Tuesday, 7 July 2026
FIFA WC: Belgium shatter co-hosts USA's dream in the last 16
Tuesday, 23 June 2026
2026 FIFA WC: Record-breaking Messi helps Argentina reach knockouts with 2-0 win over Austria
Monday, 22 June 2026
India’s Zee Entertainment signs World Cup 2026 broadcast deal with FIFA
- FIFA has struck a deal with India’s Zee Entertainment to broadcast the World Cup in the country, ending a months-long standoff over the tournament’s availability in one of the last major markets where rights remained unsold.
- While the financial terms of the package – signed on Monday – were not disclosed, FIFA reportedly sought about $ 100 million for the 2026 and 2030 tournaments before slashing its asking price to $ 60 million.
- The deal gives Zee a toehold in India’s sports broadcast market, where the Reliance-Disney joint venture JioStar holds rights ranging from the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament to the English Premier League football.
- It covers 39 FIFA events over eight years through 2034, including the Women’s World Cup in 2027, according to a joint statement from FIFA and Zee.
- The agreement came just 10 days before the tournament kicks off on 11 June across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
- Only 14 out of the total 104 World Cup games will begin before midnight for fans in India.
- The final will be held in New Jersey on 19 July, beginning at 19:00 GMT, which will be 12:30 a.m. on 20 July in India. By comparison, 98.4% of matches at the 2018 World Cup started before midnight, and 82.5% at the following edition in Qatar. India’s Zee Entertainment signs World Cup 2026 broadcast deal with FIFA | Daily FT
Friday, 19 June 2026
FIFA WC 2026: Co-hosts Mexico beat Korea 1-0, become first team to qualify for knockouts
Sunday, 14 June 2026
‘It just feels like right time for me to step away’: Williamson on retirement decision
Saturday, 13 June 2026
Coffee, hope, and football: The World Cup’s sleepless return


Mexico City: Actress Salama Hayek is seen before the group A match between Mexico and South Africa at the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico City, Mexico, June 11, 2026. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)
Mexico City: Singers Andrea Bocelli (L) and Ejae perform before the group A match between Mexico and South Africa at the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico City, Mexico, June 11, 2026. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)
Toronto: People attend the FIFA World Cup 2026 Countdown Concert in Toronto, Canada, on Wednesday, June 10, 2026. Ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2026, the live music celebration was held simultaneously in Toronto, Los Angeles and Mexico City across Canada, the United States and Mexico. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)Wednesday, 3 June 2026
Anushka Sharma celebrates RCB's IPL win with a sweet kiss on Virat Kohli's forehead

Saturday, 30 May 2026
Messi headlines Argentina World Cup squad
Thursday, 28 May 2026
IPL 2026: Sooryavnshi, Archer power RR to Qualifier 2 with 47-run victory over SRH
Wednesday, 8 April 2026
IPL 2026: Jaiswal's unbeaten 77 helps RR beat Mumbai Indians by 27 runs in rain-hit match
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.

