Latest news with #MostafaBassim
Yahoo
a day ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
A baffling mistake turns a solid USMNT match into a missed opportunity, and a loss to Türkiye
CONNECTICUT, UNITED STATES - JUNE 7: Kenan Yildiz (11) of Turkiye in action against Johnny Cardoso (15) of USA during the friendly match between Turkiye and USA at Pratt and Whitney Stadium at Rentschler Field in East Hartford, Connecticut, United States on June 7, 2025. (Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images) For roughly 23 minutes on Saturday in Connecticut, a makeshift U.S. men's national team was oozing confidence. It was beating Türkiye, 1-0, in its first friendly of the summer. Recent debutants were dueling with established Turkish stars, and winning. This, after months of malaise, and with controversy fueled by missing stars lingering, was precisely what an ailing program needed. And then, with one careless pass and fluky bounce, all the positive vibes swirled down drains and back to ground zero. The USMNT ultimately lost to Türkiye, 2-1, at a dripping-wet Rentschler Field in East Hartford, Conn. It was their third straight loss, and seventh consecutive game against a European foe without a victory. In many ways, it was more of the same — uninspiring, and without progress. Advertisement But it was more so a missed opportunity. Because for two-thirds of the match, this makeshift USMNT outplayed a mostly-full-strength European quarterfinalist. Because of one baffling mistake, though, the U.S. had nothing material to show for it. The mistake was Johnny Cardoso's. In the 24th minute, he picked up the ball in his own penalty area; two touches later, he flicked it off the shin of Arda Güler — and it dribbled directly into the corner of the U.S. net. The foosball-like goal leveled the game at 1-1. And it shook the Americans. 'It was an emotional goal,' head coach Mauricio Pochettino said at halftime. In one moment, they were flowing and assured; when the game re-kicked off, they looked deflated. A couple minutes later, they conceded again, and the good vibes were clearly gone. Advertisement Johnny, who spent the opening 20 minutes playing like the commanding midfielder who's reportedly off to Atlético Madrid for $30 million, suddenly began gifting possession and counterattacks to his Turkish counterparts. Max Arfsten and even Diego Luna, who'd been bright spots early on, were also giving the ball away in their defensive half. U.S. defenders were suddenly shaky on and off the ball. Everyone was hesitant in duels. The game turned on its head, from an impressive U.S. performance to a troubling one. By the end of 90 minutes, it was more impressive than troubling. 'There's a lot more positives we can take away,' midfielder Tyler Adams told TNT afterwards. Adams replaced Cardoso at halftime, and the USMNT stabilized. Advertisement But its collection of reserves didn't quite have the quality to find an equalizer. And so, rather than a jumping-off point for a successful summer, Saturday's match became another forgettable one, far below the standard that the USMNT will need to meet as it looks toward the 2026 World Cup.
Business Mayor
17-05-2025
- Business
- Business Mayor
Temu And Shein Caught In The Crossfire Of Changing Tariff Policy
The U.S. $800 de minimis exemption for goods imported from China has been reduced but not cancelled. … More (Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images) Anadolu via Getty Images China's ultra cheap fashion and general goods giants may be out of the tariff frying pan for now, but tougher rules over the de minimis tariff mean they are still in the line of fire. While the Trump administration announced a temporary trade deal Monday that slashed tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% from 145% for a 90-day period while talks continue, tariff rules that hit direct to consumer imports have also been cut in half, but a $100 flat-fee option wasn't changed, the White House has explained. The de minimis tariff was initially seen as being left out of the wider deal, meaning a 120% tariff rate on shipments from China valued at less than $800, or a flat $100 fee per postal item, remained. However, the White House then released an explanatory text of the executive order, clarifying that the tariff rate wasn't reduced to 54%, but still maintaining the $100 fee option. That means many imports of low cost orders from the likes of Temu and Shein have still been priced out by the modified rules. A Latin term known only within the world of customs, de minimis has become the buzz phrase of the current trade war — broadly translating as 'too small to matter' — and relates specifically to small packages shipped directly to consumers from abroad, usually bypassing the warehouses and distribution hubs used to ship to store. De Minimis Limits Set High Such packages were shipped in huge quantities to the U.S. by China's online discount powerhouses, especially as the $800 ceiling in the U.S. is high compared with many other countries, having been raised in the U.S. by President Barack Obama from $200 in 2016. In neighboring Canada, it is about $40 and in Europe around $150. The exemption was originally designed to avoid unnecessary red tape expense when it could cost more to collect a duty than customs would receive from tax revenues. But with the threshold high in the U.S., around four million small packages claiming de minimis exemptions crossed into the U.S. daily last year, which was exploited by low-cost exporters such as Temu and Shein. The packages are also thought to be one of the ways in which opioid drugs such as fentanyl being smuggled into the U.S. – a huge area of focus for President Trump – and former President Joe Biden had also been looking at changing the de minimis rules during his administration. De Minimis Hits $46 Billion Market According to a White House fact sheet released in 2024, individual shipments to the U.S. claiming de minimis exemptions annually now exceed more than a billion, up from around 140 million a decade before. Nomura Holdings estimated that around $46 billion of U.S.-bound packages came from China last year, double China's own reckonings, although that remains just a small fraction of the value of total annual imports, which in 2024 were valued at over $5.3 trillion. Shein and Temu used the de minimis exemption to deliver direct to consumers. (Photo by RODRIGO … More ARANGUA / AFP) (Photo by RODRIGO ARANGUA/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images The clampdown on the de minimis exemption for imports from mainland China and Hong Kong means products normally using the loophole are now being channeled through customs and are incurring levies, meaning ecommerce deliveries from China are also likely to become slower and elongate delivery times as exporters switch to shipping over air cargo. With so many changes to the tariff rates, implementation dates, and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. administration and a host of countries around the world, the picture remains unclear and subject to change – possibly huge change. That for now is leaving the likes of China's Shein and Temu in limbo, and India could be the big winner in the post-tariff fall out at the expense of some Southeast Asian production countries, according to Ken Pilot, founder of Ken Pilot Ventures, speaking at the World Retail Congress in London this week. 'My big concern is southeast Asia, I think they will feel a bit of a bump, when you look at our big ally the U.K. having tariffs of 10%, perhaps we'll see Vietnam finish up at 25-30%,' he said. 'I can see India being the big winner and a lot more production moving to India. However, the challenge now is with this tariff decrease, everyone is going to want to get a boat and prices for shipping might go to pandemic levels. Speed to market and not over-producing your products are critical.'
Forbes
31-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
3 Challenges With Modern Day Economic Boycotts
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - MARCH 06: People walk past Target Store in Midtown Manhattan on March 06, ... More 2025 in New York City, United States. (Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images) In recent months, there's been no shortage of calls for boycotts for brands that have chosen to rollback their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, and Nestle are the latest companies organizers are urging consumers to stay away from for a time period. Thus far, results have been mixed. While Tesla stock is down, and website and foot traffic are down at Target in comparison the prior year, Amazon seems to be unscathed thus far. Boycotts are a go-to tool consumers use to make their voices heard and to exercise their power. One study showed that three quarters of consumers have parted ways with a brand due to a conflict in values. That same study showed that 39% of shoppers said they'd permanently boycott their favorite brand as a result of a conflict in values. In large part, as consumers become more values conscious, more of them are making decisions on their own about which brands to support and which brands they won't. However, it's the larger scale boycotts, like the ones being called for now that are feeling the impact of challenges that did not exist at the same levels back in the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. that saw mass boycotts making a big impact. Here are a few reasons why. As I've watched different leaders and consumers talk about the boycotts, one of the things that has become more clear is that there are plenty of people who've heard about the boycotts, but are choosing not to participate. One consumer on LinkedIn explained why she's opting out of the boycotts. 'Unpopular Opinion: I'm a Black Woman STILL shopping at Target and Amazon.' She went on to explain her point of view that 'grand gestures don't mean a thing if your daily actions don't match up. I'm still shopping at Target because my real work isn't in performative outrage – it's in showing up for people in real time." Dr. Anastasia Kārkliņa Gabriel is a culture expert and author of Cultural Intelligence for Marketers. She explains if not approached the right way, boycotts are often merely performative. 'For boycotts to be effective, people must be willing to move beyond symbolic platitudes and step into disciplined, long-term organizing. Without structure and strategy, most calls for boycotts remain performative rather than transformative. The outrage just fizzles out before the potential for real economic pressure is ever fully achieved.' During the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for civil rights was a core need. If you plotted civil rights on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it would likely fall in the base part of the hierarchy, between physiological and safety needs. The fight for basic rights were a priority for people, and something that was easier for people to get behind. Today's boycotts, in response to companies stance on diversity and inclusion, for many feels like it is higher up on the Hierarchy of Needs, more in the realm of love and belonging and esteem. Those differences, impact consumers' decision and ability to boycott. If someone is strapped economically, which in these days many consumers are, their choices of where to buy are going to be more driven by how. they can get their physiological needs met, such as food and clothing, in a manner that works with their budget. If for instance, Wal-mart is a place where they can get what they need to live at the lowest prices, in their hierarchy of needs, it may not be feasible for them to make choices that cause them to buy from places that are more expensive. One woman on Reddit wrote, 'we are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't acknowledge the privilege it takes to boycott.' And another wrote, 'I think what's missing from this conversation is that there's a lot of people that unfortunately don't have the choice to completely boycott due to issues like living in food desserts, affordability, and then things like time and convenience play a role as well when we get into certain demographics like people with children, the elderly, and the disabled.' Economic boycotting often isn't convenient, and often does involve sacrifice. But for some, because of their current circumstances and what they have to prioritize on their own hierarchy of needs, boycotting may not be a feasible option for them. The organizers for the boycott against retailer Target, have four demands of the brand, including reinstating its $2 billion dollar pledge to Black businesses, and to restore and expand the diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that were dismantled. And while it is smart to boycott with intention, which the organizers are doing, for some consumers, having to ask brands to do right by their community feels problematic. Some consumers feel like it gives off Meredith Grey's 'pick me, choose me, love me' type of energy from that iconic Grey's Anatomy scene early in the show's tenure. Die hard Grey's Anatomy fans know that after her 'pick me' plea, Meredith did not get picked. In talking about the boycotts on Reddit, one person wrote, 'None of these companies actually care about you.' Another wrote, 'I'm not against boycotting, but let's also be real: even the companies with some sort of DEI component (for now) don't [care] about Black people or anyone. They just want you to spend [your] money there.' Many consumers are choosing instead to buy from brands who are already demonstrating that they do care about them, and their communities. Dr. Gabriel agrees with this approach. Her advice to consumers to make an impact is to, 'Boycott, but don't stop there. As consumers, we ought to support businesses that have chosen not to succumb to fear-mongering and far-right extremism and have instead deliberately stood by their commitments.' She went on to add, 'Reward them with our patronage and dollars. There's no point in threatening brands if we're not also actively supporting those who are doing the right thing when it'd be so much easier to cave in. We have to reject what we don't want and also actively champion the change we want to see around us.'
