménez celebrates after scoring against South Africa during a World Cup match at Azteca Stadium on June 11.
(Carl Recine / Getty Images)
“We have to let them know that we’re just as good,” said Raúl Jiménez, Mexico’s leading scorer. “That we can compete on equal terms, we can play a good game, and we have the support of the fans. It doesn’t matter which goalkeeper is in front of us — if we put it in the corner, no goalkeeper can stop it.”
Advancing past England would mark the first time Mexico defeated a past champion in a knockout round, and it also would be the first time the team strung together two knockout-round victories in a World Cup, after beating Ecuador in the round of 32.
Mexico defeated past champions France and Germany in 2010 and 2018, respectively, but those wins came in the group stage.
“It’s a match everyone always dreams of. Being in the round of 16 at the Azteca — not just saying it, but even thinking about it — is incredible,” Fidalgo said. “We have to rise to the occasion.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has said he is exploring ways to ensure Americans benefit directly from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, raising the possibility of the government acquiring stakes in leading AI companies. The idea comes as firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic pursue valuations that could make them among the most valuable companies in the world, fueling debate over whether the public should share in the wealth generated by AI technologies.
The AI boom is expected to create enormous wealth for technology companies, investors and founders. Policymakers and advocates argue that because AI development relies heavily on public infrastructure, government research and vast amounts of publicly generated data, ordinary citizens should receive some of the financial benefits.
The debate has intensified as major AI developers seek billions of dollars to build data centers, chip infrastructure and advanced computing systems.
One proposal would require AI companies to pay part of their taxes in shares rather than cash.
Under this approach, the government would gradually accumulate ownership stakes in AI firms without directly investing taxpayer money. Supporters argue that it would allow the public to benefit from future growth while avoiding large government expenditures.
Some advocates have gone further, proposing substantial government ownership stakes and board representation to give the public a direct voice in how AI companies operate.
Another model would involve the government receiving equity stakes in return for financial assistance or incentives.
This approach mirrors previous arrangements in strategic industries where federal funding was provided in exchange for ownership interests. Given the enormous capital requirements of AI infrastructure, government funding could potentially become a source of financing for companies building advanced computing facilities, semiconductor plants and other critical projects.
Supporters argue this would allow taxpayers to benefit if publicly supported companies become highly profitable.
Critics contend that such arrangements could blur the line between regulation and investment, potentially creating conflicts between public policy goals and financial interests.
A third proposal focuses less on government ownership and more on distributing AI-generated wealth directly to citizens.
Under this model, revenue generated through AI-related taxes or investments would flow into a public wealth fund, which would then distribute dividends to Americans.
The concept resembles Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which uses energy revenues to provide annual payments to residents. Advocates argue a similar system could ensure that AI-driven economic gains are shared more broadly across society rather than concentrated among a small number of technology firms and investors.
Some AI companies have expressed interest in versions of this idea, including proposals for digital dividends funded by taxes on the sector.
The debate carries major financial implications because leading AI developers are becoming increasingly valuable.
OpenAI and Anthropic have both reportedly taken steps toward potential public listings, while companies across the sector are raising unprecedented sums to fund AI expansion. Some analysts believe the industry could generate trillions of dollars in economic value over the coming decade.
As a result, even relatively small government stakes could potentially produce significant long-term returns.
Any effort to give the government ownership in AI companies would face significant legal, political and economic hurdles.
Questions remain over:
There is also likely to be strong opposition from free-market advocates who argue that government ownership could discourage innovation and distort competition.
Trump has not outlined a specific mechanism for acquiring stakes in AI companies, and no formal proposal has been introduced.
However, the discussion highlights a growing debate over who should benefit from the AI revolution and whether existing economic structures are sufficient to distribute the gains from one of the most transformative technologies in modern history.
The significance of Trump’s proposal lies less in whether the government ultimately acquires stakes in AI firms and more in what it signals about the future political debate surrounding artificial intelligence. As AI companies approach trillion-dollar valuations, pressure is likely to grow for policymakers to ensure that the economic gains extend beyond investors and technology executives.
The discussion mirrors earlier debates over natural resources, where governments sought ways to ensure that public assets generated public benefits. In this case, supporters argue that AI is built on public research, public infrastructure and publicly generated data, creating a rationale for broader wealth sharing.
At the same time, the proposal raises fundamental questions about the relationship between government and the private sector. Direct ownership stakes could provide taxpayers with financial upside, but they could also create tensions between the government’s role as regulator and its role as investor.
The debate is likely to become more prominent as AI companies grow larger, seek additional funding and exert greater influence over economic growth, employment and national competitiveness. Whether through equity ownership, taxation or public wealth funds, the central political question is increasingly becoming not whether AI will generate enormous wealth, but who will ultimately receive it.
With information from Reuters.
Published on
The German government announced on Monday that it intends to acquire 40% of the defence contractor KNDS, a move designed to bolster European arms production in partnership with its NATO and EU ally France.
The decision deepens state involvement in a company whose hardware has become central to Europe’s rearmament efforts.
KNDS was created in 2015 through the merger of Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter. The French state holds a 50% stake, while the other half belongs to the German family behind Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, whose planned exit has opened the door for Berlin to step in.
Based in Amsterdam, the group reported revenue of €4.4 billion last year and employs more than 11,000 people.
The timing reflects a broader scramble across Europe to expand military spending and manufacturing capacity, as governments weigh the continued threat from Russia’s war in Ukraine against growing doubts about the reliability of the US as a security guarantor.
Berlin framed the investment in explicitly strategic terms, saying it would secure lasting influence over a business it considers vital to European security and defence.
The German government added that the stake would reinforce domestic industrial output, technological independence and the safeguarding of key national security interests and technologies.
In a joint statement, Germany and France said they had agreed on the future strategy and governance of KNDS, which they intend to co-own through arrangements aimed at giving both countries equal shareholdings.
Neither government specified a timeline or the final level at which their holdings would settle, but they stated the agreement opens the way for a possible flotation of KNDS in the near future.
According to people familiar with the matter cited by the Associated Press, the two states plan to trim their stakes to around 30% within two to three years of any listing, while retaining equal voting rights regardless of the size of each holding.
The two governments cast the deal as a joint commitment to building up Europe’s defence industry and armed forces, and to securing the continent’s strategic independence well into the future.
State participation in the firm was first floated by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius in 2025 as a way to protect strategic expertise and jobs.
Beyond its tanks, KNDS also manufactures the Puma infantry fighting vehicle and the Boxer and Dingo armoured personnel carriers, equipment which is in growing demand as European armies replenish stocks depleted by years of underinvestment and donations to Ukraine’s defence.
Additional sources • AP
grandriver/E+ via Getty Images
Comstock Resources (CRK) said Monday it sold a 27% equity interest in its Pinnacle Gas Services midstream subsidiary to investment firm Sixth Street for $600M, valuing Pinnacle at a $2.2B enterprise value.
Comstock (CRK) said it retained a 73% controlling
Ethiopia’s governing party is seeking to cement its grip on power amid a fragmented electorate.
Millions of Ethiopians are heading to the polls for general elections on June 1.
The governing party of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who has consolidated power since he took office in 2018, says it is confident of victory.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Abiy’s government has faced years of turmoil and conflict. Despite that, it is portraying the vote as the next step on the path towards what it calls genuine democracy.
Critics and the opposition, however, argue that is unlikely because of Ethiopia’s ethnic and regional divisions. Some opposition parties have been excluded and violence is preventing voting in dozens of constituencies.
So, will the vote hold any significance?
Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom
Guests:
Samuel Getachew – Journalist and commentator specialising in Ethiopian politics and security
Martin Plaut – Senior research fellow at King’s College London
Bizuneh Yimenu – Lecturer in comparative politics at Queen’s University Belfast who specialises in federalism.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
BEIJING — President Trump’s first visit to China in nine years is a high-stakes trip reflecting the rivalry and mutual dependence of two superpowers hoping to avoid a collision course — even if Trump cast it more as a meeting between close friends and business partners.
Speaking to reporters before departing Washington on Tuesday, Trump downplayed tensions between the two countries, including on trade, calling Chinese President Xi Jinping a “wonderful guy” and a friend and saying the working relationship between the two countries is “very good.”
Trump acknowledged China’s might — saying that the Asian nation and the United States are clearly the world’s two superpowers — and that the focus of the meeting “more than anything else will be trade.”
“We’re gonna have a great relationship for many, many decades to come,” Trump said. “My relationship with President Xi is a fantastic one. We’ve always gotten along, and we’re doing very well with China, and working with China’s been very good — so we look forward to it.”
Trump also downplayed the importance of the meeting for the war in Iran. He said Xi might be able to help the United States reach a deal to end the war, but that he doesn’t need it, “because we have Iran very much under control.”
The state visit marks the first by an American president to China since Trump’s trip here in 2017, only months into his first term. President Biden never came, becoming the first to not do so since diplomatic ties were normalized, an absence that underscored simmering distrust and animosity between Washington and Beijing that has only worsened since.
Share via
In the capital, security forces sealed off an area around the Temple of Heaven roughly the size of 400 football fields ahead of the U.S. president’s visit, anticipating a stop at the monument to imperial China and Confucian thought.
On his previous trip, Trump received the rare honor of a state banquet inside the Forbidden City. This time he is expected to dine at the Great Hall of the People, an imposing structure off Tiananmen Square that hosts high-level gatherings of the Chinese Communist Party.
Trump’s positive spin on Tuesday aside, his agenda for meetings beginning Thursday with Xi highlights the vast array of American interests that depend on — and often clash with — Beijing’s policies.
After launching a trade war against China at the beginning of his second term, Trump now comes hat in hand requesting an extension of a tariff truce, fearful Xi might follow through on his threats to halt the export of rare earth minerals to the United States that are vital to the manufacturing of American goods, including everyday consumer equipment and advanced defense technologies.
His visit comes as a ceasefire in the war with Iran, brokered with help from Beijing, is on “massive life support,” according to the president. Trump is expected to appeal to Xi for assistance in getting Tehran to restore free and open passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
And in a dramatic reversal, the Trump administration has begun discussions with the Chinese about establishing a channel of communication on artificial intelligence, alarmed that recent technological leaps could pose global risks.
All of these requests are expected to come at a cost.
President Trump departs the White House on May 12, 2026, for his second state visit to China.
(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
In earlier remarks before the trip, Trump said he expected U.S. arms sale to Taiwan — including one already approved by Congress — to become a chip in the negotiations.
“I’m going to have that discussion with President Xi,” Trump said. “President Xi would like us not to, and I’ll have that discussion. That’s one of the many things I’ll be talking about.”
The notion that U.S. support for Taiwan is a negotiable matter is sure to rattle America’s allies throughout the region, from Japan to the Philippines, which are reliant on U.S. security guarantees amid China’s Indo-Pacific military aggression.
Despite geopolitical tensions, both sides are expected to announce business and investment agreements, underscoring how deeply intertwined the world’s two largest economies remain.
China plans on making a significant purchase of Boeing aircraft, and the president has brought 17 American corporate leaders with him on the trip to discuss additional opportunities, including Apple’s Tim Cook, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Meta’s Dina Powell McCormick and Tesla’s Elon Musk.
The two leaders are expected to have other opportunities to talk in person throughout the coming year, including potential meetings at the Group of 20 summit in Florida, the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China, and a state visit in Washington that Trump said he will host for Xi at some point in the coming months.
Trump on Tuesday said Xi’s visit will be “toward the end of the year” and “exciting.” He also lamented that the ballroom he is building on the White House grounds — on the site of the historic East Wing he demolished — won’t be ready in time.
Jennifer Hong, senior director at the Institute for Indo-Pacific Security, said her concern is that the state visit becomes part of a “tyranny of calendaring,” where the Chinese agree to schedule more high-level meetings sought by Trump that put off vital U.S. decision-making.
“I do think this trip is necessary for the U.S. government — I think that there are things that are on hold because he doesn’t want to rock the boat,” Hong said, noting the Trump administration’s delay in arms sales to Taiwan, despite the packages already having received congressional approval.
“I’m just worried this will be a stringing along of promises, or maybe some reprieve for a year or so,” she added, “as we continue to handicap ourselves on national security matters for the sake of more meetings.”
Trump on Tuesday repeatedly dismissed China’s potential help in resolving the war in Iran, which has driven up prices domestically and around the world as oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz have been badly disrupted and U.S. efforts to fully reopen the channel have so far been unsuccessful.
“I don’t think we need any help with Iran, to be honest with you,” Trump said. “They’re defeated militarily.”
Trump also said the financial pain many Americans are feeling from the war, including at the gas pump, simply isn’t a factor — “not even a little bit,” he said — in his ongoing negotiations with Iran.
“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran [is that] they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”
The roster of campaign contributors to Los Angeles mayoral candidates has something in common with the courtside seats at Lakers games: Both are sprinkled with the rich and famous.
There’s Colin Jost, “Saturday Night Live’s” Weekend Update host, popping up as a donor to Councilmember Nithya Raman. Mayor Karen Bass, meanwhile, counts former Major League Baseball star Dave Winfield among her contributors.
Lakers governor and part-owner Jeanie Buss is there too, as a donor to reality TV personality Spencer Pratt. All three gave the maximum $1,800 contributions to their chosen candidates.
With Los Angeles at the center of the entertainment industry, big names like Jost, Winfield and Buss (none of whom responded to requests for comment) are par for the course in local elections. There might have been even more celebrity contributions were it not for the late-breaking entries of Pratt and Raman in the race, said political consultant Mike Trujillo.
“It’s a very short timeline that is not usual for a mayor’s race where you’re challenging an incumbent,” said Trujillo, who isn’t affiliated with any of the mayoral campaigns. “It takes a while to get these celebrities.”
Trujillo said he expects more big names will contribute if no candidate wins a majority in the June 2 primary, which would trigger a runoff in the Nov. 3 general election.
In 2022, “E.T.” director Steven Spielberg gave $1,500 to Bass’ first campaign for mayor as well as $125,000 to the independent expenditure group “Communities United for Bass for LA Mayor 2022.” J.J. Abrams, the director of “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker,” also gave $125,000 to the group.
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the co-founder of DreamWorks Animation, gave nearly $2 million to the pro-Bass group.
Winfield and Buss weren’t the only names associated with the sports world to wade into the mayoral maelstrom.
Brian McCourt, son of former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, contributed the maximum $1,800 to Bass’ reelection campaign. He is the president of the McCourt Foundation, which runs the Los Angeles Marathon.
Magic Johnson’s son, Andre Johnson, who now runs Magic Johnson Enterprises, also gave the maximum to Bass.
Bass also collected donations from “Grey’s Anatomy” actor James Pickens Jr. and from Pauletta Washington, Denzel Washington’s wife. In 2025, Bass received $1,800 from Edythe Broad, the widow of billionaire developer Eli Broad and co-founder of the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.
Raman received dozens of contributions from successful Hollywood writers, producers and directors. She is married to Vali Chandrasekaran, a writer for hit TV shows including “30 Rock” and “Modern Family.” She took in maximum contributions from stand-up comedian Adam Conover as well as musician Joanna Newsom, the wife of Andy Samberg.
The most recent campaign contribution reports showed Pratt raising nearly $540,000 since Jan. 1, more than any other candidate. About $131,000 of his contributions were in so-called un-itemized contributions of under $100, significantly more than any other candidate.
Among the itemized contributions, Pratt reported getting $1,800 from Rick Salomon, the professional poker player who is known for a 2004 sex tape with Paris Hilton. Salomon’s daughter Tyson Salomon, a social media influencer, gave $1,250 to Pratt.
Two other mayoral candidates, tech entrepreneur Adam Miller and community organizer Rae Huang, also raised more than $200,000 each, though there were fewer household names in their contributions
Miller loaned his own campaign $2.5 million.