Travis Kelce's ex Kayla Nicole reignites rumor he cheated on her after cryptic podcast comment
A rumor that Kansas City Chiefs star Travis Kelce cheated on ex girlfriend Kayla Nicole has been revived by the social-media personality herself with a cryptic comment on her podcast.
Kelce and Nicole dated from 2017 through 2022 and broke up a year before the tight end began his romance with Taylor Swift.
Nicole stated earlier this year she wanted to keep her personal life private until she is with the man she will be spending the rest of her life with. Her comments come full-well knowing the public perception of her most-famous ex.
'I have been conditioned to believe in a fairy tale of love and relationships,' Nicole said on her podcast. 'You watch the Disney movies, you grow up in church. I was raised to believe that a man and woman, if they are in a relationship, if they are married, you are only intended to be with each other, and you make this agreement, this promise to one another to hold each other accountable.'
'Have I experienced that in dating and relationships in my life? No. When you are cheated on, the heartbreak and devastation that come with that. The insecurities that come with that. It can be overwhelming.'
'In my experience, I don't have successful, monogamous relationships without any element of cheating.'
Nicole did not expressly name Kelce during her podcast, with the Chiefs star previously denying he cheated on her during a break in their relationship in 2020.
While Nicole did not go as far to label Kelce a cheater, Maya Benberry, who won the 'Catching Kelce' dating show in 2016, has accused him of cheating multiple times.
Benberry did so as a cast member on MTV's 'Ex on the Beach' and in a now-deleted social-media post.
'When you and your ex broke up five months ago but you find out via social media that he's supposedly been in another relationship for 6…' Benberry previously said.
Kelce and Swift are about to reach the 19-month anniversary of when they first appeared in public together at a Chiefs game against the Chicago Bears in September 2023.
Since Kansas City's Super Bowl loss to the Philadelphia Eagles in February, with Swift in New Orleans for the championship game, both have kept a low public profile.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK broadcasters hail rare win over Netflix in battle for streaming ads
Shows such as Netflix's TV history-making Adolescence and Disney's romp Rivals are among the latest hits to continue the subscriber juggernaut, as the US streamers continue to mount pressure on UK TV broadcasters. However, research reveals that a new breed of viewers being banked on to drive their next era of growth are watching up to 40% less content on some services, giving traditional broadcasters hope that their own streaming services will not ultimately be outmuscled in the battle over the rapidly growing £1bn-plus streaming ad market. It has been two and a half years since Netflix reversed its resistance to advertising, leading the charge to tap a new market as subscriber growth petered out and the cost of living crisis made consumers more open to paying less in return for seeing ads. The strategy has helped breathe life into stalling subscription growth. Netflix added the most customers in a quarter in its history in the final three months of 2024, with 55% choosing its ad-supported package. About a third of its 300 million-strong global subscriber base are now watching with ads. Disney+ followed suit in late 2022 and has since amassed 157 million ad-tier subscribers, including its US-only ESPN and Hulu services. And in February last year, Amazon started automatically introducing ads to the 200 million potential monthly viewers of Prime Video, requiring customers to pay if they wanted an ad-free experience. However, research into streaming households shows that homes that watch with ads are 'lighter' viewers, in the words of one media agency executive, compared with those who pay for higher-priced, ad-free packages. A snapshot of UK streaming in the fourth quarter of 2024 showed that Netflix households with advertising-supported subscriptions watched an average of 22 minutes less content a day than those with an ad-free subscription, a difference of almost 22%. Netflix is estimated to have about 17.6 million subscribers in total in the UK, of whom just over 4 million are on an ad-supported package, according to Ampere Analysis. At Amazon's Prime Video, which is estimated to have about 12 million UK users, the same trend has emerged. Viewers who accepted ads watched an average of 23 minutes less content a day than those who had opted to pay for an ad-free experience – a difference of 44%. While viewing minutes were not available for Disney+ UK subscribers, the research showed it had the narrowest gap, with those on ad-supported accounts watching just five fewer minutes of content a day on average than those paying for an ad-free subscription. Matt Ross, the chief analytics officer at the streaming research firm Digital i, says two distinct types of viewer have emerged, but adds that lower levels of viewing in ad-supported households is partly because those subscriptions also typically offer access on fewer devices. 'We've seen that more engaged viewers typically opt for ad-free tiers, valuing the uninterrupted experience they provide,' Ross says. 'More premium plans offer multiple simultaneous streams, which appeals especially to larger households and families. This combination of premium features and flexibility often results in higher daily activity for ad-free plans.' Nevertheless, the phenomenon of 'light viewers' will be grasped by UK broadcasters trying to stop the deep-pocketed US giants conquering the streaming advertising market in the same way as they have the world of paid subscriptions. 'The appeal of the global streamers' ad tiers to advertisers doesn't stack up against the streaming services offered by British broadcasters,' says one senior TV industry executive. Certainly in the UK, at least, the drive into advertising by the big US streamers has had a mixed reception from the media agencies that buy commercial space for brands. Netflix started with a gung-ho attitude, buoyed up by the success it had had building a huge paid subscriber base and the belief advertisers would leap at the chance to be able to place commercials in its mega-hits for the first time. However, it demanded almost 50% more than ITV or Channel 4's services charge for advertising, alongside a hefty commitment to a minimum spend, despite initially only having a small audience and extremely limited ability to target ads. 'The rollout was a disaster,' says the chief executive of one media agency. 'Take-up was underwhelming, to say the least. They had to try again six months later and lost their lead over rivals and are now behind the curve in terms of pricing, data and reach versus, say, Amazon.' Amazon charges about the same as the public service broadcasters' streaming services, while Disney+ charges more, despite having the smallest base of the big three US streamers, a situation the media executive describes as a 'mad outlier, given their volume'. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Last month Netflix rung the changes, announcing that Warren Dias, the head of UK's ad sales, was to leave after two years in the post. The world's biggest and most profitable streaming service has acknowledged it is still a newbie when it comes to the ad market. 'I think you can say that 2025 is the year that we transition from crawl to walk,' Greg Peters, the co-chief executive of Netflix, said in a recent call with analysts. Peters said overall viewing hours per subscriber on its ads plans internationally was similar to those on its standard non-ad plans, and that it expected to double advertising income this year as it focuses on improving ad targeting for brands. The company launched its in-house ad-tech platform in the US in April and intends to start rolling it out to other markets in the coming months. While UK broadcasters feel the tentative start by the US giants has given them the upper hand in the British streaming advertising, which is putting further pressure on the shrinking £3.58bn traditional TV ad market, there is a sense of foreboding that history may ultimately repeat itself. 'We were successful and revolutionised TV viewing,' says Damien Bernet, the vice-president of ad sales for the EMEA region at Netflix. 'We believe we are going to be able to do the same for ads.' More people visit and watch Netflix than any other streaming service in the UK, and in March it made TV history with Adolescence becoming the first programme on a streaming platform to top the weekly audience charts of all shows aired in Britain. In February, 65% of 18- to 64-year-old internet users accessed Netflix, compared with 59% for the BBC's iPlayer, 48% for Prime Video, 46% for ITVX and 34% for Channel 4's streaming service, according to survey data from Ampere Analysis. The US streamers' ad tier strategies have reignited overall growth, are rapidly increasing the scale and attractiveness of the offering for advertisers, and the cheaper pricing has made users more 'sticky' and less likely to think about cancelling. 'Fundamentally, advertising is a scale game, and in that regard many of the streamers are only just getting started,' says Richard Broughton, a director at Ampere. 'UK and European broadcasters will be far from complacent, given the competition they have faced for viewers over the past decade, but they have only a narrow window to batten down the hatches before they start to feel more pressure across their advertiser base too.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Is the Sabrina Carpenter album art really that offensive?
By all accounts, Sabrina Carpenter is in control. The 26-year-old singer, who signed a record deal with Disney at 12 and became a star in her teens, worked through 10 years and five albums before Espresso, a cheeky and dementedly catchy single from her album Short n' Sweet, became the song of summer 2024. She writes or co-writes all of her songs with a signature imprint – saucy, clever, unabashedly horny and in on the joke of being both attracted to and disappointed by men. ('Did you say you're finished? Didn't know we started,' she teases in new single Manchild.) A recent Rolling Stone cover profile espoused her intelligence, craftiness and deadpan humor. (Asked which famous ex Manchild is about, she answered, 'It's about your dad.') She's taking the now-unusual step of releasing a new album only a year after her breakout for no more reason than she has ideas, feels creative, and wants to – 'my brain is sharp, let's write', she told Rolling Stone. But though Carpenter is evidently in the driver's seat, the music video for Manchild finds her as a passenger, eye-rolling at a series of incompetent men on a surreal hitchhiking jaunt through the desert. Besides humorously imagining the manchild's shortcomings as vehicles, poking fun at some traditional movie pinups and relishing enjoyably strange images, the video continues Carpenter's star-making playfulness with the idea of being a sexy, submissive vixen, Betty Boop for gen Z. The single came accompanied by cover art for her upcoming album, Man's Best Friend, in which the pint-sized Carpenter, clad in a black minidress, appears on her knees, pawing for the attention of an anonymous man in a suit, his hand loosely gripping her blonde bombshell hair. Unsurprisingly, the internet hasn't reacted well. Carpenter, a sharp student of pop music, is clearly working in the Madonna tradition of sexual provocation for provocation's sake, poking fun at tropes and people's prudishness with an alluring frankness. But online, one would have you believe that she's set back the cause of feminism by a good 10 years. On Reddit, on her Instagram, on the dregs of the rightwing rage-bait website formerly known as Twitter, users – overwhelmingly women – have accused Carpenter of caving to the male gaze, promoting regressive attitudes, not understanding satire and even threatening women's safety at large. 'Insanely misogynistic imagery', wrote one Instagram user, echoing the sentiments of the entire r/popculture subreddit. 'Sabrina this is not the slay you think it is …' wrote another. On TikTok, the image has folded easily into one-woman explainers on how the cover is actually the opposite of empowering, or how the furore encapsulates the context-less, ahistorical, flattened discourse that is everything wrong with modern society, etc. (For what it's worth, there's also a semi-convincing theory that Carpenter will eventually reveal a larger image in which she also plays the man in the suit.) A women's aid group for victims of domestic abuse in Glasgow went as far as calling it, absurdly, 'a throwback to tired tropes that reduce women to pets, props, and possessions and promote an element of violence and control'. In short, the discomfort is palpable, if predictable. Though female sexuality is de rigueur in pop music, we are still not used to seeing pop stars in control of their own sexuality, let alone framing themselves as the submissive. Carpenter on all fours rubs against the prevailing rhetoric of female sexual empowerment – 'be on top', 'have sex like a man', 'call the shots'. Fuck, not be fucked. Dominance as the only acceptable mode, submission for sexual pleasure as inherent weakness. To be submissive and strong at once is to break some brains, the idiosyncrasies and confidence of one woman's sexual performance inflaming the chronic poster's allergy to fun, as well as the internet's incentive for black-and-white thinking. This article includes content provided by Instagram. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'. Carpenter, unapologetically girly and often bedecked in lace lingerie, knows exactly what she's doing. With only an album cover and one song to go by, it's still too soon to see the full scope of her tongue-in-cheek satire, but the outline of riffing and reclaiming male fantasies is clear. The Rolling Stone shoot – floral, pastoral, fairy-esque – invokes the imagery of tradwives, the third rail of female empowerment discourse online. Such women sell a fantasy of chicken eggs, meals from scratch, barefoot and pregnant and always in service of the man. They also sell sex, albeit quietly, as baby-making machines for the head of the family. Carpenter in gingham lingerie, posing with a deer in the woods surrounded by flowers, makes the subtext literal: this is a male fantasy for men who do not like women's independence, and she is owning it. The thing missing from all this commentary is a sense of fun, which Carpenter appears to be having in spades. Like Addison Rae, a fellow recent breakout who frequently performs in a bra and underwear, Carpenter's pop performance relishes the messiness, sexual exploration and growth of one's mid-20s via refreshingly catchy tunes. Rae's brown-eyed, Louisiana girl-next-door perkiness, athletic dancing and pure pop instincts recall a young Britney Spears – except, crucially, she is 24, and has been pursuing mega-fame on her own terms for years on TikTok. Both she and Carpenter exist at the young adult nexus of self-awareness and youthful abandon, their frank sexuality both cheeky and serious. It's worth noting that how Carpenter and Rae's look influences the conversation. Both are conventionally gorgeous, styled as pinups but not busty, obviously Hollywood but still seemingly natural. The Man's Best Friend image would read differently if Carpenter adhered more to the prevailing trends of body modification. If, in other words, she looked like a Kardashian, transforming her body and looks into a male-brained ideal of a female cyborg. With each passing day, I am personally less and less interested in perceived artistic 'authenticity' – supposedly confessional lyrics, lore, celebrities pandering that they're just like you – and more and more drawn in by authenticity of form, real or perceived. In a sea of snatched faces, plumped lips and freakishly hourglass bodies, it feels refreshing to see pop stars who are still idealized but within normal human proportions. When it comes to the amorphous cause of women, I'm much more concerned with the paradigm shift toward celebrities flaunting their plastic surgery – human bodies metamorphosed through procedures and substances at exorbitant cost, like the Pygmalion myth in reverse – than Carpenter on her knees. But she'd probably say I'm overthinking it. This is pop music, after all – sex sells, and whether people are buying her shtick or not, we're still talking about her album.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Braveheart at 30: Enduring classic or masterclass in Scottish cringe?
I was juggling a clutch of part-time jobs to save up money and, let's be honest, the only battle most teenagers cared about that year was the Battle of Britpop: Blur vs Oasis. I remember the workies and lorry drivers, who came into the greasy spoon transport cafe where I flipped burgers and served fried egg rolls, having heated discussions about Braveheart's inaccuracies and debating the thorny subject of Scottish independence. Read more They opened rolled-up copies of the tabloid newspapers, like a town crier unfurling a scroll, jabbing calloused fingers at headlines about the movie. There was, quite rightly, much teeth-gnashing about Braveheart being shot largely in Ireland rather than Scotland. None of these conversations particularly made me want to part with my hard-earned cash to see it on the big screen. I recall my parents going to the local cinema and raving afterwards about how much they enjoyed it. In subsequent years, Braveheart became my mum's 'ironing film', one that she would stick on to watch while working her way through a towering basket of clothes and linens. At two hours and 58 minutes in length, she usually had time to rustle up a few freezer meals and stick a couple of loads in the washing machine too. For those unfamiliar with the premise, Braveheart – according to the succinct blurb on Disney+ – promises 'romance, intrigue, heroism and the desperate battle for nothing less than the freedom of Scotland'. Catherine McCormack and Mel Gibson (Image: Twentieth Century Fox) Directed by and starring Mel Gibson, the Oscar-winning flick is based – loosely – on the life of William Wallace who, in the late 13th and early 14th centuries helped lead the First War of Scottish Independence. The world premiere of Braveheart took place at the Seattle International Film Festival on May 18, 1995. Yet, it wasn't until almost four months later that Scottish audiences finally got to see it, with a star-studded screening in Stirling on September 3 and the official UK release five days later. Unsurprisingly, this interim period allowed for much feverish excitement to build on this side of the Atlantic. The hyperbole was almost unprecedented. Some hailed it an instant classic, others shuddered at the twee depiction of Scottish history. Which camp do I fall into? Thirty years later it is finally time to find out. Gird your loins… ***Warning: spoilers for Braveheart follow*** INAUSPICIOUS BEGINNINGS Things don't get off to a great start. The early scenes are a tedious watch. Slower than a week in the jail. And not just the first 10 minutes – the entire opening hour. Every hero needs an origin story: a timely recap of the watershed events that shaped our leading man. Instead, the unwitting viewer is held hostage to a rambling and onerous odyssey that makes Tolstoy's War and Peace seem like a concise novella. WHERE ARE YOU FAE? The mismatched accents among the cast and characters showcase a smorgasbord of dialects – both real and imaginary. Wallace's father has a definite Dublin brogue, while the young version of his son is broad Glaswegian. Then, when Gibson appears as the older William Wallace, his Scots twang is far softer, like he's spent years working in a call centre and diluted his dulcet tones in order to be understood by folks down south. To give US-born, Australia-raised Gibson his due, it is a passable effort and far from the worst Scottish accent caught on celluloid – we certainly aren't talking the heinous levels of Christopher Lambert in Highlander. Braveheart has a stramash of accents (Image: 20th Century Fox) PRODUCTION VALUES The rolling mist looks a bit rubbish at times, like dry ice piped onto the dancefloor of Clatty Pats in Glasgow. The costume department, meanwhile, utilises more crushed velvet for regal tunics, gowns and cloaks than a millennial living room with a Live, Laugh, Love sign on the wall. Gibson's hair serves as a barometer for Wallace's growing anger and thirst for vengeance. It gets frizzier and more bouffant as the film progresses, eventually resembling that of a 1980s glam metal band frontman – think Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, Poison – after a five-day bender. The good news: I can actually see what's going on. Unlike the recent fashion for gloomy ambiance, where peering at the TV is like perusing a paint chart of murky greys – a la Game of Thrones or The Handmaid's Tale – Braveheart, despite the grain of analogue, is joyfully well-lit. Also, the haunting and evocative tune A Gift of a Thistle from the movie soundtrack by James Horner, would bring a tear to a glass eye. QUOTABLE DIALOGUE The famed speech given by Wallace at Stirling in Braveheart is rousing stuff, as he rallies the 'sons of Scotland' to stand up 'in defiance of tyranny'. Capping it off with the now immortal battle cry: 'They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom.' The film is peppered with canny one-liners. Among them King Edward I, aka Longshanks, telling his inner court: 'The trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots.' A sentence that astutely captures the stance taken by many adversaries of a similar ilk throughout the centuries. Another gem I would love to see emblazoned on a coffee mug, keyring or slogan T-shirt is Wallace's quip: 'I never lie. But I am a savage.' And not to forget his other profound utterance: 'Every man dies, not every man really lives.' HISTORICAL INACCURACIES Enough of the pleasantries, let's get down to brass tacks. I'm usually pretty good at suspending my disbelief when it comes to daft twists and tropes. I will cheerily gloss over geographical blunders, gaping plot holes and cringeworthy continuity errors. Being able to enjoy a story solely for its entertainment merits is a gift. Albeit, sadly, one that swiftly abandoned me while watching Braveheart. Having fun with artistic licence is one thing – you can't beat a whimsical, outlandish tale – but cherry-picking historical detail and presenting it in a way that is so far removed from reality that it becomes a grotesque caricature? Umm, that's a hard pass from me. Braveheart peddles a narrative that is contradictory, vexing and downright infuriating. This has been well documented. I'm not imparting anything new here. Yet, it still rankles. Not least, the trite suggestion that one of Wallace's prime motivations for pursuing independence and opposing English rule is avenging the murder of his wife. HOWLERS GALORE The Battle of Stirling Bridge is crucially missing a bridge. An element which, in the real-life conflict of 1297, was key to securing a Scottish victory by providing a strategic chokepoint to ambush English forces. Instead, we see Braveheart's portrayal play out against a backdrop of The Curragh, a flat, open plain in County Kildare, Ireland – more reminiscent of The Carse of Stirling, where Robert the Bruce triumphed some 17 years later at the 1314 Battle of Bannockburn. MY BIGGEST GRIPE There is a pivotal encounter between Wallace and Bruce in Braveheart, which comes after the former believes he has forged a strong bond and alliance with the latter. Edward Longshanks rocks up to the 1298 Battle of Falkirk accompanied by a band of loyal lackeys. Among them, a knight whose identity is concealed by a large metal helmet – giving big vibes of sci-fi parody character and novelty political candidate Lord Buckethead. As the king and his entourage depart, Wallace sets off in pursuit. The mysterious knight turns back to confront Wallace. In the ensuing skirmish, Wallace pulls off his opponent's helmet and, in a hammy moment akin to a Scooby-Doo villain being unmasked, we learn that it is Bruce. I could imagine gasps of shock in cinemas at this juncture. I certainly let out a howl of outraged indignation. Yes, Bruce did ally with the English when it best suited his own cause, but he was never recorded as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Longshanks at Falkirk. To suggest so, even in the most florid embellishments of Hollywood fiction, feels a colossal slight to Bruce as a major Scots hero. And, as much as I wanted to see beyond the myriad flaws and foibles of Braveheart, this, for me, was the straw that broke the camel's back. THE VERDICT Flashes of brilliance, some killer lines, however, far too many liberties taken with important Scottish history. It will likely be another 30 years before I watch it again.
