turning

The creator of Blue Lock: Rivals thought kids on Roblox might like a soccer video game with an anime vibe. It sold a few months later for more than $3 million.

The 19-year-old, who asked that his name be withheld because he has never shared it publicly, made the game in just three months with the help of co-developers. It attracted more than 1 million simultaneous players following its release last year, he said, generating $5 million a month in purchases for Roblox Corp., the popular gaming platform.

Do Big Studios, an owner of other Roblox games that had helped develop Blue Lock: Rivals, bought the game in March, delivering a hefty payout to its teen owner.

Like YouTube, Roblox started two decades ago as an online stage for young creators. Video-game lovers could use the service’s tools to develop inexpensive, low-resolution entertainment. Now, as the company grows toward 100 million active daily users, contributors are finding there’s money to be had in selling the games they’ve created, with buyers prepared to pay seven or even eight figures.

“We’ve seen a real shift in Roblox’s ecosystem,” said David Taylor, senior consultant at the video-game-analytics firm Naavik. In June, seven of the 15 highest-earning games on Roblox had been acquired from their original owners, according to his research.

The shift has been spawned in part by policy changes at Roblox. A December update to the service lets players easily transfer game ownership. Previously, Roblox said such sales were against its terms of service and community guidelines. A company spokesperson added that Roblox isn’t currently participating in secondary-market transactions.

Do Big has been scooping up other titles, including Roblox’s biggest hit ever. In May, the company bought a stake in Grow a Garden, currently the most popular game on Roblox, for an undisclosed sum. The farming title broke records in late June, when it attracted over 21 million simultaneous players — more than Fortnite from Epic Games Inc. Another Roblox game company, Splitting Point, had taken it over the prior month from an anonymous teenage developer for an undisclosed sum.

Representatives of Do Big didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In February, an anonymous developer sold Roblox’s then-most popular game Brookhaven RP to Voldex Entertainment Ltd. Voldex’s founder and chief executive officer, Alex Singer, said the deal, with financing arranged by Raine Group and Shamrock Capital, was “bigger” than the reported sum that Embracer Group AB paid for Roblox’s Welcome to Bloxburg in 2022, though he declined to be more specific.

“When there are more dollars paid out to creators, it attracts more people,” said Singer, 24.

A report at the time put the Welcome to Bloxburg sale price at $100 million, though officials at Embracer said it was less.

According to Roblox, the company’s top 10 developers earned $36 million each in the 12 months through March. The San Mateo, California-based company may pay out more than $1 billion in total to creators for the first time this year. In 2023, CEO Dave Baszucki predicted that by 2028 a Roblox developer will be valued at $1 billion.

Over a dozen companies buy, develop and sometimes flip Roblox games. Much of the activity is conducted over the chat app Discord, according to Connor Richards, a lawyer with Odin Law & Media who’s been involved in a dozen deals. He’s seen minors earn a few hundred thousand dollars from these deals.

Another technology lawyer, Adam Starr, said he’s facilitated about 20 Roblox deals over the last year and is receiving more inquiries than ever. The developers often opt to remain anonymous.

Voldex’s first major acquisitions, Driving Empire and Ultimate Football, cost the company seven figures, Singer said. A subsequent agreement with the NFL allowing the company to rename the property NFL Universe Football helped grow its audience.

“We’ve been able to sustain our communities and games and grow them while keeping players happy,” Singer said. “That’s really important.” He’ll assign a team of programmers to analyze and improve a game, often alongside the original creator.

Roblox games rise and fall with kids’ whims. A paintball simulator might die off after another creator publishes a Roblox clone of Ubisoft Entertainment SA’s Rainbow 6 Siege. Only the rare game remains popular for months or years. Creators who know this will sometimes sell their games at a price equal to just one or two months’ revenue. Others go for 12 months’ worth of sales, according to Naavik’s Taylor.

Independent game developers also trade their art or programming work for a share of game ownership.

“Roblox is very capitalist,” Voldex’s Singer said. The company “wants creators to be economically successful.”

D’Anastasio writes for Bloomberg.

Ever since operetta composer Victor Herbert sued Shanley’s restaurant in New York in 1917 to force it to pay for playing his song on a player-piano, songwriters and music publishers have depended on Performing Rights Organizations to make sure they get compensated.

For much of the last century, three organizations dominated the industry, a relatively staid and unglamorous corner of the music scene that remained largely unchanged throughout the eras of radio, records and CDs. But the rise of streaming has led to a surge in revenue and spawned a handful of new organizations looking to cash in.

Now there are at least half a dozen PROs in the United States, representing songwriters and publishers, each demanding that bars, restaurants, hotels and other venues pay a fee or risk being sued.

Businesses say the rising licensing costs have become overwhelming, and some question whether it’s even worth playing music at all. The House Judiciary Committee last fall asked the Copyright Office to investigate the current system and consider potential reforms. In February, the Office opened an inquiry and received thousands of comments from businesses and songwriters.

“The growing proliferation of PROs and their lack of transparency have made it increasingly difficult to offer music in our establishments,” hundreds of small businesses from across the country wrote to the Copyright Office in a joint letter.

“The issue is not that small businesses are unwilling to pay for music,” they wrote, adding that the current system is unfair and untenable. “Small businesses can be left feeling like PROs have them over the proverbial barrel.”

Creating a welcoming ambiance in a restaurant or yoga studio isn’t as simple as putting on a Spotify playlist. Streaming has unleashed trillions of songs, and every one must be licensed and have royalties paid to the songwriter whenever any track is played in public. Violations can cost up to $150,000 per infringement.

This booming market for music publishing has led to a windfall for the two major PROs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, founded in 1914, and BMI, established in 1939, together represent more than 90% of musical compositions in the U.S. today with talent lists covering Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo, Jay-Z, Lady Gaga and Eminem, to name a few. SESAC, founded in 1931, rounds out the original three and operates on an invite-only basis.

ASCAP, the oldest and, as a nonprofit, the only PRO to publicly share data on its collections and payout, has seen revenue jump to $1.8 billion in 2024 from $935 million in 2010. Broadcast Music Inc., in its last public report as a nonprofit in 2022, showed record revenue of $1.6 billion, with 48% of that from digital sources.

This kind of growth hasn’t gone unnoticed. In just over the last 12 years, three new PROs have emerged. Legendary music manager Irving Azoff founded Global Music Rights in 2013, offering “boutique services” and royalty transparency, building a stable of more than 160 high-profile songwriters such as Bad Bunny and Bruce Springsteen.

AllTrack, founded in 2017, caters to smaller, independent songwriters. Pro Music Rights launched in 2018 and says it represents more than 2.5 million musical works, including AI-created music.

Many songs today are composed by several songwriters, each of whom could be affiliated with a different PRO. Therefore, to legally play those songs, establishments must pay for a license from each PRO. Most PROs offer blanket licensing agreements, meaning that they provide access to their entire repertoires for one fee. And while that gives a particular venue a wide range of musical freedom, it also means bars and restaurants are paying for thousands of songs they may never play or are essentially paying twice, in instances where a song with multiple writers is represented by more than one PRO.

The National Restaurant Assn. said its members pay an average of $4,500 per year to license music, or 0.5% of the average U.S. small restaurant’s total annual sales.

“This may not seem like a large amount, but for an industry that runs on an average pre-tax margin of 3%-5%, this cost is significant, especially since operators don’t clearly understand what they get for this particular investment aside from avoiding the very legitimate threat of a business-ending lawsuit,” the association wrote in public comments to the Copyright Office.

The American Hotel & Lodging Assn. said the mushrooming number of PROs has led to “significant increases in both financial and administrative burdens.” It gave an example of one “major global hotel chain” that reported the cost per hotel for PRO license fees rose by about 200% from 2021-25, with some hotels seeing increases of 400% or more.

A large hotel that hosts occasional live music events could be paying a single PRO $5,000 to $20,000 a year. If it’s paying all of the major PROs, it could be incurring as much as $80,000 in fees, according to the association.

BMI said its licensing fees have remained “relatively steady over the years” and are based on objective criteria that apply equally to all similar businesses. Fees for individual bars and restaurants start at just over $1 a day, according to BMI. Other factors that go into licensing fees include the occupancy rate, and the type of music being played — live, DJed or recorded, for example.

Songwriters’ livelihoods

In the 1917 Supreme Court case that delivered Herbert his victory over Shanley’s, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “If music did not pay, it would be given up.”  He wasn’t only referring to the songwriters, but also to the venues themselves and addressing whether music helped generate revenue. The ruling was a win for Herbert personally but also for ASCAP, which he had helped found, and established the royalty payment system that’s largely still in use today.

A spokesperson for ASCAP said an increase in fees paid to songwriters by venues is an appropriate and inevitable outcome of a growing market. The organization’s musical repertoires have grown exponentially over the years to include tens of millions of works, giving music users more music and more choice, the spokesperson said. ASCAP says about 90 cents of every dollar it collects from licensees is made available for distribution to its members as royalties.

“Licensees are seeking more regulation of PROs because they want to pay songwriters less,” ASCAP Chief Executive Elizabeth Matthews said in a statement to Bloomberg. “If transparency, efficiency and innovation are the goals, more free market competition among PROs is the answer— not unnecessary government intervention.”

Songwriters depend on PROs for their livelihoods, especially in the streaming era. Many individual songwriters wrote to the Copyright Office in defense of the PRO system, expressing concern that government regulation would only diminish their hard-won earnings.

“Every royalty payment I receive represents not just compensation for my work, but my ability to continue creating music that enhances these very businesses,” wrote Joseph Trapanese, a composer who has created scores for film and TV.

Performance royalties make up about half of total publishing revenue, which is collected by PROs and dispersed to songwriters, according to the National Music Publishers’ Assn. Last year, only about 5% of songwriters’ earnings came from bars, restaurants and other venues, a figure that is “significantly undervalued,” according to NMPA executive vice president and General Counsel Danielle Aguirre.

“There is a substantial opportunity for growth here,” she said, speaking at the group’s annual meeting in June.

The organization set a goal to significantly increase that money over the next year, likely by enforcing licensing requirements.

Several establishment owners equated the PRO’s efforts to collect fees to a mob-like shakedown, citing aggressive on-site confrontations and threatening letters.

BMI said it spends a lot of time trying to educate business owners on the value that music brings to their establishment, federal copyright law requirements and the importance of maintaining a music license.

Lawsuits are always a last resort, a spokesperson said, which is why BMI spends sometimes years on educational outreach. If those efforts are ignored, however, an in-person visit might occur, and BMI may take legal action.

Opaque, bureaucratic

Despite their differences, songwriters and businesses agree that the current system is opaque and bureaucratic and could serve both sides better.

Businesses complain about the lack of a comprehensive database of songs and the fact that there is no easy system for reporting which songs they’ve played. Meanwhile, songwriters claim that the sheer volume of music and businesses throughout the U.S. makes it hard to track where and when their work is played and to know whether they’ve been properly compensated.

“What’s really being called to question is, is this system working accurately—is the money that should be finding its way to the songwriters’ pockets finding its way in an efficient manner?” said George Howard, a professor at Berklee College of Music. “And the answer is ‘no.’ There’s no excuse for that with the level of technology we have today.”

BMI and ASCAP joined forces in 2020 to launch Songview, a free digital database showing copyright ownership and administration shares for more than 20 million works. The two PROs are exploring including GMR and SESAC, which would add even more songs to the platform.

Some of the complaints about the PRO licensing system go back decades. Michael Dorf, a producer and founder of the legendary Manhattan music club The Knitting Factory, has faced off with PROs numerous times over his 30-some years as a venue operator. In the 1990s, he signed singer-songwriters who performed at his club to his publishing company and submitted their setlists to the PROs, assuming he and his acts would reap the resulting royalties from their performances.

But no money came in

“We didn’t receive one penny,” Dorf, who’s also the founder and chief executive officer of City Winery, said in an interview. “To me, there is a cost of doing business, and we want to have the artists and the songwriters properly paid — we love that. What’s simply frustrating is to pay money and know it’s not going to the reason why it’s being collected.”

Caleb Shreve, a songwriter and producer who’s worked with the likes of Jennifer Lopez and is also chief executive at Killphonic Rights, a rights collection organization, said he hears music he has produced “all the time in yoga spots and bars, and I’ve never seen them on publishing statements.” Many songwriters are convinced the current system favors the biggest artists at the expense of middle-tier and emerging songwriters. Because of the blanket licensing system, BMI and ASCAP don’t track individual song use by those licensees and instead rely on proxy data, like what’s popular on the radio or through streaming platforms, to divvy up those collected fees.

Sometimes radio hits mimic what’s played in an arena, restaurant or bar, but not always.

ASCAP said it tracks trillions of performances every year across all media platforms and only uses sample surveys or proxy data when obtaining actual performance data isn’t feasible or is cost prohibitive.

Technology could be a way to solve the current issues without regulation. London-based Audoo is one company leading the way.

Founded by musician Ryan Edwards in 2018 after he heard his music being played in a department store and discovered he wasn’t getting paid for it, the growing startup uses proprietary listening devices it places in cafes, gyms and other public venues to recognize and log songs. It uploads the data to the cloud, ensuring every artist — not just the chart toppers — receives compensation for their work.

The company has attracted investment from music icons including Elton John and Adele, and its devices are used by PROs in the U.K. and Australia. It made its first foray into the US earlier this year, placing listening devices in about 180 establishments around the Denver area in a test run.The collected data underscored that what’s played in public places doesn’t necessarily mirror what’s on the popular playlists or radio and streaming platforms. Edwards likens the idea of using proxies to political polling — directionally helpful but not precise.

Audoo found that 77,000 unique tracks were played around Denver over two months, split among 26,000 artists, according to data viewed by Bloomberg News. On average, only 6.6% of the top-40 songs played in the venues also appeared on Billboard’s top radio-play chart.

In markets where Audoo has partnered with venues, Edwards said business owners have been proud to support particular songwriters and the music business writ large.

“All of a sudden it went from a push-and-pull of, ‘Why do I owe you money?’ to, ‘OK, I can understand music is funding the people who create,’” Edwards said.

Carman and Soni write for Bloomberg.

Cape Town, South Africa – Five months ago, with a single social media post, United States President Donald Trump put half a million people in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at risk when he announced the closure of USAID – the single biggest aid donor in the country.

A few days ago in Washington, DC, the same administration claimed credit for extricating the Congolese people from a decades-long conflict often described as the deadliest since World War II. This year alone, thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.

While the White House may be celebrating its diplomatic triumph in brokering a peace deal between tense neighbours DRC and Rwanda, for sceptical observers and people caught up in conflict and deprivation in eastern DRC, the mood is bound to be far more muted, experts say.

“I think a lot of ordinary citizens are hardly moved by the deal and many will wait to see if there are any positives to come out of it,” said Michael Odhiambo, a peace expert for Eirene International in Uvira in eastern DRC, where 250,000 displaced people lost access to water due to Trump’s aid cutbacks.

Odhiambo suggests that for Congolese living in towns controlled by armed groups – like the mineral-rich area of Rubaya, held by M23 rebels – US involvement in the war may cause anxiety, rather than relief.

“There is fear that American peace may be enforced violently as we have seen in Iran. Many citizens simply want peace and even though [this is] dressed up as a peace agreement, there is fear it may lead to future violence that could be justified by America protecting its business interests.”

The agreement, signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers in Washington on Friday, is an attempt to staunch the bleeding in a conflict that has raged in one form or another since the 1990s.

At the signing, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called it a “turning point”, while his Congolese counterpart, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, said the moment had “been long in coming”.

“It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of – safety, dignity and a sense of future,” Wagner said.

Trump has meanwhile said he deserves to be lauded for bringing the parties together, even suggesting that he deserves a Nobel prize for his efforts.

While the deal does aim to quell decades of brutal conflict, observers point to concerns with the fine print: That it was also brokered after Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi said in March that he was willing to partner with the US on a minerals-for-security deal.

Experts say US companies hope to gain access to minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium that they desperately need to meet the demand for technology and beat China in the race for Africa’s natural resources.

But this has raised fears among critics that the US’s main interest in the agreement is to further foreign extraction of eastern DRC’s rare earth minerals, which could lead to a replay of the violence seen in past decades, instead of a de-escalation.

M23 and FDLR: Will armed groups fall in line?

The main terms of the peace deal – which is also supported by Qatar – require Kinshasa and Kigali to establish a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Additionally, the DRC should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), after which Rwanda will lift its “defensive measures” inside the DRC.

According to the United Nations and other international rights groups, there are about 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan troops on the ground in eastern DRC, as Kigali actively backs M23 rebels who have seized key cities in the region this year. Rwanda has repeatedly denied these claims.

M23 is central to the current conflict in eastern DRC. The rebel group, which first took up arms in 2012, was temporarily defeated in 2013 before it reemerged in 2022. This year, it made significant gains, seizing control of the capitals of both North Kivu and South Kivu provinces in January and February.

Although separate Qatar-led mediation efforts are under way regarding the conflict with M23, the rebel group is not part of this agreement signed last week.

“This deal does not concern M23. M23 is a Congolese issue that is going to be discussed in Doha, Qatar. This is a deal between Rwanda and DRC,” Gatete Nyiringabo Ruhumuliza, a Rwandan political commentator, told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story, explaining that the priority for Kigali is the neutralisation of the FDLR – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

“Rwanda has its own defensive mechanisms [in DRC] that have nothing to do with M23,” Ruhumuliza said, adding that Kigali will remove these mechanisms only once the FDLR is dealt with.

But the omission of M23 from the US-brokered process points to one of the potential cracks in the deal, experts say.

“The impact of the agreement may be more severe on the FDLR as it explicitly requires that it ceases to exist,” said Eirene International’s Odhiambo. “The M23, however, is in a stronger position given the leverage they have from controlling Goma and Bukavu and the income they are generating in the process.”

The US-brokered process requires the countries to support ongoing efforts by Qatar to mediate peace between the DRC and M23. But by including this, the deal also “seems to temper its expectations regarding the M23″, Odhiambo argues.

Additionally, “M23 have the capacity to continue to cause mayhem even if Rwanda decided to act against it,” he said. “Therefore, I think the agreement will not in itself have a major impact on the M23.”

In terms of the current deal’s effect on the two countries, both risk being exposed for their role in the conflict, he added.

“I think that if Rwanda manages to prevail on the M23 as anticipated by the deal, it may prove the long-suspected proxy relationship between them.”

For DRC, he said Kinshasa executing the terms of the agreement will not augur well for the FDLR, but suggested calls to neutralise them may be a tall order.

“If [Kinshasa] manage to do it, then they remove Rwanda’s justification for its activities in the DRC. But to do so may be a big ask given the capacity of the FARDC [DRC military], and failure to do so will feed into the narrative of a dysfunctional and incapable state. Therefore, I think the DRC has more at stake than Rwanda.”

On the other hand, Tshisekedi’s government could score political points, according to Jakob Kerstan, DRC country director for the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation (KAS), which promotes democracy and the rule of law.

“The sentiment … of the Congolese population, it’s very much like the conflict has been left behind: No one really cares in the world; the Congo is only being exploited, and so on. And the fact that there is now a global power caring about the DRC … I think this is a gain,” he said.

He feels there is also less pressure on Kinshasa’s government today than earlier this year when M23 was first making its rapid advance. “There are no protests any more. Of course, people are angry about the situation [in the east], but they kind of accept [it]. And they know that militarily they won’t be able to win it. The Kinshasa government, they know it as well.”

‘Peace for exploitation’?

Although Kinshasa appears to have readily offered the US access to the country’s critical minerals in exchange for security, many observers on the continent find such a deal concerning.

Congolese analyst Kambale Musavuli told Africa Now Radio that reports of the possible allocation of billions of dollars worth of minerals to the US, was the “Berlin Conference 2.0″, referring to the 19th-century meeting during which European powers divided up Africa. Musavuli also bemoaned the lack of accountability for human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, Congolese Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege called the agreement a “scandalous surrender of sovereignty” that validated foreign occupation, exploitation, and decades of impunity.

An unsettling undertone of the deal is “the spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph”, said political commentator Lindani Zungu, writing in an op-ed for Al Jazeera. “This emerging ‘peace for exploitation’ bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order.”

Meanwhile, for others, the US may be the ones who end up with a raw deal.

KAS’s Kerstan believes Trump’s people may have underestimated the complexities of doing business in the DRC – which has scared off many foreign companies in the past.

Even those who welcome this avenue towards peace acknowledge that the situation remains fragile.

Alexandria Maloney, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s US-based Africa Center, praised the Trump deal for combining diplomacy, development and strategic resource management. However, she warned against extraction without investment in infrastructure, skills and environmental safeguards. “Fragile governance structures in eastern DRC, particularly weak institutional capacity and fragmented local authority, could undercut enforcement or public trust,” Maloney told the think tank’s website.

Furthermore, China’s “entrenched footprint in the DRC’s mining sector may complicate implementation and heighten geopolitical tensions”, she added.

For analysts, the most optimistic assessments about the US’s role in this process appear to say: Thank goodness the Americans stepped in; while the least optimistic say: Are they in over their heads?

Overall, this Congo peace agreement seems to have few supporters outside multilateral diplomatic fora such as the UN and the African Union.

For many, the biggest caution is the exclusion of Congolese people and civil society organisations – which is where previous peace efforts have also failed.

“I have no hopes at all [in this deal],” said Vava Tampa, the founder of grassroots Congolese antiwar charity Save the Congo. “There isn’t much difference between this deal and the dozens of other deals that have been made in the past,” he told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story.

“This deal does two things really: It denies Congolese people – Congolese victims and survivors – justice; and simultaneously it also fuels impunity,” he said, calling instead for an international criminal tribunal for Congo and for perpetrators of violence in both Kigali and Kinshasa to be held accountable.

“Peace begins with justice,” Tampa said. “You cannot have peace or stability without justice.”

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a peace deal in the United States to end years of fighting between the neighbouring countries.

Meeting at the State Department in Washington, DC, on Friday, foreign ministers from the two African countries signed the agreement that was mediated by the US and Qatar.

The deal would see Kinshasa and Kigali launching a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and forming a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Under its terms, thousands of Rwandan soldiers are to withdraw from the DRC within three months.

It raises hopes for an end to fighting that has escalated with the advance of Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in the DRC’s mineral-rich provinces of North and South Kivu this year. The conflict has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more since January.

The escalation is just the latest in a decades-old cycle of tensions and violence, rooted in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

“This moment has been long in coming. It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of safety, dignity and a sense of future,” said Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner.

“So now our work truly begins,” she added at the signing, saying the agreement would have to be followed by “disengagement, justice, and the return of displaced families, and the return of refugees, both to the DRC and Rwanda”.

“Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them,” she said.

M23 and FDLR

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe said that the agreement heralded a “turning point”.

While Rwanda denies accusations it is backing M23, Kigali has demanded an end to another armed group in the DRC – the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

During the signing, he insisted on “an irreversible and verifiable end” to the DRC’s “support” for the FDLR. The agreement calls for the “neutralisation” of the FDLR.

Reporting from Goma, the capital of the DRC’s North Kivu province, Al Jazeera’s Alain Uaykani said the deal was a “big step”, but there was “confusion” on the ground over the absence of any mention of when the M23 rebels would withdraw.

“Rwanda [is] always saying that they are not the ones who should ask M23 to leave, because this is a Congolese problem,” he said, adding that the rebels were appointing governors and controlling airports in the DRC’s provinces of North and South Kivu, whose capital cities they seized in January and February.

Kinshasa, the United Nations and Western powers say Rwanda is supporting M23 by sending troops and arms.

The deal does not explicitly address the gains of the M23 but calls for Rwanda to end “defensive measures” it has taken. Rwanda has sent at least a few thousand soldiers over the border in support of M23, according to UN experts, analysts and diplomats.

Critical minerals

The DRC-Rwanda deal will also help the US government and American companies gain access to critical minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium needed for much of the world’s technology at a time when the US and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.

Ahead of the signing on Friday, US President Donald Trump said, “We’re getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They’re so honoured to be here. They never thought they’d be coming.”

Welcoming the foreign ministers to the White House, he said: “The violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity. This is a wonderful day.”

The DRC sits on vast untapped reserves of mineral wealth, estimated to be worth around $24 trillion. It has said it is losing around $1bn worth of minerals in illegal trading facilitated by the war.

The agreement was mediated through Massad Boulos, a Lebanese-American businessman and father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany, who was appointed by the president as a senior advisor on Africa.

“This is an important moment after 30 years of war,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hosted the two foreign ministers at the Department of State for the signing of the agreement.

“It’s about allowing people to live. It’s about allowing people to now have dreams and hopes for a better life, for prosperity, for economic opportunity, for a family reunification, for all the things that make life worth living.

“Those things become impossible when there’s war and when there’s conflict,” he added.

Analysts see the deal as a major turning point but do not believe it will quickly end the fighting that has killed millions of people since the 1990s.

The Englishman, born to a Albanian father and a British-Yemeni mother, became hooked on the sport when his mum brought him to a boxing gym aged five.

“I was doing loads of sports at the time. But when I started sparring at about nine I just fell in love with it,” he says.

“The first time I got punched I thought ‘I have to get him back’. I used to get angry when I’d get hit. You have to learn to take one and land two in a minute.”

Maca caught the eye of Matchroom because of his remarkable amateur record. He has seven titles in the junior ranks, including five national titles.

He also won a silver medal at the IBA World Junior Championships representing Albania in 2023.

While he was earmarked to be a potential Olympian, he has long had his sights on linking up with Hearn – even cornering him at an event with fellow future Matchroom fighter and heavyweight Leo Atang.

“We didn’t get ringside [tickets] back then,” Maca jokes. “We spoke to Eddie and said we wanted to sign with him one day. He said, ‘come to me when you’re a bit older, boys’. And now here we are.”

Like Maca, Atang will make his professional bow as an 18-year-old. He fights on Jack Catterall’s undercard in Manchester in July.

The UK has suspended trade talks, while France and Canada have threatened action if Israel continues to starve and bomb Palestinians in Gaza. So, is the tide turning on foreign support for Israel, or is this all just PR? Soraya Lennie takes a look.