
Monday, 30 March 2026
19 Cities Including London, San Francisco, Hong Kong Achieve ‘Remarkable Reductions’ in Air Pollution

Sunday, 22 March 2026
25 multinationals named to Fortune World’s Best Workplaces list


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.
Thursday, 12 March 2026
Teacher Wins $1M Prize for Turning India's Slums Into Hundreds of Open-Air Classrooms



Monday, 9 March 2026
T20 WC: Samson, Bumrah star as India clinch third title, beat New Zealand by 96 runs
Sunday, 1 March 2026
Emirates Flight Catering opens world’s largest vertical farm in Dubai



- Agronomy experts at BustanicaBustanica has unveiled its 330,000 sq. ft. environmentally controlled farm facility, with an investment of $ 40 m
- Bustanica will annually save in excess of 250 million litres of water and produce over 1 million kg of produce that are free of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals
Wednesday, 18 February 2026
India overtakes Japan as world’s fourth-largest economy at $ 4.18 t

Tuesday, 10 February 2026
25 years of flight around the world



Friday, 6 February 2026
7.1 million cancer cases worldwide preventable, tobacco biggest culprit: WHO
Sunday, 1 February 2026
World’s Most Northern Electric Ferry Now Sailing in Frigid -13°F Temps (-25°C)

Friday, 30 January 2026
Aus Open: Rybakina brushes past Pegula to set up final showdown with Sabalenka
Tuesday, 20 January 2026
Renewables Overtake Coal as World’s Biggest Source of Electricity

Friday, 9 January 2026
Millions of hectares are still being cut down every year. How can we protect global forests?
David Clode/Unsplash, CC BY
Kate Dooley, The University of Melbourne
Ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Belém last month, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva urged world leaders to agree to roadmaps away from fossil fuels and deforestation and pledge the resources to meet these goals.
After failing to secure consensus, COP president Andre Corrêa do Lago announced these roadmaps as a voluntary initiative. Brazil will report back on progress at next year’s UN climate summit, COP31, when it hands the presidency to Turkey and Australia chairs the negotiations.
Why now?
These goals originate in the outcomes of the first global stocktake of the world’s progress towards the Paris Agreement goals, undertaken in 2023.
At the COP28 talks in Dubai in that year, there was an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels and to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.
Yet achieving these goals relies on a “just transition”, where no country is left behind in the transition to a low-carbon future, including a “core package” of public finance to address climate adaptation, and loss and damage. The Belém outcome fell short.
Forests need urgent protection
Forest loss and degradation is continuing, at an average rate of 25 million hectares a year over the last decade, according to the Global Forest Watch. This is 63% higher than the rate needed to meet existing targets to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Yet the climate pledges submitted for the Belém COP remain far off track from this goal.
In the 2025 Land Gap Report, my colleagues and I calculated the scale of this “forest gap” – the gap between 2030 targets and the plans countries are putting forward in their climate pledges.
We show the pledges submitted up until this year’s climate summit would cut deforestation by less than 50% by 2030, meaning forests spanning almost 4 million hectares would still be cut down. The pledges would lead to forest degradation – where the ecological integrity of a forest area is diminished – of almost 16 million hectares. This is only a 10% reduction on current rates.
Together, this equates to an anticipated “forest gap” of around 20 million hectares expected to be lost or degraded each year by 2030. That’s about twice the size of South Korea.
While this underscores the inadequacy of commitments, the analysis is based on pledges submitted up to the start of November 2025, at which point only 40% of countries had submitted an updated plan. Major pledges submitted during COP31, such as from the European Union and China, don’t change this analysis.
This graph shows that deforestation will only slightly decline to 2030. The Land Gap Report, author supplied., CC BY-NDForest wins in Belém
A new fund for forest conservation called the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was launched in Brazil, attracting $US6.7 billion in pledges ($A9.9 billion).
The forest fund focuses on tropical deforestation, the leading cause of emissions from forest loss. But it has a key weakness: the limited monitoring of forest degradation, which could allow countries to receive payments while still logging primary forests.
The fund will establish a science committee and plans to revise monitoring indicators over the next three years, creating an opportunity to strengthen its ability to protect tropical forests.
The COP30 leaders’ summit also saw the launch of a historic pledge of $US1.8 billion ($A2.7 billion) to support conservation and recognition of 160 million hectares of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ territories in tropical forest countries.
But global action on forests needs to extend beyond the tropics. Across both deforestation and forest degradation, countries in the global north are responsible for over half of global tree cover loss over the past decade.
Beyond tropical forests
A global accountability framework on forests is needed to increase ambition on climate action, including in countries and regions with extensive forests outside of the tropics, such as Australia, Canada and Europe.
In these regions, industrial logging is a major driver of tree-cover loss but receives far less political attention than tropical deforestation. Wide gaps in reporting – between deforestation and degradation – mean logging-related degradation often goes unreported.
In a recent report, only 59 countries said they monitor forest degradation. Of these, almost three-quarters are tropical forest countries.
The IUCN World Conservation Congress which convened in Abu Dhabi this year prior to the climate talks, passed a motion on delivering equitable accountability and means of implementation for international forest protection goals. This arose from a recognised need to promote greater equity between forest protection standards across countries.
All of this points to an urgent need to tackle accountability in global forest governance. The forest roadmap to be developed for COP31 in Turkey could help drive stronger alignment and transparency across UN processes – from the UN Forum on Forests’ 2017–2030 plan to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s 2030 target to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.
Australia could lead on forests
Australia could help shape global forest ambition in the year ahead. It is currently the only country whose emissions pledge promises to halt and reverse deforestation and degradation by 2030 – a clear signal that developed countries must lead.
As President of Negotiations at COP31, Australia can also work to bring Brazil’s fossil-fuel and forest roadmaps into formal negotiations. But this depends on two things: credible leadership from developed countries and long-overdue climate finance. As a deforestation hotspot with ongoing native forest logging, Australia has considerable work to do to meet this responsibility.![]()
Kate Dooley, Senior Research Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Wednesday, 7 January 2026
FIDE World Rapid Chess Championship ends in Doha
.jpg)

