withdraw

Wales have become the first nation to publicly withdraw backing for Gianni Infantino’s bid to continue his leadership of Fifa.

It follows the loss of confidence in the Fifa president following his scrapped plans to sell stakes in its competitions to private investment firms.

The Football Association of Wales (FAW) has confirmed “its withdrawal of support for the candidature of Mr Gianni Infantino for re-election as Fifa president for the 2027-2031 term”.

Infantino’s lucrative plan sparked a global outcry, with European football’s governing body Uefa threatening to boycott all Fifa competitions, including the World Cup.

Uefa and Concacaf – which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean – both released statements on Saturday criticising the leadership of the world governing body following Infantino’s decision to withdraw the plan.

The FAW added: “The recent failures in good governance, processes, leadership, values, stakeholder management, communications and sound judgement have led us to a position where Mr Infantino has lost the confidence of the FAW to remain at the helm of world football.

“Failing to put the best interests of football first is a failure we cannot accept.”

United States President Donald Trump has been triumphal since the announcement that Palestinian group Hamas had agreed to hand over its weaponry in Gaza.

But the terms of Thursday’s disarmament agreement also stipulate that Israel should withdraw from the Palestinian enclave, and gradually transfer power to a Palestinian administration – conditions that have been met with a frosty reception by Israeli politicians and in the Israeli press.

The Israeli government has yet to officially comment, but one unnamed senior Israeli official told reporters on Friday that, despite “various publications” reporting “diplomatic progress in the Gaza Strip”, there would be no withdrawal from Israel’s current positions within Gaza before what it determines to be “the genuine disarmament of Hamas”.

Trump, for his part, has said that Israel was “very happy” with the deal.

Electoral suicide

Many Israelis continue to espouse a hard line towards Palestinians in Gaza after the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, which was launched from the territory. That is despite Israel subsequently conducting a genocidal war on Gaza, killing more than 73,000 Palestinians and destroying the enclave.

A May poll found that 82 percent of Jewish Israeli respondents supported the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza – the same poll found that 56 percent of respondents supported the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their homes too.

Another poll, a month later, found that 64 percent of those surveyed believed there were “no innocents” among the Palestinians in Gaza.

And many Israeli politicians – including government ministers – have said that illegal Jewish settlements, akin to the ones dividing the occupied West Bank, will soon come to Gaza.

The prospect, therefore, of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and steps towards the enclave’s reconstruction are unpalatable to many Israelis, with politicians quick to condemn the disarmament agreement.

Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir denounced it as “unacceptable”.

“A commitment to stop the assassinations of [Hamas’s] murderers is tantamount to agreeing to Hamas organising for the next massacre,” Ben-Gvir wrote on social media. “The assassinations in Gaza must continue, the encouragement of emigration must happen. Israel must win.”

The term “encouragement of emigration” is widely regarded as referring to ethnic cleansing.

Politicians regarded as centrists, such as former chief of staff and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leading rival in the coming election, Gadi Eisenkot, were equally sceptical. He said that any deal that stopped short of the war’s objectives – the destruction of Hamas’s military-political power – was a total failure.

“Nearly three years have passed since the morning of October 7,” Eisenkot wrote, “and Hamas has renewed its strength with a number of terrorists similar to the evening of October 6.”

Politics of peace

Netanyahu has yet to comment, but US-Israeli pollster and consultant Dahlia Scheindlin suggested the stakes are high for the prime minister with an election only a few months away.

Netanyahu’s likely best chance of avoiding a jail sentence if he is found guilty of numerous corruption charges rests on him winning the October elections.

But the opposition are currently leading in many polls, and may be able to gain enough seats to form a government.

“Netanyahu’s considerations have nothing to do with public trauma [from the October 7 attack],” Scheindlin said, and everything to do with politics. “He will care primarily – probably exclusively – about what his current coalition partners think.”

Withdrawing from Gaza was out of the question, Scheindlin said, adding that whatever gambit Netanyahu undertook to maintain his coalition and encourage right-wing voters to support him had to be accomplished without further alienating his allies in the US, who appear to have grown increasingly frustrated with him.

“[Netanyahu] will not want to be seen by Trump and the Americans as undermining any possible moves towards implementing this agreement. And so, therefore, he might manage some very symbolic moving of the Israeli army within Gaza,” she said.

One tactic, Scheindlin suggested, could be for the Israeli military to withdraw back to the positions it was supposed to be in as part of the October 2025 ceasefire agreement. Israel has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians since that agreement, and also repeatedly expanded the territory under its control, ignoring the deal.

Keeping Trump happy

Managing US expectations of Israel is likely to be a problem, not just for Netanyahu, but for all of the politicians vying for leadership of the country.

One anonymous US official has already said that Trump would be “very, very disappointed” if Israel did not adhere to the disarmament agreement.

“Netanyahu already faces an uphill battle in forming any government, more so if he agrees to this,” said Dov Waxman, professor of Israel studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Netanyahu has previously been able to sidestep requirements placed on Israel when it comes to Gaza, maintaining unity within his far-right coalition, with some members repeatedly threatening to bring the government down if the war ended without Hamas’s total defeat.

He may be silent on the latest deal for now, but he will eventually have to speak.

“That could be a real problem,” Waxman said, “because, if he criticises the deal, he risks angering Trump who – though he hasn’t endorsed him [in the Israeli election] yet – he must be hoping will deliver him some kind of present during the election cycle, whether that’s a further call for his pardon or normalisation with Saudi Arabia, maybe both. But he has to keep Trump on his side.”

And while the Israeli public has grown sceptical that Israeli security remains at the forefront of the Trump administration’s priorities, the need for the US security umbrella is accepted by the vast majority of the public and political establishment, elements of which have seized upon any potential fracturing in it as a means to criticise Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu has shown himself to be very good in the past at handling these kinds of things,” Nimrod Goren, president and founder of Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, said.

“He’ll make sure Trump gets his announcement, his signing ceremony and all the optics are in place, but I don’t see him withdrawing from Gaza,” Goren said.

“I think the idea of him withdrawing goes further than just public opinion,” the Israeli analyst added. “It goes against his whole philosophy, ideology and worldview: that Israel needs to be present beyond its borders and everywhere bad intentions could be turned into action. If anything, I see him escalating in the build-up to the election rather than discussing withdrawal.”

The tournament director of the Canadian Open says changes need to be made to the “demanding schedule” of players after Jannik Sinner and Novak Djokovic pulled out of the Masters 1000 event.

Sinner, who beat Alexander Zverev to win the Wimbledon title this month, said he had withdrawn from the ATP tournament, which takes place from 2-13 August in Montreal, to prioritise his health.

Carlos Alcaraz will also be absent from the Canadian Open as he continues his recovery from a wrist injury that has kept him out since April.

“We are obviously very disappointed that Jannik and Novak won’t be joining us in Montreal this year, especially after they also withdrew from last year’s tournament in Toronto,” said the Canadian Open’s tournament director Valerie Tetreault.

“We respect their decisions and understand that, with such a demanding schedule, players’ health must remain the priority.

“That said, we believe the frequency of these last-minute withdrawals in the last few years raises a broader issue for our sport.

“Masters 1000 events are among the flagship tournaments on the tour, and fans rightfully expect to see the world’s best compete.

“We are already in discussions with the ATP to ensure this matter received serious consideration.”

The Canadian Open takes place before the Cincinnati Open, which is also a Masters 1000 event, and prior to the start of the US Open – the final Grand Slam of the year – on 30 August.

Seven of the existing nine Masters 1000 events – the sport’s highest level below the Grand Slams – are now staged over 12 days and concerns over the congested tennis calendar, which stretches across 11 months of the year for the top players, have regularly been voiced.

Britain’s Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu recently pulled out of Wimbledon on the eve of their home Grand Slam because of injury.

Draper, who withdrew with a long-term arm injury, said he felt the amount of injuries suffered by leading players is “pretty worrying”.

In September 2024, Alcaraz said: “They are going to kill us in some way.”

“We firmly believe adjustments are needed in the near future to better protect the integrity of our Masters 1000 events while remaining mindful of the realities players face,” added Tetreault.

Earlier this year, women’s world number one Aryna Sabalenka and Iga Swiatek pulled out of the Dubai Championships, a WTA 1000 event, two days before it started.

Tournament director Salah Tahlak said players who made late withdrawals from tournaments should be docked points, while Sabalenka said criticism of her was “ridiculous” and that she may not play at the tournament again.

Monday’s accusations are the latest in a long string of controversies surrounding the Maine Democratic Senate candidate.

Leading US Democrats are withdrawing their support from Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner after a former girlfriend accused the politician of sexual assault.

In an exclusive interview with media outlet Politico published on Monday, Jenny Racicot alleged that Platner forced her to have nonconsensual sex in late 2021. She alleged that Platner had entered her Maine home uninvited while intoxicated and forced himself on her, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop.

Platner, whose status as a progressive outsider has gained him popularity, has denied the allegations.

Following Politico’s interview, top US Democrats and Democratic-leaning political groups have pulled their endorsements of Platner.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” California Democrat Ro Khanna, a member of the US House of Representatives, said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego also announced he was pulling his endorsement, while the Maine Democratic Party called on Platner to withdraw his candidacy.

Democratic-leaning political group End Citizens United pulled its endorsement as well, calling the allegations “profoundly disturbing and disqualifying”.

“The conduct described is fundamentally inconsistent with the standards we expect from the candidates we support,” End Citizens United said in its statement.

Hasan Piker, a leftist commentator and streamer who has backed Platner, seemed to reverse his position on Monday following the Politico report. “If new evidence presents itself, I’m going to change my perspective – it’s that simple,” Piker said during a livestream on Twitch.

“This is a clear-cut instance of verifiable sexual assault allegations. It’s completely irredeemable,” he added.

Platner won Maine’s Democratic primary in April, defeating a centrist Democrat from the party’s establishment wing. The race is a must-win for Democrats, facing off against incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Maine state law allows Platner to be replaced on the ballot if he withdraws by July 13. The replacement candidate must be named by July 27.

In a video released on social media, Platner denied the latest allegations but said he was rethinking his campaign.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in the video.

Racicot’s accusations are the latest in the long string of controversies surrounding Platner. A Marine veteran who also worked for a private security contractor, he has a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol – which he denied knowledge of and later had covered up. He has also had a history of controversial statements on social media, as well as reportedly sexting with other women shortly after getting married.

Russell’s case was complicated because his fall down the order was precipitated by a cascading series of events.

He was given the penalty for pit-lane speeding – by just 0.1km/h – before a safety-car period caused by a crash for Aston Martin’s Lance Stroll.

Russell pitted to change tyres under the safety car but in the confusion, failed to serve the penalty.

When the safety car pulled in, Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc crashed, which led to the race being suspended under a red flag.

During the race stoppage, it was announced that Russell had been given a drive-through penalty for not serving the five-second penalty correctly. He pleaded with officials not to make him serve that penalty when the race resumed and to discuss it afterwards, because the number of penalties suggested something was wrong.

They rejected his argument, and when the race restarted, Russell came in again to serve the drive-through penalty, which is what dropped him out of third place.

Under F1’s rules, Mercedes were able to ask only for a review of the five-second penalty, which they did not actually serve, regardless of whether it was incorrectly awarded.

The drive-through penalty was correctly awarded – on the basis he did fail to serve a penalty. Mercedes have looked into the legal complications around this and concluded there is no remedy for that available to them.

The initial right of review request, lodged at last weekend’s Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix, was made to buy Mercedes time to analyse the situation, as the FIA rules dictate a limited time period for teams to make right of review requests.

There is then a longer period during which a party can decide whether to continue with them.

A Mercedes spokesperson said: “It was important for us to explore all available options to address the impact of George’s pit-lane speeding penalty on his race result.

“We had a limited time window in which to apply for the right of review during the race weekend in Barcelona, and did so in order to reserve our position in this regard.

”Our subsequent collaborative discussion with FIA and Formula 1 has shown their determination to review the unique circumstances arising from the Monaco Grand Prix and to proactively address the factors that caused them.

“In the face of this clear determination, we have concluded that further pursuit of our right of review application will not serve our team or the sport and thus we have withdrawn our submission.”

US President Donald Trump has announced he plans to withdraw his leadership from the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, after a federal judge ruled he could no longer have his name on the building.

On Friday, in a 580-word post, Trump blasted Judge Christopher Cooper as reckless. He also painted the performing arts centre as a dilapidated structure only he could restore.

“Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of,” Trump wrote, referring to himself in third person.

But Trump’s interventions at the Kennedy Center, a national performing arts centre in Washington, DC, have been controversial from the start.

Construction on the building began in 1964, shortly after President John F Kennedy was assassinated.

That year, his successor, Lyndon B Johnson, signed into law an act of Congress that established the site as a “living memorial” to the slain leader.

But since starting his second term, Trump has sought to reshape Washington, DC, in his own image, undertaking construction projects and erecting banners with his photograph.

Within weeks of his inauguration, in February 2025, he fired Democratic members of the Kennedy Center’s bipartisan board and replaced them with his picks.

He also terminated the leadership of the centre’s longtime president, Deborah Rutter. The board quickly elected Trump as chair instead.

But some of the biggest backlash came in December, when the board went a step further and voted to rename the building “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts”.

Within a day, construction crews were seen outside the arts centre, adding Trump’s name to the outside of the edifice.

Critics immediately denounced the effort as a violation of the 1964 law, not to mention a sign of disrespect towards the late Kennedy.

Amid public pressure and a string of cancellations from performers, Trump announced in February he would shutter the arts centre for two years, starting in July. He cited renovations as his rationale for the sudden closure.

US Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee, sued to stop the closure from happening. She also sought the removal of Trump’s name.

Inside the court’s ruling

In Friday’s ruling, Judge Cooper — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — sided with Beatty’s requests.

He ordered that Trump’s name must be removed from the theatre’s facade, as well as any other signage or official materials, within 14 days, citing the 1964 law.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

Cooper also overturned the Trump-led board’s decision to strip trustees like Beatty of the right to vote on Kennedy Center matters. Beatty is one of several bipartisan trustees who have a seat on the board by virtue of an act of Congress.

“If trustees presumptively possess the right to vote, what, if anything, authorizes the Board to unilaterally strip certain trustees of voting rights?” Cooper asked in his decision, striking down the Trump-era policy.

“Absent Congressional authorization, the Board may not deprive a duly-appointed Kennedy Center trustee of her right to vote on Board matters on which all other trustees are entitled to vote.”

In the last part of his 94-page decision, Cooper turned his attention to the Kennedy Center’s imminent closure.

He pointed to statements and plans from Trump administration officials touting the use of the performing arts facility before the July closure date, saying they undermined the assertion that the building was somehow hazardous.

“Former Kennedy Center President [Richard] Grenell emphasized that the Center would be one of the ‘premiere spots’ for America’s 250th celebration — quite a concerning idea if the Center is as dangerous as the Defendants now represent,” Cooper wrote, alluding to events scheduled for the coming weeks.

He later added, “Up until February 1, the Center was planning to proceed apace with some form of phased construction and cited no safety concerns about that plan.”

While closing the Kennedy Center is within the board’s powers, Cooper concluded that the board had likely violated its duty to administer the centre “as a prudent person would” under the law.

He therefore issued a temporary injunction against the centre’s closure. “The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Reactions to the ruling

The ruling prompted an incensed rebuttal from Trump on his Truth Social platform. The president pledged to transfer oversight of the facility to Congress, under whose mandate the centre already operates.

“We are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing Institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it,” Trump wrote.

He also blasted Cooper as a partisan actor who had treated him “unfairly”, echoing similar criticisms he had levied against other judges.

“Judge Cooper should be ashamed of himself! I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight,” Trump said.

“Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into ‘NEVER NEVER LAND.’”

Beatty, meanwhile, applauded the ruling as a victory against unchecked power, unfettered by the law.

“The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump,” she wrote.

“He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”