Chiefs expand marketing rights into UK and Ireland
The Kansas City Chiefs and Green Bay Packers have been awarded marketing rights in the United Kingdom and Ireland as American football continues its expansion outside the USA. The Chiefs were denied a historic 'three-peat' by the Philadelphia Eagles in February's Super Bowl and the Green Bay Packers The NFL's Global Markets Program awards clubs international marketing rights to expand the profile of the sport through fan engagement, commercial opportunities and Flag Football.Clark Hunt, the Chiefs' CEO and chairman, said he was "incredibly excited" to expand into the new market. "As the game grows globally, more and more fans from around the world are becoming a part of Chiefs Kingdom," he said. "Kansas City has certainly made a name for itself in the global sports landscape, and we are proud to showcase our town and our team on the international stage."The expansion in Ireland comes after it was announced a first regular-season NFL game will be played in Dublin in 2025, with the Pittsburgh Steelers named as the designated team. Jude McAtamney made history for the New York Giants in November by becoming the first Irish-born placekicker to feature in a regular season NFL game since 1985.Henry Hodgson, NFL UK and Ireland general manager, said the island of Ireland was "an important market" for the growth of the sport."The Chiefs and the Packers are fantastic additions to our Global Markets Program teams in-market, providing continuous opportunities for fans to engage with our sport and with the NFL as we grow across the country," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nippon and US Steel complete controversial merger
Japanese firm Nippon Steel has completed its long-sought takeover of a smaller American company, after agreeing to yield unusual control to the US government. The $14.9bn (£11bn) purchase of US Steel, will create one of the world's biggest steelmakers and turns Nippon into a major player in the plan, first announced in 2023, had been seen as a lifeline for the storied but struggling 124-year-old US the deal ran into trouble during last year's presidential election, when US President Donald Trump and his Democratic opponents said they were concerned about the foreign acquisition of one of the last major steel producers in the US. However, Trump reversed his stance, after Nippon made concessions which the President said had satisfied his national security gave the official green light to the deal in an executive order on agreed to pay $55 per share and take on the company's debt, a deal worth $14.9bn together. It said it had also promised the government it would invest $11bn in US Steel by 2028, including a new facility that would be completed after that year. It also granted the US government a "golden share" in the company, giving the government say over key decisions, including the transfer of jobs or production outside of the US, and certain calls to close or idle factories. Nippon also committed to maintain its headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and install US citizens to key management positions including its chief executive and the majority of its board."This partnership ensures that US Steel will retain its iconic name and headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and that it will continue to be mined, melted, and made in America for generations to come," Nippon and US Steel said in a statement as shares in US Steel stopped trading. They said the deal would "protect and create more than 100,000 jobs". Trump has made protections for the steel industry a key part of his economic agenda, raising tariffs on imports of the metal to 50% to benefit American producers. The president said he changed his mind about deal after hearing from local officials, who were alarmed by warnings from US Steel that it might cut jobs without the investment from Nippon. Leaders of the US Steelworkers union had opposed the takeover, which former president Joe Biden blocked in his final weeks of office. The companies subsequently filed a lawsuit accusing him of improperly politicising a national security review.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
News Corp boss earns $42m as highest-paid CEO of Australian-listed company
News Corp's chief executive has become the highest-paid CEO of an Australian-listed company, a new analysis of CEO pay has found. Chief executives of ASX-listed companies are still being paid 55 times more than average workers in Australia but the gap is yet to widen to extremes seen overseas, according to the annual analysis from the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI). Robert Thomson, who heads up the American media company News Corp, was paid nearly $42m in 2024, a $300,000 pay rise compared with the previous year, when he was the second-highest-paid Australian chief. Jewellery retailer Lovisa soared to second for CEO pay after handing $39.5m to its recently departed chief, Victor Herrero, in 2024, despite being smaller than more than 140 other ASX-listed companies. Macquarie Group's Shemara Wikramanayake took $29.8m in 2024, swapping places with commercial real estate giant co-founder Greg Goodman to become the third-best-paid Australian chief. If only ASX 100 companies are analysed, Wikramanayake is the highest paid CEO. The disparity between what CEOs and average workers earned grew in 2024 compared with the year before, after ASX's top 100 companies gave their chief executives a near 14% pay rise on average in the 2023-24 financial year. The average worker's earnings rose 4.6% in the same period, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The gap has fallen since 2014, when chief executives were paid 70 times more than typical workers, the report found. Average CEO pay in 2024 was only slightly higher than it was in 2014, at $5.7m, whereas ordinary wages rose by nearly a third over the past decade. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Local chiefs were paid 55 times more than average workers but Australia compared favourably to overseas, where CEO pay packets have soared, according to ACSI's executive manager of stewardship, Ed Johns. 'We're probably doing something right in Australia, where we've seen a real breakout in CEO pay in other countries,' he said. Chief executives at the top 100 US companies were paid 348 times the median American employee in 2024, or more than US$33m (A$51m) on average, according to research from analytics firm Equilar using a different methodology. The 100 biggest British companies paid their CEOs 78 times more than their median employees, the UK's High Pay Centre campaign group revealed on Monday. Australian investors and company boards have protested against big bonuses put forward by numerous companies in recent years, including Qantas, Woolworths and AMP. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion But American enthusiasm for big pay packets was already lifting Australia's CEO pay levels and Australia's disparity could rise if investors stopped keeping watch for 'egregious' bonuses, Johns warned. 'We could see a breakout if that focus is lost, so in the upcoming reporting season we'll be watching really closely … to make sure that the pay is actually in line with investor expectations,' he said. The analysis found the average CEO for a foreign-based, ASX 200 listed company was paid $600,000 more than CEOs of domestic ASX 200 companies, which ACSI attributed to 'North American pay practices'. Two US companies made the top five: News Corp and American-headquartered health company ResMed, which paid its Australian head, Mick Farrell, $20m in 2024. Another three US-based businesses cracked the top 20. 'We wouldn't be surprised to see a number of those names continue to be represented in that list,' Johns said. '[But] we don't want to see Australian companies follow that same path, particularly where these large bonuses don't actually match company performance.' ResMed's Farrell had held the top-paid position the previous year, with $47m pay, but took a cut to $20m after shares in the company tumbled in value over the prospect weight loss drugs would eradicate the need for Resmed's sleep apnoea devices.
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
America is sleepwalking into another unnecessary war
As the United States inches closer to direct military confrontation with Iran, it is critical to recognize how avoidable this escalation has been. 'We knew everything [about Israel's plans to strike Iran], and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,' said Donald Trump on Friday. 'I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out.' As two of the last analysts from an American thinktank to visit Iran, just three weeks ago, we can report that Iran's own foreign ministry and members of the nuclear negotiating team were eager to work out a deal with Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, and showed no indication they were interested in slow-walking talks. Over the course of conversations held on the sidelines of the Tehran Dialogue Forum, high-level foreign ministry officials expressed concern about the potential for a spoiling effort by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and various staff and officials showed themselves open to considering a variety of scenarios including a regional nuclear consortium for uranium enrichment under international oversight and bilateral areas of diplomatic and economic engagement with the United States. What we heard should have been cause for cautious optimism – yet instead, Washington squandered a rare diplomatic opening, seemingly allowing Israel to start a disastrous war of choice that may soon drag in the US. Contrary to the narrative that Iran was dragging its feet in negotiations, we saw no evidence of deliberate stalling. In fact, Iran's worsening economic crisis had created a strong incentive for Tehran to strike a deal – one that would provide sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, with even the possibility of broader normalization with the US on the horizon. Middle-class Iranians we spoke with elsewhere in Tehran were frustrated with the economic situation and, despite a highly developed sanctions-resistant economy, eager for sanctions relief allowing them greater access to international travel and trade. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi emphasized flexibility on nearly every issue outside Iran's red line on low-level uranium enrichment. That was echoed in private conversations we held with foreign ministry staff and members of the nuclear negotiating team. Domestic enrichment is non-negotiable for Iran but they believed they had front-loaded their concessions to Witkoff, offering up a 3.67% limit on their enrichment with whatever monitoring and surveillance mechanisms were necessary for the US to feel confident the deal was being honored. Enrichment, even at a low level, is a matter of national pride, a symbol of scientific achievement and a defiant response to decades of sanctions, the red line consistently stated in our conversations and one which they thought was agreeable to Witkoff. Iran claimed to be completely blindsided by Witkoff's 18 May statement that zero enrichment was the only acceptable terms for a nuclear deal but was open to returning to talks to discuss ways forward. After weathering immense economic pain to develop this capability, no Iranian government – reformist or hardline – could feasibly surrender to the zero enrichment demand. The idea that Tehran would dismantle its enrichment program in 60 days, as the Trump administration demanded, was never realistic. This was not mere stubbornness – it was rooted in deep mistrust sown by Trump. The US had already violated the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) by unilaterally withdrawing during Trump's first term, despite Iran's verified compliance. Why would Tehran now accept another agreement requiring total denuclearization, with no guarantee Washington wouldn't renege again? Iranian officials signaled openness to creative solutions, including shipping excess low-enriched uranium to Russia; forming a regional consortium for enrichment; allowing US inspectors to join International Atomic Energy Agency teams – a major shift from previous positions. Other ideas were also floated at the Tehran forum, albeit not from official sources – temporary suspension of enrichment and a pause on advanced IR-6 centrifuges as confidence-building measures. Araghchi's expressed willingness to return to JCPOA-permitted enrichment levels (below 4%) – was a concession so significant that it drew criticism from Iranian hardliners for giving too much, too soon. This was not the behavior of a regime trying to stall; it was the posture of a government eager for a deal, engaged in an effort to avoid spoilers in Jerusalem, Washington and at home in Tehran, and knowing full well that long, drawn-out negotiations would offer more, not less, opportunities for enemies of diplomacy to strike. The US team, led by Witkoff and mediated by Oman, seemed to share this urgency. The Iranian government seemed empowered enough to make a deal – if the US had been willing to take yes for an answer. Yet here we are, on the brink of another Middle East conflict – one that was entirely preventable. Instead of seizing this rare moment of Iranian flexibility, the US chose escalation. The consequences may be catastrophic: a wider regional war, soaring oil prices and the total collapse of diplomacy with Iran for years to come. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion It is still possible to step back from the brink. Tehran has signaled willingness to re-engage in talks if Israeli ceases attack. Omani channels remain open. Yet, after the start of the Israeli bombing campaign, the political space for negotiations has shrunk. The US is sleepwalking into another Middle East quagmire, an open-ended war with unclear goals, loose talk of regime change and the potential for a regional conflagration if Iran attacks US military installations in the Persian Gulf. And this war comes after Iran extended a real offer for compromise. If Washington chooses bombs over diplomacy, history will record this as a war not of necessity, but of tragic, reckless choice. Eli Clifton is senior adviser at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft Eldar Mamedov is non-resident fellow at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and member of the Pugwash Council on Science and World Affairs
