United Kingdom

A total of 79 people were injured after a car drove into a crowd after Liverpool Football Club’s trophy parade.

A former British marine has appeared in court accused of driving a vehicle into a crowd of people celebrating Liverpool Football Club’s Premier League title win.

Paul Doyle briefly appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Friday morning, where he read out his personal details, according to United Kingdom media reports.

Doyle, 53, is facing seven charges, including dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm with intent, which carry a maximum life sentence if convicted, after a dark Ford Galaxy drove into Liverpool Football Club supporters attending a parade in the city centre to celebrate the club winning the Premier League.

A total of 79 people, aged between nine and 78, were injured in the incident, and no deaths were reported.

Merseyside Police Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims told reporters on Thursday that seven people remained in hospital.

According to local reports, Doyle lives in a suburb of Liverpool and is a businessman with three teenage children.

The charges followed what Crown Prosecution Service’s Sarah Hammond described as a “complex and ongoing investigation”.

“Prosecutors and police are continuing to work at pace to review a huge volume of evidence,” she said.

“This includes multiple pieces of video footage and numerous witness statements. It is important to ensure every victim gets the justice they deserve,” she added.

Shortly after the incident, Merseyside Police quickly ruled out possible terrorism as the reason behind the crash and revealed that the suspect was a white British man, in a move to stop the spread of misinformation online.

Last year, misinformation circulating online about an attacker who killed three girls in the Southport area led to anti-immigration and Islamophobic riots in parts of England.

Spanish giants Real Madrid have confirmed the signing of England international Trent Alexander-Arnold from Liverpool.

Real Madrid have signed defender Trent Alexander-Arnold from Liverpool on a deal until 2031.

The 26-year-old England international’s contract at Anfield was drawing to an end but Madrid paid a fee to bring him in earlier so he can play in the Club World Cup, the Spanish club said on Friday.

Right-back Alexander-Arnold, who has just won the Premier League title with Liverpool, came through the academy of his boyhood club and won the Champions League in 2019.

He also won the Premier League in 2020 and 352 appearances for the club.

The defender joins former Liverpool midfielder Xabi Alonso at Real Madrid, with the Spaniard appointed as their new coach to replace Carlo Ancelotti.

Alexander-Arnold’s close connections to Liverpool meant that his announcement that he was leaving the club was viewed with disgust by some supporters and he was booed in the penultimate match of the season.

But after club figures including former manager Jurgen Klopp and Mohamed Salah urged fans to remember the contribution he has made to Liverpool’s success over the last six years, he was roundly cheered when he lifted the Premier League trophy at Anfield last Sunday.

The defender joins a Real Madrid side which failed to win a major trophy this season.

Alexander-Arnold has been criticised for his defensive concentration at times but brings supreme passing vision and attacking edge down the right flank.

Real Madrid have struggled at right-back this season with Dani Carvajal recovering from a long-term knee injury and winger Lucas Vazquez enduring a torrid time there out of position.

Alexander-Arnold could make his Real Madrid debut when they face Saudi Arabian side Al-Hilal in their opening Club World Cup match on June 18 in Miami.

Real Madrid have also signed Spanish centre-back Dean Huijsen from Bournemouth as they look to bolster a back line which was ravaged by injury this season.

Across the UK, pro-Palestinian protests in reaction to the war in Gaza have placed universities’ response to human rights concerns under the spotlight. But concerns about links between Britain’s higher education institutions and human rights abuses are not limited to one area.

A new investigation by Freedom from Torture has found that UK universities are offering postgraduate security and counterterrorism education to members of foreign security forces, including those serving some of the world’s most repressive regimes. These institutions are offering training to state agents without scrutinising their human rights records, or pausing to consider how British expertise might end up being exploited to silence, surveil or torture.

The investigation reveals that British universities may not just be turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, but could also be at risk of training some of the abusers. Some universities have even partnered directly with overseas police forces known for widespread abuses to deliver in-country teaching. Others have welcomed individuals on to courses designed for serving security professionals from countries where torture is a standard tool of state control. All of this is happening with virtually no oversight of the risks to human rights.

These are not abstract concerns. They raise serious, immediate questions. What happens when the covert surveillance techniques taught in British classrooms are later used to hunt down dissidents? Why are universities not investigating the backgrounds of applicants from regimes where “counterterrorism” is a common pretext for torture and arbitrary detention?

Freedom from Torture’s investigation found that universities across the UK  are accepting applicants for security education from some of the world’s most repressive states. Yet just one university in the study said they are screening out applicants who they believed have either engaged in human rights violations or “intend to”.

Torture survivors in the UK have spoken out about their shock that members of the security forces from countries they have fled can access UK security education without meaningful human rights checks. British universities, long considered beacons of liberal values and intellectual freedom, appear to be overlooking the fact that the knowledge they produce may be used to further oppression and state violence.

Meanwhile, student activists across the country are staunchly positioning themselves as stakeholders in their university’s human rights records. The recent  Gaza protests indicate that that when students believe universities’ conduct does not align with their values, they won’t hesitate to hold them accountable.

Across the world, the global student body has a rich history of activism. From anti-apartheid solidarity campaigns to the student protests that sparked Myanmar’s 1988 uprising, young people have long stood at the front lines of struggles against repression. Today’s generation – often described as the most socially conscious and globally connected in history – is no different.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to universities that their human rights performance is a hot topic for the young people they serve.

In the corporate world, businesses are now routinely judged on their human rights records. Terms like “ethical sourcing,” “responsible investment,” and “human rights due diligence” are standard parts of doing business. Universities, which pride themselves on being forward-thinking and socially responsible, should be held to no lower standard. The fact that many have no policy at all on overseas human rights risks is indefensible.

It’s time for that to change.

Torture survivors seeking safety in the UK should not have to worry that the nation’s educational institutions are offering training to the security forces of the very regimes they fled. Universities should be able to provide reassurance to anyone expressing real concern, whether that is those with lived experience of the most terrible abuses of power, or their own students.

In order to do this the university sector must get its house in order. This starts with adopting transparent human rights policies across the sector and undertaking effective due diligence to manage risks to human rights. Failure to take these necessary steps leaves the sector at risk of contributing, however unintentionally, to global human rights violations.

Universities must ask themselves: Who is sitting in our classrooms? Who benefits from our training? And what consequences might flow from what we teach? These are amongst the many urgent questions, but not ones the sector appears to be asking.

UK universities must take meaningful steps to ensure they avoid inadvertently sharpening the tools of global repression and move towards building a human rights record they can be proud of. Not only will it appeal to a new generation of activist students, but it’s the right thing to do.

*Full details of FfT’s investigation, including responses from universities, can be found here.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla are on their first official visit to Canada since Charles became the British monarch in 2022.

The two-day trip, though brief, carries symbolic weight at a time when Canada has faced tariffs and threats from US President Donald Trump.

Here’s what you need to know about the visit.

What do we know about the ‘Speech from the Throne’?

A major highlight of Charles’s visit is his scheduled address on Tuesday from the Canadian Senate.

Often referred to as a “Speech from the Throne”, the address is traditionally used to open a new session of Parliament and is usually delivered by the governor general on the monarch’s behalf.

The speech is ceremonial and not tied to any new legislative session. It is expected to include reflections on Canada’s democratic institutions, messages of unity, and an emphasis on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Although symbolic, the speech is a rare opportunity for Canadians to hear directly from the monarch in a parliamentary setting. It also serves as a public reaffirmation of the king’s role as head of state in Canada.

It is the first such address to be delivered by a British monarch in Canada since 1977.

In a statement on Monday, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said the speech will outline the government’s plan to deliver the change Canadians “want and deserve”.

This includes defining “a new economic and security relationship with the United States … to bring down the cost of living, and to keep communities safe,” Carney said.

What time is the speech?

Charles is set to deliver the speech shortly after 11am local time (15:00 GMT).

How long are the king and queen in Canada?

The royal couple are in Canada for a two-day tour, which began on Monday.

They came at Carney’s invitation. While the visit is short, it has included several important engagements that reflect Canada’s historical ties to the monarchy.

The itinerary features official ceremonies, cultural events, and meetings with Indigenous leaders, according to the Canadian government’s official website.

Why is the king visiting?

Charles’s visit to Canada serves multiple purposes, both symbolic and practical. Primarily, it aims to reinforce the enduring relationship between Canada and the Crown, highlighting shared values and historical ties.

The timing of the visit is particularly noteworthy as it coincides with heightened tensions following US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs as well as controversial remarks suggesting the annexation of Canada.

Carney’s invitation for Charles to deliver the “Speech from the Throne” has been viewed as seeking to reaffirm Canada’s sovereignty and constitutional framework.

Barbara Messamore, professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley, said Canadians have found comments by Trump about turning the country into the 51st US state “deeply offensive”.

“I think it is a good moment to show the world that we are a distinct nation with a distinct history, and we’d like to keep it that way,” Messamore told Al Jazeera. “We value, of course, our relationship with our American friends and neighbours, but we don’t want to join them.”

Is a visit by the monarch rare?

While members of the British royal family have frequently toured Canada over the years, visits by the reigning monarch are relatively uncommon. Queen Elizabeth II, for example, visited Canada 22 times during her seven-decade reign.

This is Charles’s first time visiting the country as monarch. He last visited in 2022, when he was still the prince of Wales.

What is Canada’s connection to the monarchy?

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which means the country recognises the king as its official head of state.

While the role is largely ceremonial, the Crown plays a critical function in Canada’s political system. The king’s duties are carried out in Canada by the governor general, currently Mary Simon, who represents the monarch at the federal level.

The monarchy is built into Canada’s constitutional framework. The Constitution Act of 1867 established the king – or queen – as part of the Parliament of Canada, alongside the House of Commons and the Senate.

Beyond politics, the Crown holds particular importance in Indigenous relations. Many historical treaties were made directly with the British Crown, not with the government of Canada.

This has been largely highlighted in local media coverage, Messamore said.

“Indigenous nations are front and centre, and they value that kinship relationship,” she said.

Although support for the monarchy varies across Canada, with many Canadians questioning its relevance, the institution remains embedded in the nation’s political and legal foundations.

This is because it has always provided a “bulwark against American ambitions”, Messamore said.

“These moments are really important ones about Canadian patriotism. The reaction to the king’s visit has been very positive,” she said.

“We don’t always all agree on our form of governance, but we’ve made it very difficult to change that fundamental aspect of our Canadian Constitution.”

London, United Kingdom — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has proudly described a new deal with the European Union spanning defence, security, and trade as a “win-win” pact that puts the nation “back on the world stage”.

But nine years after Britain narrowly voted in favour of leaving the EU, the deal announced on May 19 has prompted a sigh of relief for some and stinging criticism from others, underscoring just how divisive the legacy of Brexit remains in the country.

While many sections of British society have welcomed the agreement, Richard Tice, an MP for the anti-immigration party Reform UK, responded to the deal with a single-word post on social media: “Betrayal.”

The deal offers concessions on European visas for British citizens, shorter queues at European airports, and possibly cheaper food in the UK. But on the flip side, the UK has agreed to allow European fishing fleets access to British waters for an extra 12 years.

‘Best news in nine years’

Phil Rusted, who runs a firm called Practical Plants in Suffolk that imports plants from Europe, is among those who are delighted.

“My instinct is it is the best news we have got in nine years,” he said. “It almost gets us back to where were before Brexit. It helps me to take on more staff, to develop my business. The last few years have been very unpredictable; I will be more assured about what my costs are going to be.”

The business sector, more broadly, has also largely responded positively to the agreement.

“In a world where higher US tariffs are threatening to throw globalisation into reverse, trade deals, even if relatively minor, are generally good news,” said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Bank. “The obvious gainer is the food sector, which will benefit from a reduction in checks at the EU border, which could make a material difference to exporters’ and importers’ costs.”

The Federation of Small Businesses, a group that represents small- and medium-sized firms in the UK, described the EU deal as “genuine progress”, crediting it for “untangling the rules for small exporters of plant and animal products”.

“For too long, small businesses have shouldered the burden of unpredictable customs rules and red tape that sap confidence and ambition,” it said.

And popular opinion in the UK appears to be behind the agreement. Polling by YouGov shows that 66 percent want to have a closer relationship with the EU, compared with just 14 percent who do not.

To be sure, experts say the UK has to compromise too. “The devil in a trade deal is of course always in the detail,” said Paul Dales, chief economist at Capital Economics. In addition to accepting EU access to British waters for fishing, the UK has also agreed to pay an unspecified “appropriate financial contribution” to join the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, Dales pointed out.

‘Nothing of value in return’

But the deal has also faced strong pushback.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, in a statement on May 19, said the agreement “surrenders the best prospect that the fishing industry and coastal communities had for growth over the coming decade”.

Three days later, it issued a more biting statement, saying the deal “drags UK fishing back into a past we thought had been left behind”.

Shaw conceded that if the food industry had benefitted from the deal, the fishing sector stood “at the other end of the scale”.

And it is not just fishers. The deal has also revived a broader debate over whether the UK, in seeking to realign itself with elements of the EU’s rules and regulations, is violating the mandate of Brexit.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, under whom Britain formally withdrew from the EU in 2020, described the deal as an “appalling sell out” in a post on X.

Tony Gabana, a web developer from London who was too young to vote in 2016, holds that view.

“Whether it’s a good deal or not, it does seem an attempt to reverse what a lot of people voted for,” Gabana said. “It doesn’t sit right with me. It feels like a step to further concessions, which, again, no one voted for.

“Are we a democracy or not?”

A car ploughed into a crowd of Liverpool fans on Monday evening, injuring 47 people, including four children. The incident took place during a Premier League victory parade through Liverpool’s city centre by the city’s official football team.

Here is what we know about the incident, victims, suspect and rescue efforts.

What happened?

Just after 6pm (17:00 GMT) on Monday, a car crashed into a crowd of Liverpool fans who were celebrating Liverpool’s victory in the Premier League football title.

The fans had gathered to catch a sight of the Liverpool football team, who had paraded the trophy through the area in an open-top bus moments before the incident. The car crash took place about 1 mile (1.6km) before the finishing point of the 10-mile (16km) parade.

Videos circulating on social media showed the car zigzag through the crowd of fans ostensibly clad in Liverpool FC merchandise. Several people were thrown into the air as they were hit by the car.

The Merseyside Police said they were called soon after the incident.

As the car came to a stop, angered members of the crowd swarmed towards it, smashing its windows. The police had to intervene to prevent them from getting to the driver.

Who was driving the car in Liverpool?

The police said they arrested a “53-year-old white British man from the Liverpool area” who they believed was driving the car.

They have not released any additional details about the driver or his motivations yet.

Where in Liverpool did the crash take place?

The crash took place on Water Street, which is in the city centre and near the Strand. The street is home to historic buildings, including the office block, Oriel Chambers, built in 1864. Liverpool is located towards the northwest of England.

What do we know about the victims?

Dozens of people, including four children, were injured in the incident.

Out of the victims, 20 people sustained minor injuries and were treated at the scene, not requiring hospital treatment. Another 27 people were taken to a hospital by ambulance. Authorities said two of the people hospitalised, including one child, have sustained serious injuries.

Is the incident being treated as ‘terrorism’?

The police said the incident was not being treated as a “terrorism case”.

“We believe this to be an isolated incident, and we are not currently looking for anyone else in relation to it. The incident is not being treated as terrorism,” Jenny Sims, temporary deputy chief constable, told reporters.

“I would urge people not to speculate as to the motives behind this appalling incident and to allow Merseyside police to conduct their investigation,” Liverpool City Council leader Liam Robinson said during a news conference late on Monday.

What action did the authorities take?

Late on Monday, police officer Sims told a media briefing that several people were treated at the scene and many were taken to hospital.

She added that the police force’s emergency services colleagues from the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (MFRS) were also present at the scene.

NWAS officer Dave Kitchin said ambulances were dispatched, as well as a hazardous area response team, an air ambulance, doctors and senior clinicians to the site.

“Our emergency ambulances took patients to our NHS colleagues at Royal Liverpool, Alder Hey, Arrowe Park and Aintree Hospitals,” Kitchin said, referring to the hospitals the injured were taken to.

Nick Searle, MFRS chief fire officer, told the news conference that, after learning about the incident, they promptly dispatched three fire engines to Water Street. “Our crews rapidly lifted the vehicle, removed people from beneath and passed them to our ambulance colleagues.”

Liverpool City Council leader Robinson told the news conference that the incident “cast a very dark shadow over what had been a joyous day”.

“We are working closely with Merseyside Police to support their investigation, and with other relevant organisations to make sure those affected get the appropriate support,” he added.

What is the latest on the ground?

In an update on X on Monday evening, NWAS wrote that it had “cleared the scene following the incident in Liverpool”.

“Specialist officers have been put in place to support the injured and their families,” Sims said.

She requested people to refrain from sharing the “distressing footage” of the incident, adding that information, including video footage, can be submitted to the Major Incident Police Portal (MIPP).

“My fire crews will maintain a visible and reassuring presence in the coming days and weeks,” MFRS’s Searle said.

What are the reactions to the Liverpool crash?

“The scenes in Liverpool are appalling — my thoughts are with all those injured or affected,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in an X post. “I want to thank the police and emergency services for their swift and ongoing response to this shocking incident.”

The scenes in Liverpool are appalling — my thoughts are with all those injured or affected.

I want to thank the police and emergency services for their swift and ongoing response to this shocking incident.

I’m being kept updated on developments and ask that we give the police…

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) May 26, 2025

Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram said: “Our hearts go out to all of those affected, especially those who have been injured. Thank you, as ever, to the first responders for their professionalism and swift action.”

Our hearts go out to all of those affected, especially those who have been injured.

Thank you, as ever, to the first responders for their professionalism and swift action.

This is a difficult day for our city region, but we stand together. https://t.co/ua4xSY2UjX

— Steve Rotheram (@MetroMayorSteve) May 26, 2025

Police say a male suspect is taken into custody after a car collides with several pedestrians in Liverpool.

A man has been arrested after driving a car into a crowd in Liverpool during a parade to celebrate Liverpool FC’s Premier League football title, emergency services say.

Merseyside Police in northwest England said they were contacted just after 6pm (17:00 GMT) on Monday “following reports a car had been in collision with a number of pedestrians”.

The PA Media news agency, quoting police, reported the arrested man is a “53-year-old white British man from the Liverpool area”.

“Extensive enquiries are ongoing to establish the circumstances leading up to the collision,” police said. “We would ask people not to speculate on the circumstances surrounding tonight’s incident.”

There was no immediate word from authorities about how many people were injured.

Social media footage appeared to show a dark-coloured car swerving into the dense crowd at the end of the celebrations as players showed off the trophy on an open-topped bus through the city.

Harry Rashid, who was at the parade with his wife and two young daughters, told The Associated Press news agency the car began ramming people about 3 metres (10ft) away from him.

“It was extremely fast,” Rashid said. “Initially, we just heard the pop, pop, pop of people just being knocked off the bonnet of a car.”

Crowds and uniformed police officers quickly surrounded the vehicle and several people lying on the ground.

Cordons were put in place, and a fire engine was also at the scene.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was being kept updated about the incident.

“The scenes in Liverpool are appalling – my thoughts are with all those injured or affected. I want to thank the police and emergency services for their swift and ongoing response to this shocking incident,” Starmer said on social media.

The incident followed a large celebration in the city centre, where tens of thousands of dancing, scarf- and flag-waving fans braved wet weather to line the streets and watch Liverpool’s players display the Premier League trophy atop two buses bearing the words “Ours Again”.

The hours-long procession – surrounded by a thick layer of police and security – crawled along a 10-mile (16km) route and through a sea of red smoke and rain. Fireworks exploded from the Royal Liver Building in the heart of the city to seemingly signal the end of the parade.

Rashid said after the car struck its initial victims, it came to a halt and the crowd charged the vehicle and began smashing windows.

“But then he put his foot down again and just ploughed through the rest of them. He just kept going,” Rashid said. “It was horrible. And you could hear the bumps as he was going over the people.”

Rashid said it looked deliberate and he was in shock and disbelief.

“My daughter started screaming, and there were people on the ground,” he said. “They were just innocent people, just fans going to enjoy the parade.”

Meanwhile, Liverpool said in a post on X that it was in direct contact with police about the event. “Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been affected by this serious incident,” the team said.

The Madrid Group has convened in Spain’s capital for a fifth time, in a meeting attended by major European and Arab nations.

Pressure on Israel this year has been ramped up, with Spain calling for an arms embargo on Israel and the imposition of sanctions on individuals who obstruct a two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The United Kingdom has paused trade talks and sanctioned a number of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. Canada and France have also threatened punitive measures.

And the European Union – Israel’s biggest trade partner – is reviewing its landmark Association Agreement covering trade and political dialogue.

But after 20 months of Israel’s destruction of Gaza, why is this happening now?

And without changes on the ground for Palestinians, are these actions anything more than diplomatically symbolic?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Lynn Boylan – Member of European Parliament, and chair of the delegation of relations with Palestine

Mouin Rabbani – Non-resident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies

Saul Takahashi – Former deputy head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in occupied Palestine

A car hit multiple pedestrians during Liverpool FC’s victory parade on Monday evening in Liverpool, UK. Police say a 53-year-old British man has been arrested. The parade was to celebrate Liverpool FC winning the Premier League title.

United finish with their lowest standing in the Premier League era as Newcastle confirm Champions League spot.

Manchester United have ended their disappointing 2024-25 season with a 2-0 victory over Aston Villa on the final day of the Premier League campaign, denying the visitors a Champions League qualification spot in the process.

United surprisingly dominated the first half of Sunday’s game against a side chasing a top-five finish.

Against the run of play, Morgan Rogers appeared to have netted Villa a crucial goal 18 minutes from time, but referee Thomas Bramall ruled that he had fouled United goalkeeper Altay Bayindir before slotting home.

The hosts’ cause was aided as Villa goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez was sent off just before the break.

Furious Villa’s mood worsened after Amad Diallo immediately headed the hosts in front down the other end, before Christian Eriksen’s penalty ensured United finished 15th and sixth-placed Villa had to settle for a place in the Europa League next term.

Newcastle United breathed a sigh of relief as their 1-0 defeat by Everton could have opened the door for Villa to climb above them with a win over United.

Villa manager Unai Emery confronted Bramall after the final whistle, unhappy at what he believed was a “big mistake” by the match official.

“The TV is clear with the move but of course we have to accept it,” Emery said. “It was a mistake. A big mistake.”

At the final whistle, Emery stood motionless on the touchline and stared at Bramall for a long time. After confronting the official as he came off the field, Emery continued his discussions with him as they went down the tunnel.

Protest songs against Manchester United’s ownership greeted the final whistle, even if supporters had been treated to a rare home success.

This season’s final standings 🤝 pic.twitter.com/lRWyvmvkXQ

— Premier League (@premierleague) May 25, 2025

Meanwhile, Manchester City’s disappointing season ended with the consolation of a place in the Champions League after a 2-0 victory at Fulham, earned by Ilkay Gundogan’s overhead kick and an Erling Haaland penalty.

The victory ensured City finish third in the table with 71 points from 38 games, the first time they have ended outside the top two since the 2016-17 season. Fulham finished 11th with 54 points.

City opened the scoring at 21 minutes when Matheus Nunes’s chipped shot on the angle was clawed away by Fulham goalkeeper Bernd Leno and into the path of Gundogan, whose acrobatic effort steered the ball into the net off the crossbar.

The visitors doubled their advantage when Sasa Lukic fouled Gundogan in the box and Haaland converted the spot kick to score his 22nd league goal of the campaign, while Kevin De Bruyne came off the bench for the final five minutes in his farewell to City.

City left Jack Grealish out of their match-day squad amid talk he could leave the club, while De Bruyne spent time with the City fans at the final whistle, many of them holding up signs of thanks to the Belgian for his decade at the club.

City ended up with 71 points, Chelsea on 69 and Villa on 66, but with an inferior goal difference to Newcastle on the same points.

Forest, who still had hopes of a top-five finish going into the last day, will go into the UEFA Conference League.

Champions Liverpool ended their campaign with a 1-1 home draw against Crystal Palace in a party atmosphere at Anfield.

Runners-up Arsenal, who ended 10 points behind Liverpool, beat bottom club Southampton 2-1 away.

Brighton and Hove Albion brought Europa Cup winners Tottenham Hotspur down to earth with a bump as they won 4-1 in north London to finish eighth, but that will not be good enough to secure a European berth for the south coast side next season.

Tottenham finished a woeful league season in 17th place, their worst performance since being relegated in 1977.

Aprilia’s Marco Bezzecchi takes first MotoGP win in 20 months after leader Fabio Quartararo exits with a technical issue.

Marco Bezzecchi has won a chaotic British Grand Prix for Aprilia’s first victory of the 2025 season in a race that was initially red-flagged for an oil spill as riders crashed or retired while in the lead, including pole-sitter Fabio Quartararo.

The victory was a first for Aprilia since the Grand Prix of the Americas last year. LCR Honda’s Johann Zarco came second on Sunday and Ducati’s Marc Marquez pipped Franco Morbidelli to finish third and extend his lead in the riders world championship.

Both Alex Marquez and his brother Marc crashed while leading before the race was restarted for an oil spill while Yamaha’s Quartararo took the lead at the second time of asking before being forced to retire on lap 12 due to a technical issue with his bike.

Bezzecchi’s victory was his first since the 2023 Indian Grand Prix, and the Italian also became the 11th different winner at Silverstone in the past 11 races.

“It’s amazing. It has been a really tough time for me in this past month. …  Aprilia trusted in me, and we worked really hard,” Bezzecchi said.

“The team made a wonderful job. … I was waiting for a day like this since my last win.”

On the first start, sprint winner Alex Marquez had a perfect launch to take the lead from Quartararo, but just as he leaned into turn one, he lost control and crashed, allowing Marc Marquez to take the lead.

The elder Marquez also lost control, however, and crashed out of the lead – but the Marquez brothers earned a reprieve when the red flag came out for an oil spill in the final sector after Franco Morbidelli and Aleix Espargaro collided and crashed.

Race restarted

Since three laps had not been completed, all riders were eligible for the restart. Quartararo took the lead from Francesco Bagnaia and streaked away to a full second’s lead on the opening lap.

Both factory Ducatis suffered on lap three at Copse corner when they went wide as Marc Marquez and Bagnaia dropped to ninth and 10th place.

Bagnaia’s race ended on the following lap when he crashed while Bezzecchi moved up to third behind Pramac Racing’s Jack Miller.

Behind them, Marc Marquez was a man on a mission as he methodically picked his way through the pack, and by lap 11, he had moved up to fourth.

Yamaha’s dreams of taking the chequered flag went up in smoke as Quartararo signalled he had a problem with his bike, and the Frenchman relinquished his lead of nearly five seconds as his ride-height device had failed.

Quartararo stopped by the side of the track, hopped off his bike and sank to his knees with his head on the tarmac as the shell-shocked Yamaha garage looked on.

“When I saw Fabio with a technical problem, I even thought about a victory,” said Zarco, the first Honda rider to take back-to-back podiums since Marc Marquez in 2021.

Bezzecchi held on to win, though, while Marc Marquez swapped places with VR46 Racing’s Franco Morbidelli several times on the final lap before taking third in a photo finish.

“Today we were lucky because I made a mistake,” said a fuming Marc Marquez, who now leads his brother by 24 points in the world championship.

Arsenal lift the UEFA Women’s Champions League with a 1-0 win that ended Barcelona’s hopes of a three-peat.

Arsenal upset defending champions Barcelona 1-0 to win the Women’s Champions League for a second time.

Stina Blackstenius scored in the 75th minute after being set up by fellow second-half substitute Beth Mead in the final at the Estadio Jose Alvalade in Lisbon on Saturday.

Arsenal’s title came 18 years after it became the first, and still the only, English club to win the top club title in women’s football.

Arsenal’s players embraced on the final whistle and ran to celebrate in front of the red-and-white corner of the stands, which were otherwise mostly dressed in burgundy and blue.

“We believed from the moment our Champions League journey started,” Arsenal striker Alessia Russo told broadcaster TNT Sports. “We knew that we had the capabilities. We knew that we could be good enough. It was just about going and doing it. And we’ve done it!”

Barcelona were considered the heavy favourite. They were aiming for a fourth title in five years and to become the only team other than Lyon to win three consecutive titles. The team led by two-time Ballon d’Or winners Aitana Bonmati and Alexia Putellas won nine straight in the competition and blew out Wolfsburg and English champion Chelsea in the knockout rounds.

But Arsenal locked down in defence, except for early in the second half, and created the best chances. Only two superb saves by Barcelona goalkeeper Cata Coll to deny Frida Maanum and Blackstenius kept it scoreless, until Blackstenius finally beat her.

The victory marks an incredible finish to a rocky season for Arsenal, which included coach Jonas Eidevall resigning and being replaced by assistant Renee Seglers.

Since taking over, Seglers steered the team through a spectacular European campaign. Arsenal built its confidence from come-from-behind wins over Real Madrid and eight-time champion Lyon in the knockout rounds before laying low the almighty Barcelona.

The loss was a huge disappointment for the large group of Barcelona fans who filled the stadium that is home to Sporting Lisbon. Blue-and-burgundy shirts and flags outnumbered the red-and-white section, but their calls of “Yes we can!” in the final minutes were not enough to inspire a comeback by the Catalan club.

The closest Barcelona came to a goal was a shot by Claudia Pina that hit the crossbar just after halftime when the Spanish team had its best period. Otherwise, the game was to Arsenal’s liking.

“We are very sorry for all our fans who have come to support us,” Bonmati told Catalunya Radio in the field before the award ceremony. “We will try to do it again.”

Arsenal shook off some early jitters in defence and soon had Barcelona on the back foot. Arsenal’s pressure up the field stopped Barcelona from getting their possession game going, and Arsenal found spaces with long balls down the left flank.

England striker Russo was a rock for Arsenal, using her size to win balls and keep the attack going.

Arsenal thought it went ahead in the 22nd but a video review waived off an own goal by Barcelona’s Irene Paredes when the referee spotted an offside by Frida Maanum. Maanum then went close with a long shot in the 27th that Coll did well to stretch and push over her bar.

Bonmatí was the only Barcelona player who seemed to be in the flow before halftime. Her dribble moves through the middle created a few threats and kept Arsenal on guard in defence. Leah Williamson blocked her best shot deep in the box in the 12th.

Barcelona came out of the restart firing.

Pina hit the woodwork with her chipped shot from a sharp angle in the 49th. Bonmati forced goalie Daphne van Domselaar to get low to parry her shot, and Ona Batlle bombarded the area with three shots from long range.

But Blackstenius set the tone when she had a golden chance when she stole a ball with only Cata to beat, but the goalie got her leg out to block her effort in the 72nd. The Sweden forward would not be denied a second time.

Who: Barcelona vs Arsenal
What: UEFA Women’s Champions League final
When: Saturday, May 24 (18:00 kickoff, 16:00 GMT)
Where: Estadio Jose Alvalade in Lisbon, Portugal

Follow Al Jazeera Sport‘s live text and photo commentary stream.

Barcelona are aiming to complete a three-peat of Women’s Champions League titles and win its fourth European crown in five years when it faces Arsenal in Lisbon on Saturday.

Al Jazeera Sport looks at a final that pits two of the biggest names in women’s football for the game’s biggest club prize.

What is the secret to Barcelona’s success?

Barcelona are out to reaffirm their status as the dominant force in European women’s football after they finally beat Lyon and successfully defended their title in last year’s final.

Their possession-hungry and high-scoring attack is led from the midfield by Ballon d’Or winners Aitana Bonmati and Alexia Putellas and several other members of Spain’s World Cup-winning team that beat England in the 2023 final.

What is Barcelona’s Champions League record?

Barcelona will be playing in its sixth Champions League final in seven seasons and a record-equalling fifth in a row at Lisbon’s 50,000-capacity Estadio Jose Alvalade.

The Catalan club has the chance to become the only team other than Lyon to lift the European Cup in three consecutive years.

Bonmati, the Ballon d’Or winner in 2023 and 2024, said the experience gained from previous finals is invaluable.

“I’ve learned a lot of things. It is the path that has fallen to us. The first final in Budapest was an inexperienced team that was going to see what happened. Now, we are the team to beat,” she said.

“Knowing how to be, knowing how to suffer, is very important. And never giving up. We have had finals where we have come back. We have had games of all colours.”

What is Arsenal’s take on facing Barcelona?

Standing in Barcelona’s way is an Arsenal team that has excelled as a spoiler this campaign and hopes it can pull off another upset and win its second European title.

“They’re a fantastic team and they’ve obviously got the recent history to prove it,” Arsenal defender Leah Williamson said about Barcelona in the build-up to the final.

“We respect them a lot, but it’s a final, so everybody turns up and everybody gives their best.”

How do Barcelona and Arsenal match up?

First-year Barcelona coach Pere Romeu has a side that can hit from all angles with multiple scoring options.

They lead all the major team statistics in attack: most goals scored with 44, to Arsenal’s 25, the highest possession, best pass accuracy and most shot attempts.

Barcelona forward Claudia Pina leads the competition in scoring with 10 goals, ahead of Arsenal pair Mariona Caldentey, who joined from the Spanish club last year, and Alessia Russo with seven each. Bonmati and teammate Patri Guijarro lead the competition with five assists each.

Have Barcelona improved on last season?

Barcelona added to its winning squad in the offseason by signing Poland striker Ewa Pajor, who went on to lead the Spanish league with 23 goals.

Pajor, 28, is seeking her first European title after losing four finals with former club Wolfsburg, including the 2023 final to Barcelona after leading 2-0.

“The final is played in the details, and we can prepare the details before the game,” Pajor said. “What I have also learned, because I’ve played in four finals, you have to be there in the first minute until the end.”

How has Barcelona’s season progressed?

Barcelona has rolled to a sixth consecutive Liga F title and has reached another Copa de la Reina final, but at the same time, it has proven beatable.

Barcelona’s home unbeaten run in Liga F came to an end after a record 64 games this season, and it lost to Real Madrid for the first time in 19 Clasicos since its top rival founded a women’s team.

They also started the Champions League with a rare group stage loss to Manchester City.

“We lost a couple more games than we are used to, and we lost some games that hurt more than others,” Barcelona forward Caroline Graham said, adding about the City defeat: “A lot of people thought that our run to be good in the Champions League was a bit over. That was a motivation to show that we still are good and that we can still compete against the best.”

How do Arsenal shape up?

Arsenal remain the only English team to win the biggest title in women’s club football after it won UEFA’s Women’s Cup in 2007 when it beat Umea, two years before the tournament was reformatted and renamed the Women’s Champions League.

Arsenal may be the underdog, but it is likely comfortable with that role given its recent run of comebacks.

Renee Slegers’s side rallied against Madrid in the quarterfinals, and then shocked eight-time winner Lyon in the semifinals when they rebounded from a 2-1 loss in London by winning 4-1 in France.

This is the English club’s only chance to win some silverware this campaign after finishing second to Chelsea in England’s Women’s Super League and failing to reach the finals of the FA Cup or League Cup.

“We’ve had to come back from a lot of difficult situations, from setbacks, but the persistence of the team and the [fact that we] keep on believing, that’s been key for us,” Slegers said. “We’ve done some magical things.”

Do Arsenal and Barcelona have history?

Arsenal were Barcelona’s first opponents in Europe’s top club competition in the 2012-13 season, when the English side crushed the Catalans 7-0 over two legs.

Barcelona were nowhere near as good as they are now, however. They overwhelmed Chelsea, who went unbeaten across the 22-game Women’s Super League season en route to winning the title, 8-2 on aggregate in the Champions League semifinals.

“Everything leads you to be what you are now,” Putellas said. “In that first match of this competition, it was unthinkable what would come next. It’s thanks to work. I feel privileged to have been able to live this whole journey.”

Bangkok, Thailand – Over several years in the mid-1960s, the crumbling ruins of an ancient temple in northeast Thailand were picked clean by local looters.

Possibly hundreds of centuries-old statues that were long buried beneath the soft, verdant grounds around the temple were stolen.

To this day, all the known artefacts from the pillaging spree, collectively known as the Prakhon Chai hoard, sit scattered thousands of miles away in museums and collections across the United States, Europe and Australia.

In a matter of weeks, though, the first of those statues will begin their journey home to Thailand.

The acquisitions committee of San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum recommended the release last year of four bronze statues from the hoard, which had been held in its collection since the late 1960s.

San Francisco city’s Asian Art Commission, which manages the museum, then approved the proposal on April 22, officially setting the pieces free.

Some six decades after the late British antiquities dealer Douglas Latchford is suspected of spiriting the statues out of the country, they are expected to arrive back in Thailand within a month or two.

“We are the righteous owners,” Disapong Netlomwong, senior curator for the Office of National Museums at Thailand’s Fine Arts Department, told Al Jazeera.

“It is something that our ancestors … have made, and it should be exhibited here to show the civilisation and the belief of the people,” said Disapong, who also serves on Thailand’s Committee for the Repatriation of Stolen Artefacts.

The imminent return of the statues is the latest victory in Thailand’s quest to reclaim its pilfered heritage.

Their homecoming also exemplifies the efforts of countries across the world to retrieve pieces of their own stolen history that still sit in display cases and in the vaults of some of the West’s top museums.

From Thai temples to the Acropolis in Athens

Latchford, a high-profile Asian art dealer who came to settle in Bangkok and lived there until his death in 2020 at 88 years of age, is believed to have earned a fortune from auction houses, private collectors and museums around the world who acquired his smuggled ancient artefacts from Thailand and neighbouring Cambodia.

In 2021, Latchford’s daughter, Nawapan Kriangsak, agreed to return her late father’s private collection of more than 100 artefacts, valued at more than $50m, to Cambodia.

Though never convicted during his lifetime, Latchford was charged with falsifying shipping records, wire fraud and a host of other crimes related to antiquities smuggling by a US federal grand jury in 2019.

He died the following year, before the case against him could go to trial.

In 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York agreed to return 16 pieces tied to Latchford’s smuggling network to Cambodia and Thailand.

San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum has also previously returned pieces to Thailand – two intricately carved stone lintels taken from a pair of temples dating back to the 10th and 11th centuries, in 2021.

While Thailand and Cambodia have recently fared relatively well in efforts to reclaim their looted heritage from US museum collections, Greece has not had such luck with the British Museum in London.

Perhaps no case of looted antiquities has grabbed more news headlines than that of the so-called “Elgin Marbles”.

The 2,500-year-old friezes, known also as the Parthenon Marbles, were hacked off the iconic Acropolis in Athens in the early 1800s by agents of Lord Elgin, Britain’s ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Greece at that time.

Elgin claimed he took the marbles with the permission of the Ottomans and then sold them in 1816 to the British Museum in London, where they remain.

Greece has been demanding the return of the artefacts since the country’s declaration of independence in 1832 and sent an official request to the museum in 1983, according to the nongovernmental Hellenic Institute of Cultural Diplomacy.

“Despite all these efforts, the British government has not deviated from its positions over the years, legally considering the Parthenon marbles to belong to Britain. They have even passed laws to prevent the return of cultural artefacts,” the institute said.

‘Colonialism is still alive and well’

Tess Davis, executive director of the Antiquities Coalition, a Washington-based nonprofit campaigning against the illicit trade of ancient art and artefacts, said that “colonialism is still alive and well in parts of the art world”.

“There is a mistaken assumption by some institutions that they are better carers, owners, custodians of these cultural objects,” Davis told Al Jazeera.

But Davis, who has worked on Cambodia’s repatriation claims with US museums, says the “custodians” defence has long been debunked.

“These antiquities were cared for by [their] communities for centuries, in some cases for millennia, before there was … a market demand for them, leading to their looting and trafficking, but we still do see resistance,” she said.

Brad Gordon, a lawyer representing the Cambodian government in its ongoing repatriation of stolen artefacts, has heard museums make all sorts of claims to defend retaining pieces that should be returned to their rightful homelands.

Excuses from museums include claiming that they are not sure where pieces originated from; that contested items were acquired before laws banned their smuggling; that domestic laws block their repatriation, or that the ancient pieces deserve a more global audience than they would receive in their home country.

Still, none of those arguments should keep a stolen piece from coming home, Gordon said.

“If we believe the object is stolen and the country of origin wishes for it to come home, then the artefact should be returned,” he said.

Old attitudes have started breaking down though, and more looted artefacts are starting to find their way back to their origins.

“There’s definitely a growing trend toward doing the right thing in this area, and … I hope that more museums follow the Asian Art Museum’s example. We’ve come a long way, but there’s still a long way to go,” Davis said.

Much of the progress, Davis believes, is down to growing media coverage of stolen antiquities and public awareness of the problem in the West, which has placed mounting pressure on museums to do the right thing.

In 2022, the popular US comedy show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver dedicated a whole episode to the topic. As Oliver said, if you go to Greece and visit the Acropolis you might notice “some odd details”, such as sections missing from sculptures – which are now in Britain.

“Honestly, if you are ever looking for a missing artefact, nine times out of 10 it’s in the British Museum,” Oliver quips.

Gordon also believes a generational shift in thinking is at play among those who once trafficked in the cultural heritage of other countries.

“For example, the children of many collectors, once they are aware of the facts of how the artefacts were removed from the country of origin, want their parents to return them,” he said.

Proof of the past

The four bronze statues the San Francisco museum will soon be returning to Thailand date back to the 7th and 9th centuries.

Thai archaeologist Tanongsak Hanwong said that period places them squarely in the Dvaravati civilisation, which dominated northeast Thailand, before the height of the Khmer empire that would build the towering spires of Angkor Wat in present-day Cambodia and come to conquer much of the surrounding region centuries later.

Three of the slender, mottled figures, one nearly a metre tall (3.2 feet), depict Bodhisattva – Buddhist adherents on the path to nirvana – and the other the Buddha himself in a wide, flowing robe.

Tanongsak, who brought the four pieces in the San Francisco collection to the attention of Thailand’s stolen artefacts repatriation committee in 2017, said they and the rest of the Prakhon Chai hoard are priceless proof of Thailand’s Buddhist roots at a time when much of the region was still Hindu.

“The fact that we do not have any Prakhon Chai bronzes on display anywhere [in Thailand], in the national museum or local museums whatsoever, it means we do not have any evidence of the Buddhist history of that period at all, and that’s strange,” he said.

The Fine Arts Department first wrote to San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum about the statues’ illicit provenance in 2019, but started to make progress on having them returned only when the US Department of Homeland Security got involved on Thailand’s behalf.

Robert Mintz, the museum’s chief curator, said staff could find no evidence that the statues had been trafficked in their own records.

But they were convinced they had been looted and smuggled out of Thailand – and of Latchford’s involvement – once Homeland Security provided proof, with the help of Thai researchers.

“Once that evidence was presented and they heard it, their feeling was the appropriate place for these would be back in Thailand,” Mintz said of the museum’s staff and acquisition committee.

‘Pull back the curtain’

The San Francisco Asian Art Museum went a step further when it finally resolved to return the four statues to Thailand.

It also staged a special exhibit around the pieces to highlight the very questions the experience had raised regarding the theft of antiquities.

The exhibition – Moving Objects: Learning from Local and Global Communities – ran in San Francisco from November to March.

“One of our goals was to try to indicate to the visiting public to the museum how important it is to look historically at where works of art have come from,” Mintz said.

“To pull back the curtain a bit, to say, these things do exist within American collections and now is the time to address challenges that emerge from past collecting practice,” he said.

Mintz says Homeland Security has asked the Asian Art Museum to look into the provenance of at least another 10 pieces in its collection that likely came from Thailand.

Tess Davis, of the Antiquities Coalition campaign group, said the exhibition was a very unusual, and welcome, move for a museum in the process of giving up looted artefacts.

In Thailand, Disapong and Tanongsak say the Asian Art Museum’s decision to recognise Thailand’s rightful claim to the statues could also help them start bringing the rest of the Prakhon Chai hoard home, including 14 more known pieces in other museums around the US, and at least a half-dozen scattered across Europe and Australia.

“It is indeed a good example, because once we can show the world that the Prakhon Chai bronzes were all exported from Thailand illegally, then probably, hopefully some other museums will see that all the Prakhon Chai bronzes they have must be returned to Thailand as well,” Tanongsak said.

There are several other artefacts besides the Prakhon Chai hoard that Thailand is also looking to repatriate from collections around the world, he said.

Davis said the repatriation of stolen antiquities is still being treated by too many with collections as an obstacle when it should be seen, as the Asian Art Museum has, as an opportunity.

“It’s an opportunity to educate the public,” Davis said.

“It’s an opportunity to build bridges with Southeast Asia,” she added, “and I hope other institutions follow suit.”

Abu Dhabi’s IMI will take a minority stake in the company of no more than 15 percent.

A consortium led by US investment firm RedBird Capital Partners has agreed to buy the publisher of the United Kingdom’s 170-year-old Daily Telegraph newspaper for about $674m (500 million pounds).

Redbird said it has reached an agreement in principle to become controlling owner of the Telegraph Media Group, ending a lengthy takeover saga for the conservative-leaning newspaper on Friday.

Gerry Cardinale, founder and managing partner of RedBird, said the sale “marks the start of a new era for The Telegraph as we look to grow the brand in the UK and internationally, invest in its technology and expand its subscriber base”.

The Telegraph group, previously owned by the UK’s Barclay family, was put up for sale two years ago to help pay off the family’s debts. It publishes the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and weekly newsmagazine The Spectator, which all are closely allied to the UK’s Conservative Party.

In 2023, there was an offer to buy the publications from RedBird IMI, a consortium backed by RedBird Capital Partners and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family and the vice president of the United Arab Emirates.

But the consortium pulled out last year following strong opposition from the UK government, which launched legislation to block foreign state ownership of the British press.

Under the deal, Abu Dhabi’s IMI will take a minority stake of not more than 15 percent in the Telegraph as a member of the consortium. The sale must be approved by British regulators.

RedBird has investments in football team AC Milan, the parent company of Liverpool football club and film production company Skydance.

Telegraph Media Group chief executive Anna Jones said that “RedBird Capital Partners have exciting growth plans that build on our success — and will unlock our full potential across the breadth of our business.”

The Spectator was sold in September to British hedge fund investor Paul Marshall.

United States debt has long been considered the safest of all safe havens.
But, Washington has just lost its pristine reputation as a borrower.
Moody’s has downgraded the nation from its top-notch AAA rating, becoming the last of the big three agencies to do so.
The ratings agency has cited the United States’s growing debt – now at $36 trillion, almost 120 percent of gross domestic product – and rising debt service costs.
Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump is pushing what he calls the “one big, beautiful bill”.
Critics warn his tax cut package could add trillions more to the already ballooning deficit.

Al Jazeera takes a look at financially-troubled Manchester United’s expensive Europa League final defeat by Spurs.

Manchester United’s decline on and off the field has been laid bare for a number of years but was placed in even sharper focus with their defeat by Tottenham in the Europa League final.

It was a zero-sum game on Wednesday: Winner goes into the Champions League – plus the UEFA Super Cup game in August – and loser is out of Europe next season and gets nothing.

Tottenham won a painfully drab match 1-0.

As football finance expert Kieran Maguire noted on Thursday, the defeat came despite United having higher revenue than Tottenham and spending 64% more on wages for a more expensively acquired squad of players. Tottenham also beat United twice in the Premier League this season, and in the domestic League Cup.

“If I was teaching this at management school (I) would conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the culture of the organisation… which is set by senior management,” Maguire wrote on X.

What are the financial costs to Man Utd?

Beyond the loss of sporting opportunities and reputational prestige, the club owned by the Glazer family from the United States and British billionaire industrialist Jim Ratcliffe has short-term and long-term financial hits ahead.

No Champions League play next season is an instant loss of at least 80 million euros ($90m), and approaching 150 million euros ($169m) for a run deep into the knockout stage.

United also misses out on the 4 million euros ($4.5m) Tottenham will get from UEFA for playing the Super Cup against the Champions League titleholder – either Inter Milan or Paris Saint-Germain – on August 13 at Udinese’s stadium in Italy. The winner gets a bonus of 1 million euros ($1.1m).

Can Man Utd recoup its losses in the FIFA Club World Cup?

After failing to qualify for the 2025 Club World Cup – which has a $1bn prize fund from FIFA and should pay more than $100m to a successful European team – United is now far behind in qualifying for the 2029 edition.

European teams qualify for the FIFA event only by being in the Champions League, either winning the title or building consistent results over four seasons.

United already will miss the entire first half of the 2024-28 qualifying period, and it is hard to project the team that last won the Premier League 12 years ago both qualifying for and then winning a Champions League title within three years.

What financial options do Man Utd have?

One clear solution to growing financial issues and the ability to comply with Premier League rules is selling the club’s best players, like captain Bruno Fernandes and out-of-favour forward Marcus Rashford, or its homegrown prospects. Some already earn high wages that are problematic for potential buyers.

A talent drain risks speeding a spiral of decline on and off the field if coach Ruben Amorim is left trying to rebuild with a weaker pool of players.

How do Man Utd match up to other clubs?

While United is still one of Europe’s highest-earning clubs, UEFA’s annual research shows its advantage is in decline, even though revenue was a club record 661.8 million pounds ($887m) last year.

A UEFA chart showed that over five years from 2019-24 – pre-COVID-19 through to the post-pandemic recovery in the football industry – United’s revenue grew at a slower rate than all of its biggest English rivals except Chelsea.

Will Man Utd’s revenue be affected?

Revenue now risks dropping, and another income cut is coming from falling to 16th in the Premier League standings with one round left on Sunday.

Premier League prize money based on final position in the standings means dropping from eighth a year ago to 16th is a difference of 22 million pounds ($29.5m) less.

It all adds up to another loss-making season after a 113.2 million pounds ($152m) deficit last season. The three previous years totaled losses of 236 million pounds ($316m).

Will Man Utd’s losses cost them further?

The Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) allow clubs to lose 105 million pounds ($140.7m) over a three-year period or face sanctions, though United can cite some exemptions.

Ratcliffe, who has operational control despite being a minority shareholder, is already the public face of unpopular cuts to jobs and staff benefits, and rising ticket prices for fans.

“This is not sustainable,” the club told fans in January, “and if we do not act now we are in danger of failing to comply with PSR/FFP (financial fair play) requirements in future years and significantly impacting our ability to compete on the pitch.”

Decision comes after two British nationals born on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago, claimed the islands should remain under UK control. 

A British High Court judge has temporarily blocked the government from transferring sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The last-minute injunction on Thursday morning came hours before the agreement was expected to be signed at a virtual ceremony with representatives from the Mauritian government.

The High Court decision was granted after action was taken by Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, two British nationals who were born at the Diego Garcia military base on Chagos and claimed that the islands should remain under British control.

High Court judge Julian Goose temporarily blocked the British government from taking any “conclusive or legally binding step to conclude its negotiations concerning the possible transfer of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, to a foreign government”.

“The defendant is to maintain the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom over the British Indian Ocean Territory until further order,” he said.

Another court hearing is set for 10.30am (09:30 GMT).

Earlier this year, the lawyer for the two nationals, Michael Polak, said on his chambers website that the government’s attempt to “give away” the islands without formal consultation with its residents is a “continuation of their terrible treatment by the authorities in the past”.

“They remain the people with the closest connection to the islands, but their needs and wishes are being ignored,” Polak said.

The UK, which has controlled the region since 1814, separated the Chagos Islands in 1965 from Mauritius to create the British Indian Ocean Territory.

In the early 1970s, the government evicted about 1,500 residents to Mauritius and Seychelles to make way for the Diego Garcia airbase on the largest island.

In October, the government announced a draft agreement to hand the islands to Mauritius and allow Britain and the United States to continue using the Diego Garcia base under a 99-year lease.

US President Donald Trump’s administration, which was consulted on the deal, gave its approval. However, finalising the agreement was delayed by a change in government in Mauritius and reported last-minute negotiations over costs.