Adam Wharton out of England U21s squad for European Championship, will continue concussion recovery
Adam Wharton will not be part of the England Under-21s squad for the European Championship as he continues to recover from the concussion suffered in Crystal Palace's FA Cup final win.
The 21-year-old was named in Carsley's preliminary training squad for the tournament in Slovakia but will now instead focus on rest and recovery ahead of returning for preseason with Palace. They face Liverpool in the Community Shield, the English season's traditional curtain-raiser, on August 9.
Advertisement
The midfielder, alongside Palace captain Marc Guehi, was taken to hospital as a precaution after they both suffered head injuries during the 1-0 victory over Manchester City on May 17. Both players went on to miss Palace's final two league game of the season.
Tuchel was in attendance at Wembley Stadium before opting to leave the midfielder out of his senior squad for the upcoming fixtures with Andorra and Senegal with the hope of him instead being a leading figure for Lee Carsley's side.
'We made Adam train with us in the last camp and he was with the Under-21s and he trained with us and was very, very good. At the moment there's a little injury problem, a concussion protocol going on from the FA Cup final,' Tuchel said on May 23.
'Together with Tino Livramento, Jarell Quansah, Elliott Anderson and Liam Delap — all names that could play a role for us — a major tournament is coming up with the Under-21s, and the intention is that they play a major role in this tournament.'
England are currently finalising their preparations for the defence of the title won in Georgia and Romania two years ago.
Carsley will name his final 23-player squad on June 6 before they begin against Czechia on June 12. They will then face Slovenia on June 15 before meeting Germany on June 18 to round out Group B.
()
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Manchester United and Tottenham book passage to Europa League final
Manchester United will face Tottenham Hotspur in an all-English Europa League final. Both sides booked their place in the decider on Thursday night, earning comfortable aggregate victories in their semi-final ties. Manchester United held a 3-0 advantage over Athletic Bilbao but fell behind in the return. Mikel Jauregizar's goal gave the Spaniards a glimmer of hope but Athletic were unable to extend their advantage despite chances at Old Trafford. Mason Mount came off the bench to inspire a turnaround for the home side. Advertisement The midfielder made it back-to-back games with a brilliant equaliser, turning sharply inside the box and firing home. Casemiro and Rasmus Hojlund added late goals to make the result safe, before Mount's crowning moment. The 26-year-old fired in from near the halfway line with Julen Agirrezabala wayward after a poor clearance. It was a huge night for Mount, who has endured an injury-plagued time at Manchester United. Ruben Amorim's side will face Tottenham Hotspur in a fascinating final with plenty on the line. Leading 3-1 from the first leg, goals from Dominic Solanke and Pedro Porro earned a 2-0 win at Bodo/Glimt in the return and aggregate progress. The North Londoners have reached their first final in this competition since 1984. With both sides enduring disappointing domestic campaigns, the Europa League final offers a winner-takes-all shootout to salvage their seasons. Currently 15th and 16th in the Premier League, the winners will win silverware and a place in next season's Champions League. Advertisement Read – 📈 Power Rankings: PSG and Inter climb after famous wins See more – How Enrique and Inzaghi built Europe's best teams Follow The Football Faithful on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | TikTok
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man United announce surprising third quarter profits for 2025
Manchester United have announced that they have made a profit in the third quarter fiscal results of 2025. There were fears for the company's economic situation after an interview by Sir Jim Ratcliffe in March where he claimed the club would have run out of money in December if not for his investment. Advertisement Nonetheless, United have made a strong start to the transfer window by agreeing to pay Matheus Cunha's £62.5 million release clause and offering north of £60 million for Brentford's Bryan Mbeumo. Through clever accounting, it also seems that United will not have the PSR problems that most thought they would have and that they will have more wiggle room . The club have released their quarter results on the official website and have claimed that 'the company recorded an operating profit £0.7m in the quarter compared to an operating loss of £66.2m in the third quarter of 2024. What's more, 'total revenues increased 17.4% in the quarter with increases across all three key revenue streams, driven by additional matches played in the quarter as a result of strong performance in the UEFA Europa League and high demand for the club's hospitality offering.' Advertisement Commercial revenue has seen an increase of 7.3% in the third quarter last year from £69.6 million to £74.7 million. Moreover, broadcasting revenue has grown from £37.5 million to £41.3 million, which accounts for a 10.1% growth. Matchday revenue has also seen a big jump from £29.6 million to £44.5 million owing to greater European involvement this year. Overall, The Muppetiers YouTube channel analysed that the club could actually break even this year if the current course is continued. It is claimed that fourth quarter projections could grow in broadcast, commercial and matchday revenue. To sum up, United are on course to lose a lot less money as they lost £29 million in 2023, a staggering £130 million last year but may even make a profit this year according to The Muppetiers. Advertisement United are still not totally in the clear though despite their improvements on the spreadsheet. Debt is still a concern and that will only continue to grow as United plan for an active transfer window to replenish their ailing squad. The BBC reported that around '£1.2bn has been spent on debt interest, debt repayments, dividends and fees to the Glazer family since their takeover 20 years ago.' Furthermore, the club is certainly lacking in cash flow. According to The Athletic, the cash reserves have fallen to £73.2 million. Therefore, player sales will still be essential in spite of the improving financial situation. The Muppetiers predict that the Red Devils can perhaps spend £200 million net with no issues in the transfer window but without sales, this could put the club on the precipice for next summer. Advertisement It was also reiterated that cash flow remains the biggest problem, therefore the structuring of deals over instalments is probably a greater sticking point in negotiations than overall price. All in all, United fans will hope that after months of bad press over their new owners, that finally, the club has something to be cautiously optimistic about over its financial future. Featured image by Justin Setterfield via Getty Images Follow us on Bluesky: @
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We shall not continue as a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, by far our largest group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
