Tuesday, 31 March 2026
IPL 2026: Sooryavanshi’s blistering 52 helps RR register eight-wicket win over CSK
Sunday, 15 March 2026
Formula 1: Bahrain, Saudi Arabian Grands Prix canceled
Saturday, 14 March 2026
Can the 2026 FIFA World Cup still be a force for global unity?
Paul R. Carr, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) and Alexis Legault, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
The FIFA Men’s World Cup will unfold across North America from June 11 to July 19, co-hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. This year’s event will be the largest ever, with some 48 countries represented.
The FIFA 2026 World Cup was awarded in 2018 and preparations have been ongoing ever since. However, the U.S. has significantly altered course since the election of Donald Trump in January 2025.
The international community is facing an onslaught of actions, threats and rhetoric from the U.S. government, which has led to chaos, confusion, instability and massive political, economic and sociocultural vulnerability.
As a result, calls have emerged to boycott the tournament, including from former FIFA president Sepp Blatter.
It’s clearly late in the game to consider adjusting, transferring, suspending or altering this thoroughly planned international event. The implications for changing the status of the FIFA 2026 tournament are numerous and far-reaching.
Why consider a boycott now?
A series of recent American actions raises serious questions about its suitability to host the FIFA World Cup at this time.
These include destabilizing allies, imposing tariffs without clear justification, launching a military attacking on Iran with Israel, attacking Venezuela and capturing its president, threatening to annex Greenland and Canada, eliminating USAID and putting millions of people at risk of disease, illness, famine and death and overseeing the violence inflicted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents that endangers citizens and residents.
In addition, the fair and equitable treatment of people seeking to visit the U.S. cannot be assured. People from many countries would effectively be barred from visiting the U.S. to attend the event because of current American policy.
There is a serious threat of people being detained, surveilled and persecuted. Racial profiling is a particular concern given how ICE has maneuvered in immigrant communities in the U.S.
Many are also concerned about violence within the U.S., which is disproportionately higher than in most western countries.
At the same time, the U.S. has withdrawn from numerous international organizations and agreements, the antithesis of co-operation on global issues, shutting down the potential for meaningful and necessary dialogue.
All these realities fly in the face of the spirit and solidarity of global sporting events like the World Cup that aim to cultivate peace and intercultural understanding.
FIFA’s record
Allegations of corruption and bribery within FIFA have persisted for years. They have been documented in a U.S. Department of Justice indictment and in FIFA’s own Garcia Report.
FIFA is sensitive to these complaints, and some reforms have been implemented to make the organization more transparent and credible, but many groups still argue the corruption is rampant.
Human rights have long been an issue at FIFA events. The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar prompted concerns related to LGBTQ+ rights, with many players wearing the “One Love” armband in protest. It also raised concerns over the rights of workers and migrants, who were exploited and faced discrimination.
There are also environmental concerns related to the carbon footprint of such a large event. However, the counter-claim of the event fostering global solidarity is an equally strong justification for it.
FIFA is lathered in capitalist trappings, and there is a great deal of profit to be made for a small number of people. The 2026 World Cup is expected to bring in more than US$10 billion for the organization.
It is unclear how local taxpayers and citizens benefit economically from holding the World Cup, especially given that they underwrite many of the costs through their taxes.
Similarly, the marketing, television and dissemination rights present a lucrative landscape, yet that funding does little to fight poverty, hunger and unacceptable living conditions for many.
Do boycotts work?
There is some debate about the effectiveness of boycotting. The boycotts of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, following the invasion of Afghanistan, and of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet bloc in retaliation, did not produce substantive political change.
Some questioned the enormity of eliminating the potential for intercultural and diplomatic interaction.
By contrast, the sporting boycott of apartheid-era South Africa from 1964 to 1992 did help contribute to significant change in the country.
The ongoing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel — although not supported by the U.S. and many other countries — has had varying success, but the very fact that it exists and is supported by many is politically significant.
The costs of boycotting now
Altering or boycotting the tournament at this stage would inevitably punish national teams and athletes for political considerations beyond their reach. The FIFA event could generate goodwill, promote global understanding and bring people together, especially in relation to nations from the Global South that are often portrayed negatively.
Some argue a boycott would affect players and fans more than FIFA itself. The economic repercussions of a boycott would also be substantial. Yet the very notion of a boycott is that it does, and should, affect and influence attitudes, behaviours and actions.
Others have suggested alternative avenues for change, including through organized protests and social movement mobilization.
Other alternative proposals for enacting change include targeted boycotts against certain sponsors, institutions and sectors. Some activists may wish to target a policy, such as the assault on migrants in the U.S. or corruption within FIFA.
A force for the global public good?
Boycotts are complicated and have been more commonly related to the Olympic Games than the World Cup. However, citizens and activists alike seek opportunities to develop a more just and equitable world.
In 2021, there were also great concerns regarding human rights violations. Interestingly, while a Statista survey of 4,201 respondents across 120 countries found that most respondents believed their country should boycott the 2022 World cup in Qatar, very few soccer fans were willing to boycott it themselves.
But FIFA isn’t a political party; it’s a business and sports organization. Although considered favourable, it does not need the population to approve its decisions, and sponsors are at risk of being targeted and tarnished if public sentiment turns sharply against the event.
Will the FIFA World Cup provide the opportunity for the U.S. to address problems of racism, gender discrimination, the mantra to annex other countries, ICE overreach and denigration against migrants? Or will such issues be simply swept under the carpet?
The tournament could offer a platform to engage with the world through diplomacy grounded in sovereignty, human rights and mutual benefit. A tri-national hosting arrangement with Canada and Mexico may yet foster cross-border co-operation, even amid strained relations.
The current U.S. political climate does not provide an encouraging model to move the FIFA World Cup toward peace and solidarity currently, but the world is in desperate need for it to do so.![]()
Paul R. Carr, Professeur/Professor (Université du Québec en Outaouais) & Titulaire/Chair, Chaire UNESCO en démocratie, citoyenneté mondiale et éducation transformatoire/ UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education., Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) and Alexis Legault, PhD Candidate in Education, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Monday, 9 March 2026
T20 WC: Samson, Bumrah star as India clinch third title, beat New Zealand by 96 runs
Thursday, 26 February 2026
Ronaldo 'should never stop playing football', insists fellow Real Madrid legend Roberto Carlos
Tuesday, 17 February 2026
Italy hosted the Winter Olympics 70 years ago. What was it like, and what’s changed?
Richard Baka, Victoria University
The 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics are Italy’s fourth as Olympic host and come 70 years after the region first welcomed the world’s best winter athletes.
It is Italy’s third Winter Olympics, second only to the United States (four), reinforcing the nation’s long-standing influence within the Olympic movement.
So, what’s changed since 1956?
Looking back: Cortina d’Ampezzo 1956
The 1956 winter games were originally scheduled for 1944 but were postponed due to the second world war, eventually taking place in Cortina d’Ampezzo.
It was groundbreaking in several ways.
The games ran for 11 days, far shorter than this year’s 17-day program.
Italian skier Giuliana Chenal-Minuzzo became the first woman to recite the Olympic Oath at an opening ceremony.
For the first time, the Winter Olympics were broadcast live on television, albeit in black and white, to nine European nations.
In 1956, winter and summer games were held in the same year, (Melbourne hosted the Summer Olympics that year).
This changed in 1994, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) moved them to alternating even-numbered years, significantly boosting the profile, commercial appeal and growth of the Winter Olympics.
From centralised to decentralised hosting
Cortina 1956 featured a highly centralised model, with eight venues clustered within the Dolomites mountain range.
In contrast, Milan Cortina in 2026 reflects the IOC’s modern strategy of decentralisation and sustainability.
The spread-out nature of the 2026 event features:
- four main geographical clusters (Milan, Cortina d'Ampezzo, Valtellina and Val di Fiemme) plus Verona (opening and closing ceremonies)
- 15 competition venues
- two host cities – the first time in Olympic history, separated by 413 kilometres
- six Olympic villages
- four opening ceremony locations.
With Milan as a major metropolitan hub, the 2026 games are far more urban than their alpine predecessor.
Growth of the winter games
The expansion from 70 years ago is striking:
New, youth-friendly and broadcast-driven sports such as short-track speed skating, snowboarding and freestyle skiing have transformed the program.
The only new sport in 2026 will be ski mountaineering.
Near-gender parity will be achieved through expanded women’s events and mixed-gender competitions.
Leading nations on the medal table
In 1956, the dominant nations were mainly European – the Soviet Union, Austria, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland as well as the US.
This year, the podium will likely be owned by Norway, the US, Germany, Italy, China and Canada – the latter two making huge improvements in recent times.
Even Australia, a summer games powerhouse, which never made the podium until 1994, has improved dramatically and is expected to have its best result of around six medals, placing it in the top 15.
The Russians will be noticeably absent, forced out by the IOC due to the Ukrainian invasion. They will be allowed to have neutral athletes who can win medals but as a nation they are on the outer.
Paralympics, professionalism and equity
The 2026 Winter Paralympics will follow immediately after the Olympics – something that did not exist in 1956.
The Winter Paralympics first appeared in 1976 and only began sharing host cities with the Olympics in 1992.
Other major shifts since 1956 include:
- expanded women’s participation, including ice hockey (introduced in 1998)
- the end of strict amateur-only participation (phased out after 1986)
- increased financial rewards for medal winners
- the return of professional National Hockey League male players for the first time since 2014 – a major boost for fans and broadcasters.
Media, technology and the fan experience
Media coverage has exploded since 1956 with the ability to follow every sport, every event on television and radio, digital platforms, newspaper and print media, blogs, podcasts and social media.
Technological changes over the past seven decades have been dramatic. This includes:
- extensive new types of media coverage
- use of artificial intelligence
- equipment design
- athlete apparel innovation
- snow-making capabilities
- venue design and preparation
- transportation improvements
- monitoring of athlete performance and training methods.
Fan experience will be greatly enhanced and transformed through:
- fan zones and live sites
- Olympic-affiliated cultural events
- sponsor and National Olympic Committee hospitality venues nicknamed “party houses” spread across all four clusters
- athlete and inclusion-focused initiatives such as Athlete365 House and Pride House.
Costs, sustainability and climate challenges
The 1956 games operated on a modest budget of around US$250,000 (A$350,000).
The 2026 event is projected to cost around US$5.9 billion (A$8.3 billion) for operating and infrastructure expenses.
Cost escalation is driven by inflation, transport and accommodation, security requirements, venue construction and technology.
Balancing this are vastly increased revenues from broadcast rights, sponsorship and ticketing.
Most Olympic hosts end up losing money. The list is long, with Montreal (1976), Nagano (1998), Athens (2004), Sochi (2014), Rio (2016), Tokyo (2020/21) and others all going well over budget.
Sustainability and legacy – barely considered in 1956 – are now central.
The IOC strongly discourages “white elephant” venues, prioritising temporary facilities, venue reuse and carbon reduction.
Climate change remains a long-term concern. While snow was imported for some events in 1956, global warming now threatens the future pool of viable hosts.
Geopolitics, governance and security
The election of Kirsty Coventry as the first woman president of the IOC underscores the organisation’s broader push toward gender equity in leadership.
Under her guidance, the IOC is looking to implement firmer policies on transgender participation.
No major boycotts by nations are expected despite tension caused by the expulsion of Russia and Belarus.
Several international sport federations – supported by some European nations – have even restricted these two banned national Olympic teams from participating as individual neutral athletes.
For the 2026 games, doping controls are stricter than ever, led by the IOC and the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Security planning is at an all-time high. It now includes cyber-threats as well as physical risks.
Watch this space
Seventy years after Cortina d’Ampezzo hosted a modest, alpine-focused winter games, Milan Cortina 2026 represents a vastly expanded, technologically sophisticated and globally connected Olympic festival.
Despite challenges – climate, cost and geopolitics – all indicators suggest the games will deliver a compelling, inclusive and memorable celebration of winter sport.![]()
Richard Baka, Honorary Professor, School of Kinesiology, Western University, London, Canada; Adjunct Fellow, Olympic Scholar and Co-Director of the Olympic and Paralympic Research Centre, Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Monday, 16 February 2026
Winter Olympics face an existential chill from climate change
Saturday, 14 February 2026
Winter Olympics face an existential chill from climate change
.jpg)
Friday, 6 February 2026
AI is coming to Olympic judging: what makes it a game changer?
Willem Standaert, Université de Liège
As the International Olympic Committee (IOC) embraces AI-assisted judging, this technology promises greater consistency and improved transparency. Yet research suggests that trust, legitimacy, and cultural values may matter just as much as technical accuracy.
The Olympic AI agenda
In 2024, the IOC unveiled its Olympic AI Agenda, positioning artificial intelligence as a central pillar of future Olympic Games. This vision was reinforced at the very first Olympic AI Forum, held in November 2025, where athletes, federations, technology partners, and policymakers discussed how AI could support judging, athlete preparation, and the fan experience.
At the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano-Cortina, the IOC is considering using AI to support judging in figure skating (men’s and women’s singles and pairs), helping judges precisely identify the number of rotations completed during a jump. Its use will also extend to disciplines such as big air, halfpipe, and ski jumping (ski and snowboard events where athletes link jumps and aerial tricks), where automated systems could measure jump height and take-off angles. As these systems move from experimentation to operational use, it becomes essential to examine what could go right… or wrong.
Judged sports and human error
In Olympic sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, which rely on panels of human judges, AI is increasingly presented by international federations and sports governing bodies as a solution to problems of bias, inconsistency, and lack of transparency. Judging officials must assess complex movements performed in a fraction of a second, often from limited viewing angles, for several hours in a row. Post-competition reviews show that unintentional errors and discrepancies between judges are not exceptions.
This became tangible again in 2024, when a judging error involving US gymnast Jordan Chiles at the Paris Olympics sparked major controversy. In the floor final, Chiles initially received a score that placed her fourth. Her coach then filed an inquiry, arguing that a technical element had not been properly credited in the difficulty score. After review, her score was increased by 0.1 points, temporarily placing her in the bronze medal position. However, the Romanian delegation contested the decision, arguing that the US inquiry had been submitted too late – exceeding the one-minute window by four seconds. The episode highlighted the complexity of the rules, how difficult it can be for the public to follow the logic of judging decisions, and the fragility of trust in panels of human judges.
Moreover, fraud has also been observed: many still remember the figure skating judging scandal at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. After the pairs event, allegations emerged that a judge had favoured one duo in exchange for promised support in another competition – revealing vote-trading practices within the judging panel. It is precisely in response to such incidents that AI systems have been developed, notably by Fujitsu in collaboration with the International Gymnastics Federation.
What AI can (and cannot) fix in judging
Our research on AI-assisted judging in artistic gymnastics shows that the issue is not simply whether algorithms are more accurate than humans. Judging errors often stem from the limits of human perception, as well as the speed and complexity of elite performances – making AI appealing. However, our study involving judges, gymnasts, coaches, federations, technology providers, and fans highlights a series of tensions.
AI can be too exact, evaluating routines with a level of precision that exceeds what human bodies can realistically execute. For example, where a human judge visually assesses whether a position is properly held, an AI system can detect that a leg or arm angle deviates by just a few degrees from the ideal position, penalising an athlete for an imperfection invisible to the naked eye.
While AI is often presented as objective, new biases can emerge through the design and implementation of these systems. For instance, an algorithm trained mainly on male performances or dominant styles may unintentionally penalise certain body types.
In addition, AI struggles to account for artistic expression and emotions – elements considered central in sports such as gymnastics and figure skating. Finally, while AI promises greater consistency, maintaining it requires ongoing human oversight to adapt rules and systems as disciplines evolve.
Action sports follow a different logic
Our research shows that these concerns are even more pronounced in action sports such as snowboarding and freestyle skiing. Many of these disciplines were added to the Olympic programme to modernise the Games and attract a younger audience. Yet researchers warn that Olympic inclusion can accelerate commercialisation and standardisation, at the expense of creativity and the identity of these sports.
A defining moment dates back to 2006, when US snowboarder Lindsey Jacobellis lost Olympic gold after performing an acrobatic move – grabbing her board mid-air during a jump – while leading the snowboard cross final. The gesture, celebrated within her sport’s culture, eventually cost her the gold medal at the Olympics. The episode illustrates the tension between the expressive ethos of action sports and institutionalised evaluation.
AI judging trials at the X Games
AI-assisted judging adds new layers to this tension. Earlier research on halfpipe snowboarding had already shown how judging criteria can subtly reshape performance styles over time. Unlike other judged sports, action sports place particular value on style, flow, and risk-taking – elements that are especially difficult to formalise algorithmically.
Yet AI was already tested at the 2025 X Games, notably during the snowboard SuperPipe competitions – a larger version of the halfpipe, with higher walls that enable bigger and more technical jumps. Video cameras tracked each athlete’s movements, while AI analysed the footage to generate an independent performance score. This system was tested alongside human judging, with judges continuing to award official results and medals. However, the trial did not affect official outcomes, and no public comparison has been released regarding how closely AI scores aligned with those of human judges.
Nonetheless, reactions were sharply divided: some welcomed greater consistency and transparency, while others warned that AI systems would not know what to do when an athlete introduces a new trick – something often highly valued by human judges and the crowd.
Beyond judging: training, performance and the fan experience
The influence of AI extends far beyond judging itself. In training, motion tracking and performance analytics increasingly shape technique development and injury prevention, influencing how athletes prepare for competition. At the same time, AI is transforming the fan experience through enhanced replays, biomechanical overlays, and real-time explanations of performances. These tools promise greater transparency, but they also frame how performances are understood – adding more “storytelling” “ around what can be measured, visualised, and compared.
At what cost?
The Olympic AI Agenda’s ambition is to make sport fairer, more transparent, and more engaging. Yet as AI becomes integrated into judging, training, and the fan experience, it also plays a quiet but powerful role in defining what counts as excellence. If elite judges are gradually replaced or sidelined, the effects could cascade downward – reshaping how lower-tier judges are trained, how athletes develop, and how sports evolve over time. The challenge facing Olympic sports is therefore not only technological; it is institutional and cultural: how can we prevent AI from hollowing out the values that give each sport its meaning?

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!![]()
Willem Standaert, Associate Professor, Université de Liège
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Tuesday, 3 February 2026
Aus Open: Alcaraz ends Djokovic’s perfect finals record to win first Australian Open title in Melbourne
Friday, 30 January 2026
Aus Open: Rybakina brushes past Pegula to set up final showdown with Sabalenka
Monday, 26 January 2026
3rd T20I: Abhishek, Suryakumar shine as India clinch series with 3-0 lead
Sunday, 11 January 2026
FA Cup: Chelsea beat Charlton Athletic; Macclesfield knock out holders Crystal Palace in greatest upset
Wednesday, 7 January 2026
FIDE World Rapid Chess Championship ends in Doha
.jpg)
Sunday, 4 January 2026
A resounding year that saw Indian men's hockey team retain Asia No.1 status
Friday, 19 December 2025
GOAT India Tour: Messi leaves fans, celebrities mesmerised; gets signed India jersey from Tendulkar
Mumbai: Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis with Argentine football icon Lionel Messi during an event held as part of the latter’s ‘G.O.A.T. India Tour 2025’ at the Wankhede Stadium, in Mumbai on Sunday, December 14, 2025. (Photo: IANS/CMO)
Mumbai: Former cricketer Harbhajan Singh with Argentine football icon Lionel Messi during an event held as part of the latter’s ‘G.O.A.T. India Tour 2025’ at the Wankhede Stadium, in Mumbai on Sunday, December 14, 2025. (Photo: IANS/instagram/@harbhajan3)
Mumbai: Argentine football icon Lionel Messi with Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and actors Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff and others during an event held as part of his ‘G.O.A.T. India Tour 2025’ at the Wankhede Stadium, in Mumbai on Sunday, December 14, 2025. (Photo: IANS)
