AP PHOTOS: A new bill banning headscarves could keep athletes off the court
PARIS (AP) — Thousands of young Muslim women in France are sidelined from competitive sport because of rules in several disciplines including basketball that ban uniforms and other clothing carrying a religious or political significance. Critics of the rules say they disproportionately target hijab-wearing Muslim athletes. Now, a contentious bill backed by right-wing politicians that would ban headscarves in all sporting competitions has cleared its first legislative hurdle in the Senate.
___
This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US doubles steel, aluminum tariffs as OECD ministers gather
The United States doubled steel and aluminum tariffs Wednesday, casting a pall on a gathering of OECD ministers as President Donald Trump's intensifying trade war weighs on the world economy. Trump's sweeping tariffs on allies and adversaries alike -- including levies on imported steel and autos -- have strained US ties with trading partners and sparked a flurry of negotiations to avoid the duties. And pressure is mounting as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 38-nation grouping of mostly developed countries, cut its global growth forecast on the back of Trump's levies. Trade, consumption and investment have been affected by the tariffs, OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira earlier told AFP, warning that the US economy will see the biggest repercussions. While some of Trump's most sweeping levies face legal challenges, they have been allowed to remain in place for now as an appeals process is ongoing. Against this tense backdrop, the Paris-based grouping is holding a ministerial meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic are set to hold talks on the sidelines of the gathering, with the bloc seeking to stave off higher levies from July 9 absent a compromise. Similarly, UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds met Greer on Tuesday to try and avert fresh tariff hikes on steel and aluminum. Despite the doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs Wednesday, imports from the UK will remain at 25 percent for now, while both sides work out duties and quotas in line with the terms of their trade pact. In their talks, Reynolds and Greer discussed a "shared desire to implement" the pact, including agreements on sectoral tariffs, as soon as possible, a UK readout said. But Trump's latest salvo raises temperatures with various partners. The European Union has said it "strongly regrets" Trump's plan to raise metals tariffs, cautioning that it "undermines ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution" with the United States. The bloc added that it was ready to retaliate. - Looming deadline - The Group of Seven advanced economies -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States -- is due to hold separate talks on trade on Wednesday too. "We need to come up with negotiated solutions as quickly as possible, because time is running out," German economy minister Katherina Reiche said Tuesday, on the sidelines of OECD talks. French trade minister Laurent Saint-Martin added: "We have to keep our cool and always show that the introduction of these tariffs is in no one's interest." Mexico will request an exemption from the higher tariff, Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said, arguing that it is unfair because the United States exports more steel to Mexico than it imports. "It makes no sense to put a tariff on a product in which you have a surplus," Ebrard said. Mexico is highly vulnerable to Trump's trade wars because 80 percent of its exports go to the United States, its main trading partner. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the Trump administration sent letters to trading partners to push for offers by Wednesday as a deadline approached. Besides imposing 10 percent tariffs on almost all US trading partners in early April, Trump had announced higher rates for dozens of economies including the EU and Japan as he sought to pressure countries to correct practices Washington deemed unfair. These higher rates were paused for 90 days, but the halt is due to expire July 9. All eyes are also on rising tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trump has taken special aim at China this year, imposing additional levies of 145 percent on Chinese imports -- triggering Beijing's counter tariffs of 125 percent on US goods. Both sides agreed to temporarily de-escalate in May, but Trump accused China of violating the deal. The issue was China "slow walking the approval" of critical mineral exports and rare earth magnets, US Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender told CNBC on Monday. But he maintained Washington is making "good progress" overall in talks. alb-aue-bys/jgc/dw
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Sarah Spain on the future of sports media and women's leagues
Professional sports is big business—and the stakes have never been higher. Sarah Spain, host of the podcast Good Game With Sarah Spain, longtime ESPN personality, and sports journalist, unpacks what those stakes mean for the leagues, teams, companies, and players involved. From the WNBA's breakthrough to the future of ESPN's streaming to the looming legal settlement that could transform college athletics, sports business is at a crossroads. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As women's pro sports become more successful, do you worry that it's going to take on some of the toxic qualities of men's pro sports, more aggressive media conversations, bad behavior off the court or off the field? How much is that a looming question that these women's leagues have to sort of grapple with or maybe redefine? Very much. And actually, we saw it last year with Caitlin Clark's entry into the [WNBA]. It was awesome that more people were watching and more people were interested. It also meant talking heads who didn't know the game, weren't watching the games, and certainly didn't understand the intersectionality of women's sports, and how it intersects with race, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, all those things. And they created damaging and toxic conversations that were actually dangerous to players. There were multiple incidents of players' addresses being sent, and [notes saying] 'I'm going to find you.' Or people showing up in the places the players were and players feeling like they were endangered. Breanna Stewart's wife actually got threats. So I think the attention is great, the investment is great, but what comes with that is an expectation that we'll suddenly turn women's sports into the same as men's. And there's a real gift in it not being the same. There's a real joy in the space feeling different than men's. And I named my show Good Game With Sarah Spain, because originally I wanted to name it The Good Place With Sarah Spain. But that's a TV show, and it would be hard for people to distinguish and find when they looked for it online. But that's how I feel about going to a women's professional sporting event. It's the good place. It is incredibly diverse. It is incredibly kind. Everyone's rooting for their team, and they're very competitive, but there's no fistfights. People aren't getting hammered and falling down the stands on each other. I think that with the NWSL [National Women's Soccer League], for instance, when they had the recent forced purchases of a couple teams due to the toxicity I mentioned, they had a new rule where the majority owner needed to be financially liable as one person. There could be a group of owners, but they required that one owner bear the financial burden, if necessary, and that person had to be a billionaire. That meant that these large groups of women, who have a lot of money but aren't billionaires, were shut out. And it inevitably meant that once again, we were returning to ownership groups where it was going to be most likely a middle-aged white guy that owned it. And that's fine if that person is really dedicated to women's sports, and wants to learn the space and understand everything about it. It's a little tougher if it's another plaything that they have with four other teams, and they don't feel as connected to the space. And, again, #notallmen. But what the problem with the previous iteration of the NWSL was how many owners and coaches it turned out were engaging in toxic or abusive behavior, or at the very least, covering up for each other, sending a coach on his way: 'Thank you for your service.' Nice long letter: 'Thanks for your time here.' While knowing that they were letting them go because of abusive behavior, and letting them get hired somewhere else. And that's not to say that women won't do that and never do that, but there is a belief that you've got to have more women at the highest levels to help prevent those kind of situations, and that kind of atmosphere and culture, from taking over again. Right. I just feel like we're about to enter another HBO Max, Max, HBO, Max, ouroboros kind of situation here. But it feels inevitable. Obviously, during the massive shift away from traditional cable, and the unbundling, where ESPN no longer got $13, or whatever it was, from every human in America who had cable. What a great deal for ESPN, because not all of them were watching ESPN, right? But also, for cable, ESPN was a huge reason that people wanted to buy it. So it was a great partnership for a long time. That goes away, and it becomes quite clear that ESPN needs to try to keep up with the digital side of things, and needs to have a streaming direct-to-consumer service, because people aren't just going with cable anymore. I think for a while, folks who appreciate the television side will still get an approximation of what it used to be. But you're already seeing ESPN2 used to be an incubator for new shows, and creativity, and new talent, and now it's mostly reruns. You're seeing shows like Around the Horn, and others, that are shoulder programming for the live shows, that will start to go away. Because on streaming you don't need to fill a specific amount of time. You just create whatever amount of content you want to have. So they'll start focusing on rights, pre- and post-show Sports Center, and I would say a couple big-property studio shows. But I think those are going to go away more and more. And I think if you also look at ESPN's decision-making around more influencer-type and former-athlete-type content, as opposed to journalistic content, that is unfortunate reacting to the world's, I guess, demands, and the speed and desires of the current younger consumer. But I do worry about how that impacts ESPN's position in the industry. Because what separates them from everyone else is that they're the 'worldwide leader.' If it's on ESPN, it's right, it's accurate, it's vetted, it's journalistically sound. When you've got a Pat McAfee, whose show is produced elsewhere and dropped onto ESPN airwaves, and they wash their hands of the production and creation side of it, and they tell you it's a little bit different—but the viewer doesn't know that. So when he goes on and says things that are factually incorrect, does stories that are—for instance, one he's now being sued for libel—essentially, that aren't vetted, and aren't sourced before he takes them in front of millions. That, I think, impacts how people view everything else on the network, even if it's just subconsciously. When they turn it on, do they still think everything Adam Schefter says is journalistically sound? Or does the fact that Pat McAfee is on the same network. Or Stephen A. Smith, who will say, 'Oh, I can't talk about Dana White hitting his wife on camera; he's a close personal friend of mine.' That's not how journalism works, right? And so when that starts to blur the lines, does the rest of what's coming out on that network get harmed by it? And does it then prevent them from being separated from the pack in a way that they used to be? I don't know. I'm not in charge. It's above my pay grade. From my point of view, yes, and that concerns me. But also, I get that everyone's trying to get the younger consumer, and they seem to like a screaming head influencer or former athlete more than they like someone who knows how to do journalism.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will crypto replace banking? The Trump administration can't decide
Last year, Donald Trump took the stage of the Las Vegas Bitcoin Conference to worship at the altar of cryptocurrency. He said he would fire Gary Gensler, the former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission who led a yearslong crackdown on crypto fraud. The audience roared. He ended on a rousing note: 'We will make America and Bitcoin bigger, better, stronger, richer, freer, and greater than ever before.' This company asked most corporate employees to relocate to Chicago. The majority declined Trump administration orders Pennsylvania power plant to run through the summer Redfin: These 31 major housing markets have shifted to buyer's markets Some crypto activists were perturbed. Sure, Trump rallied behind Bitcoin as a source of industrial growth, but why wouldn't he commit to outright replacing banking with digital currencies? Trump failed to comment on the traditional banks, which crypto advocates thought were discriminating against them by shutting down their accounts, or fiat currency, which some crypto boosters hope to replace entirely. One year later, President Trump skipped out on the Bitcoin Conference, but he sent his envoys. The administration's crypto message has become even more muddled. While Vice President JD Vance emphasized that stablecoins regulated by the administration's new crypto proposal (the GENIUS Act) don't 'threaten the integrity of the U.S. dollar,' Eric Trump said that he'd like to see some major banks 'go extinct.' It seems no one will decide whether crypto is a strength to—or a replacement for—the U.S. financial system. Vice President Vance headlined the conference, where he struck a similar tone to Trump's 2024 speech. He emphasized that Bitcoin is part of the 'mainstream economy,' calling it a digital asset—but not a currency. Vance also promoted the GENIUS Act, which would set regulations for currency or commodity-backed stablecoins (crypto currencies pegged to fiat currency or other reference asset) so they could flow more freely. The bill has already passed through the Senate, and is waiting for a House vote. Vance promised that these coins wouldn't threaten the dollar. 'Dollar-pegged stablecoins, particularly once GENIUS is enacted, are only going to help the American economy and [are] only going to help the American dollar,' he claimed. Central to Trump's crypto strategy was the establishment of a Bitcoin reserve, allowing the government to collect and hold cryptocurrency from criminal or civil asset seizures. But whether this stockpile operates alongside, or in competition with dollar spending remains blurry. Bo Hines, the executive director of Trump's digital assets advisory, spoke of Bitcoin as something the government could grow endlessly. 'We want as much of it as we can possibly get,' he said at the conference. 'We're not going to sell any Bitcoin that we have in the U.S. government, period.' On the other hand, Trump's crypto czar David Sacks was more measured in his words. He said that he 'can't promise anything,' but that he hoped the government would be able to buy more Bitcoin. 'If either the Commerce Department or the Treasury Department can figure out how to fund it without adding to the debt, then they are allowed to create those programs,' he claimed. 'Maybe find the money from some other program that's not using it.' While they struck different tones, Vance, Hines, and Sacks all spoke of Bitcoin as an asset class. Whether it could constitute a new financial system—the currency's original mission—was outside the question. But Eric Trump—while not an administration official, is certainly influential on Trump policy—claimed that crypto could replace banking entirely: 'It makes everything cheaper, it makes it faster, it makes it safer, it makes it more transparent.' He said that he'd 'love to see some of the big banks go extinct.' Trump has backed crypto expansion forcefully, but his rationale remains slippery. At the recent Blockworks Digital Asset Summit, Trump told the audience that they will 'unleash an explosion of international growth,' but didn't explain how, other than a brief reference to stablecoins supporting the dollar. 'It is exciting to watch as you invent the future of finance,' Trump said, while not venturing to explain whether that future included traditional banks. Why is Trump so into crypto? Much of it is likely for personal gain. Trump has raked in millions on his memecoins and NFTs, sending cash directly to his wallet. Crypto advocates also helped Trump reach the White House in the first place. Their lobby has political heft: According to a New Yorker report, they tanked Katie Porter's California Senate bid after she expressed mere glimmers of anti-crypto rhetoric. But there's a political tension underlying Trump's crypto push. If he says that crypto will replace banking—or even fiat currency—traditional financiers could riot. But, if he claims that Bitcoin is merely an asset class and not the future of finance, he could anger the crypto community. For now, Trump and his administration will try to sit on both sides of the fence. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
