‘Laughing Stock' NY Post brutally mocked for claiming Trump received ‘huge applause' at FIFA Club World Cup final
In what is seen as something of a test run for next year's World Cup, which the United States is hosting alongside Canada and Mexico, the world's best club soccer teams have spent the past few weeks playing in cities across the country, culminating in Sunday's final at MetLife Stadium, New Jersey.
'That's why many world leaders and sports fans have been scrutinizing the club games for on- and off-field clues about America's ability to host,' the Washington Post noted. 'The skepticism is driven by concerns over whether a president who has taken actions to close America's borders and imposed wholesale bans on residents from some countries can host a quadrennial celebration of global camaraderie and athleticism.'
Trump's presence at Sunday's finale between Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain, therefore, was met with quite a bit of resistance from soccer fans. While there was a smattering of cheers and chants of 'USA! USA!' from nearby attendees when the president and First Lady Melania Trump were first spotted in their suite, the stadium erupted in jeers when the jumbotron showed him during the national anthem, prompting the camera to quickly pan away.
The 80,000 fans also made their displeasure with Trump known following Chelsea's victory, showering the commander-in-chief in boos as he made his way onto the pitch with FIFA chief Gianni Infantino to present the trophy. The stadium music eventually drowned the crowd out.
The trophy presentation also included a bizarre moment when the president remained on stage with the team as they posed for a victory photo, leading some players – such as Chelsea captain Reece James and star winger Cole Palmer – to express confusion over Trump awkwardly crashing their celebration.
While social media was awash with videos of the MetLife crowd loudly booing the president, the Post – owned by right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and a corporate cousin of Fox News – attempted to give a positive spin to the reaction Trump received at the championship match.
'President Trump and first lady Melania arrive at MetLife Stadium to huge applause for FIFA Club World Cup final,' the Post headlined its story on the president's appearance.
Despite the article's title boasting that Trump and his wife were met with a warm reception, the piece itself did not contain any mentions of the supposed 'huge applause' for the president outside of a caption for one of the photos within the body of the story.
'President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump arrived at the FIFA Club World Cup final in MetLife Stadium Sunday, getting a preview of the even grander soccer tournament the US is set to host next year,' New York Post politics reporter Ryan King wrote, adding: 'The president and first lady were seen waving to the crowd as they took their seats to watch the big game.'
With the right-wing tabloid promoting the article on social media with the same headline, it didn't take long for critics to call out the paper for trying to cover for the president while misleading its readers.
'LAUGHING STOCK!!! The New York Post is getting clowned online after falsely claiming Trump received 'huge applause' at the FIFA Club World Cup Final—when in reality, he was loudly booed by the crowd,' anti-Trump digital media outlet MeidasTouch tweeted, adding that the Post was 'desperately trying to defend Donald Trump as his Epstein scandal tanks his approval.'
'Is the 'huge applause' in the room with us now? Because here's what actually happened,' liberal podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen snarked, sharing a field-level video from Agence France-Presse correspondent Danny Kemp of the stadium raining down boos on Trump.
'By 'huge applause,' they mean 'lots of boos,'' finance journalist James Surowiecki quipped, while author Tom Watson added: 'He was brutally booed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
16 minutes ago
- Metro
Ben Stokes the leading man in classic Test series
What a match, and what irony that it should be settled England's way by a No.11 defending an off-break like an opening batter – soft hands and with the middle of the bat. But that's great Test cricket, unsurpassable drama decided as often by the innocuous moment as the grand gesture. All of India, and there would have been at least a billion watching on TV, would have kicked out a foot as the ball rolled towards the stumps; Mohammed Siraj's back foot defensive shot having carefully ridden the extra bounce from Shoaib Bashir's loopy off-break. Just the slightest deflection, with anything but hand, would have kept the red Dukes ball from nudging leg-stump and dislodging the bail – and kept India in a contest that went beyond thrilling as it moved into the final session of the final day. But Siraj seemed rooted to the spot, mesmerised by the moment that seconds later would give England a 2-1 lead in a five-match series India have dominated most of the time. Bashir, who came on to bowl from the sick bay, after breaking a finger on his left hand, was rightly lauded by his captain, Ben Stokes, for his courageous role. But it was Stokes, mining deep into his body and mind, who found the golden nuggets needed to get England over the line in this nip-and-tuck Test – a captain's effort from the trenches rather than the observation tower. There were ghosts to help him with the digging. Six years previously, to the day and on the same ground, Stokes had dragged England, this time with bat, to the super over bowled by Jofra Archer in the World Cup final against New Zealand. England then won by the barest of margins – something they did against India on Monday, 22 runs being close for a five-day Test which has run its course. Stokes was simply immense. Whether exhorting his bowlers from mid-off or with ball in hand himself, he radiated a massive positive energy, like a brilliant sun. His two spells were a sapping ten overs each and he later admitted he had to go to dark places to produce them. Injuries have restricted his bowling in recent times although he wrenched a win from nowhere against South Africa in Cape Town five years ago, but that was done with chutzpah and skilful reverse-swing. He had no such allies here, only adversaries – the tenacious Ravindra Jadeja with bat and a sluggish pitch only occasionally offering succour. But Stokes bashed away with energy-sapping hit-the-deck pace, body screeching, searching for vagaries in bounce now diminishing as the ball got softer. He believed and his team believed in him. His three for 48 included the prize wicket of KL Rahul, whom he pinned lbw, but only after a TV umpire review found in his favour. After a quiet year or so performance-wise, Stokes' all-round efforts at Lord's (77 runs and five wickets in the match), plus the impressive marshalling of his players, deservedly won him the man of the match. Also, he showed his team, and possibly himself, that they don't have to chase to win and that they can bat first and prevail – though he probably won't become too wedded to the idea if he has to keep bowling the most overs. One decision Stokes got right on day five was to open with Archer from the Pavilion End. Would that decision have been made if Stokes hadn't dismissed Akash Deep just before the close of day four, which left him with two balls to bowl from the Nursery End when play resumed on the final morning? Whatever the process, Archer got the Pav End and promptly detonated Rishabh Pant's off-stump. Soon after, he caught and bowled the capable Washington Sundar for nought, his one-handed pouch a remarkable bit of athleticism. Perhaps more importantly looking forward, Archer suddenly looked the complete fast bowler – hackles up and with a carnivore's scent for blood – rather than someone who just bowls fast. Whereas previously his default body language has been somewhat hang-dog, here he was following through to within smelling distance of the batter, dander up and eyeballs popping. Whether this came from the occasion, his captain's chivvying or the animus now developing between the teams, there needs to be more of it. His time with England has become precious and every spell must count. All through these dramas Jadeja, India's veteran all-rounder and a man forged by crises, was playing the long game. From deep experience he knows Test cricket is a team effort, which means trusting others. He could try to be Superman and do it in a whirl of audacity or he could get India close by minimising risk at least until all other options had been exhausted. This is not Bazball's way – its gung-ho rashness may have prevailed chasing the 193 India needed or it may have gone down in flames. Jadeja played the percentages, his unbeaten 61, from a mammoth 181 balls, cruelly coming up short. But that can happen when there are variables in the mix like team-mates and opponents. More Trending Old Trafford is next in a week's time and while I never thought I'd see another Test series as dramatic as the 2005 Ashes, this is boiling up into a heady melodrama that may well push it close if both teams can maintain the quality and tempo. Bashir's broken finger has ended his series and he has been replaced by Liam Dawson. A left-arm spinner from Hampshire, Dawson is feisty and can bat, two attributes he will need as the spice levels rise between the teams. By the way, that bounce from Bashir which forced the error from Siraj, produced by overspin and sharp dip, is what England want in Australia this winter, which is why they continue to persist with the tall off-spinner despite modest returns. But injuries open doors for others and Dawson has a chance to catch the eye and help win a series that will be considered a classic whatever happens from here. MORE: England can savour Swede taste of success after hitting top form at Euro 2025 MORE: Owner of rescue dog 'couldn't even stroke her' before using this pet food brand – now with 40% off first box MORE: Back Rory McIlroy to make the most of second chance to win The Open at Royal Portrush
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
US launches new bid to keep migrants detained by denying hearings, memo shows
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - The Trump administration is launching a new effort to keep immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally detained by denying them bond hearings, an internal memo showed, a change that could further swell the numbers of those held. The guidance by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a portion of which Reuters reviewed, could be applied to millions of people who crossed the border illegally and are contesting their deportation. President Donald Trump has vowed mass deportations, which he says are needed after high levels of illegal immigration under his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden. Congress passed a spending law this month that provides funding to detain at least 100,000 people, a steep increase over the record 58,000 in custody by late June. The Washington Post first reported, opens new tab the new ICE policy limiting bond hearing eligibility, citing a July 8 memo by its acting director, Todd Lyons. The guidance shared with Reuters called for ICE to interpret several immigration law provisions as "prohibitions on release" after an arrest, adding the shift in policy was "likely to be litigated." It encouraged ICE prosecutors "to make alternative arguments in support of continued detention" during immigration court hearings. The new policy appeared to reverse legal standards governing detention for decades, said Tom Jawetz, a former homeland security official in the Biden administration, calling it "a radical departure that could explode the detention population." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Peace is finally coming between Russia and Ukraine... but this is why it's NOT all good news and how it could lead to a new, far more deadly conflict we'll all be dragged into: MARK ALMOND
What a difference four months makes. At the end of February, the Ukrainian cause had never looked more hopeless after the now-notorious televised confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. When the Ukrainian president said, quite rightly, that Putin could not be trusted, Trump launched a brutal verbal assault, threatening to abandon him and his country unless he went along with Washington's ceasefire plans.
