FIFA's inaugural Club World Cup set to kick off in the U.S. amid challenges
FIFA's billion-dollar gamble to revolutionize club soccer begins a week on Sunday with plenty of cash up for grabs but questionable enthusiasm as 32 teams prepare to contest the expanded Club World Cup in 12 stadiums across the United States.
The tournament — designed as a glittering showcase ahead of the 2026 World Cup — has had to contend with the prospect of empty seats along with controversial qualification rules and player welfare concerns after an exhausting European season.
Lionel Messi's Inter Miami face Saudi Arabia's Al Ahly in the opening fixture on June 15 at Miami's Hard Rock Stadium, with tickets still widely available days before kickoff.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
4 hours ago
- NHK
US looks to entice Japan with Alaska LNG project
The US wants Asian nations to invest in an Alaska LNG pipeline. An expert says they should shop around as competing projects are under consideration throughout North America.
Japan Times
7 hours ago
- Japan Times
The Europeans are facing an existential choice
For years, I have taken every opportunity to urge the European Union and its member states to invest more in defense. When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I repeatedly asked (as a member of the European Parliament) what further proof we would need to recognize the threats facing all of Europe. What would we — as Europeans — do if our security was threatened while our closest ally, the United States, was otherwise engaged? Today, we confront that very situation. U.S. officials are openly stating that they do not intend to devote most of their time or resources to dealing with what they deem European issues. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the U.S. has 'other priorities to focus on.' I agree. The global superpower has global responsibilities and the number of flash points that might demand the U.S. government's attention seems only to be growing. In addition to challenges in the Western hemisphere, instability in the Middle East and severe tensions between two nuclear powers — India and Pakistan — there is also the paramount goal of redefining relations with China. Moreover, according to the official U.S. Defense Department planning doctrine, the U.S. can no longer fight more than one major war at a time. The new U.S. administration has been communicating its position plainly. 'We're here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in Brussels this February. And U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was even more direct, stating that 'Europe's entire security infrastructure ... has been subsidized by the United States of America,' even though it is neither in Europe's nor America's interest 'for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.' President Donald Trump himself has repeatedly accused Europe of 'freeloading' and 'taking advantage' of the U.S.. Europeans may not like what we hear, but we cannot pretend not to hear it. We must be prepared for the U.S. to wash its hands not only of Ukraine, but even of Europe. Le Monde's Sylvie Kauffmann recently argued, 'Preparing for the worst is a safer bet than hoping for the best.' We can and should do both — hope and prepare. Trust but verify. Ever since Trump announced his presidential candidacy back in 2015, there have been two schools of thought on interpreting his words. Some argue that we should take him seriously but not literally, whereas others urge us to do the opposite: treat him literally but not always seriously. I believe that the most reasonable and respectable approach is to treat whatever the U.S. president says both literally and seriously. Given the current state of the world, this implies that Europe faces an existential choice. We can enter the global game united as a heavyweight competitor or we can condemn ourselves to marginalization. Much has been done already to become a heavyweight contender. Since 2016 — just before Trump's first term — NATO members, excluding the U.S., have increased their annual defense spending by 98%, from $255 billion to $506 billion. Moreover, after three years of Putin waging war on Ukraine, the EU and its member states have proven willing to spend even more and to embrace a more cooperative, rational and effective approach to defense planning and procurement. The new joint defense agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom is another step demonstrating this new strategic solidarity. Deterring Russia is not beyond our means. We don't need to match U.S. military capabilities; rather, we just need enough to force Putin to reconsider his chances of winning in a confrontation with a united European community of democratic nation-states. The people of Europe are clearly demanding that we develop a revitalized European defense posture. According to the European Commission, 71% of EU citizens believe that the bloc must strengthen its ability to produce military equipment, while 77% support a common defense and security policy. This gives European leaders a mandate to think and act boldly. But how long will it take to restore peace to Ukraine and stability to Europe? I believe we must act on the basis of three assumptions. First, we should view this as a war of a former imperial metropole against what it regards as a mutinous colony. History suggests that colonial wars usually take about a decade to end. Anything less than that should be considered a bonus. Second, we should accept that for the invading country to start negotiating in good faith, it must conclude that the invasion was a mistake. It must acknowledge that the costs of war and of keeping the former colony subjugated are greater than whatever benefits the colony can possibly yield. Third, given the above, we should remember that colonial wars are usually finished by a different group of leaders than those who started the fighting. Yes, boosting European defense capabilities while supporting Ukraine will cost money. Since the start of Russia's war of aggression, the EU and its member states have provided more than $165 billion in support for Ukraine and its people. That is a significant amount, but it is still less than 1% of the combined gross domestic product of the EU's member countries (some $19 trillion). We can certainly do more. And as we reinvigorate Europe's defenses, we must not lose sight of why we are doing it: we are acting for our own safety, not to undermine transatlantic relations but to improve them. To avoid a strategic dilemma, we Europeans must be able to help the U.S. defend its allies by taking on our fair share of the security burden. Radosław Sikorski is foreign minister of Poland. © Project Syndicate, 2025
NHK
12 hours ago
- NHK
Higher US tariffs kick in on steel, aluminum imports
The US doubled additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50 percent from Wednesday. President Donald Trump announced the higher levies on Friday during a rally at a US Steel plant in Pennsylvania and signed the order on Tuesday. He said the move will further secure the future of the steel industry in the United States. However, imports of the metals from the UK will not be affected by the higher duties after the two countries agreed to a trade deal last month. The trump administration had already imposed a 25-percent additional tariff on steel and aluminum on March 12. The European Union has criticized the higher duties, saying the move undermines ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution. The EU has indicated it may respond with countermeasures.
