Tuesday, 7 July 2026
FIFA WC: Belgium shatter co-hosts USA's dream in the last 16
Saturday, 4 July 2026
Father and Son Break Three World Records in 18,000 Mile Cycle Around the World



Tuesday, 23 June 2026
2026 FIFA WC: Record-breaking Messi helps Argentina reach knockouts with 2-0 win over Austria
World Bank slashes global growth forecast, ready to deploy $ 100 b
- The World Bank Group has sharply downgraded its global growth outlook, warning that the escalating conflict in the Middle East will push global economic expansion to its weakest level since the COVID-19 pandemic, as higher energy prices, rising inflation and tighter financial conditions weigh on economies worldwide.
- In its latest Global Economic Prospects report released on Thursday, the World Bank forecast global growth to slow to 2.5% in 2026 from 2.9% in 2025, with forecasts for nearly two-thirds of economies revised downward since January.
- While growth is projected to recover modestly to 2.8% in 2027, it will remain 0.4 percentage points below the average recorded during the 2010s, highlighting the lasting economic scars from successive global shocks.
- The report warned that developing economies continue to face significant challenges, with growth expected to slow to a post-pandemic low of 3.6% in 2026 from 4.4% in 2025 before recovering to 4.2% in 2027.
- “Developing countries have faced a series of challenges over the last decade,” World Bank Group President Ajay Banga said. “The impact differs by country, but the basic test is the same: protect people and preserve stability today, without giving up on growth and jobs tomorrow.”
- According to the report, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has severely disrupted global energy markets, with Brent crude prices now expected to average $ 94 per barrel in 2026, representing a 36% increase over 2025 levels, assuming major supply disruptions ease by July.
- The Bank also warned of a significant rise in fertiliser prices, with knock-on effects on global food costs. Combined with higher energy prices, these developments are expected to push global inflation to 4% in 2026 from 3.3% last year.
- The World Bank cautioned that risks remain heavily tilted to the downside. In a more severe scenario involving prolonged energy supply disruptions and financial market stress, global growth could slow to just 1.3% in 2026 while inflation could accelerate further to 4.4%.
- Among regions, the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are expected to suffer the sharpest slowdown, with growth forecast to plunge from 3.9% in 2025 to 1.6% in 2026 before rebounding to 5% in 2027 as reconstruction spending gathers pace and trade flows normalise.
- South Asia is projected to remain the world’s fastest-growing region, although growth is expected to moderate to 6.3% in 2026 from 7% in 2025 before recovering to 6.9% in 2027.
- The report also highlighted growing vulnerabilities stemming from rising public debt burdens. Aggregate government debt across developing economies has climbed from less than 40% of GDP in 2010 to more than 70% of GDP today, increasing borrowing costs and limiting governments’ ability to respond to future crises.
- The World Bank noted that countries with elevated debt burdens face disproportionately higher financing costs, underscoring the importance of restoring fiscal buffers and reducing debt levels to create room for investment in infrastructure, healthcare and education.
- The report also pointed to the challenges facing commodity-exporting economies, which account for roughly two-thirds of developing countries and nearly 90% of low-income nations. While commodity price booms can generate substantial revenue windfalls, much of these gains are often spent rather than saved, leaving countries vulnerable when prices reverse.
- To manage volatility, the World Bank recommended stronger fiscal frameworks, sovereign wealth funds with stabilisation mandates, improved domestic revenue mobilisation and greater economic diversification.
- Against the backdrop of the Middle East crisis, the World Bank announced that it is immediately making available $ 50-60 billion through existing financing instruments, including $ 25 billion in pre-arranged financing, to help countries strengthen social safety nets, support fiscal capacity, and provide liquidity to businesses and farms.
- More than 30 countries are already working with the World Bank under the emergency response framework. If the conflict and its economic fallout persist, the institution said it stands ready to scale up support to between $ 80 billion and $ 100 billion over the next 15 months.
- World Bank Deputy Chief Economist and Prospects Group Director Ayhan Kose said the crisis also presents an opportunity for reform.“The conflict has taken a toll on global activity, but every crisis also brings an opportunity,” he said. “This moment should be used to strengthen policy frameworks, invest in infrastructure, accelerate business-enabling reforms, and mobilise private capital to support job creation at scale,” he said. World Bank slashes global growth forecast, ready to deploy $ 100 b | Daily FT
Friday, 19 June 2026
FIFA WC 2026: Co-hosts Mexico beat Korea 1-0, become first team to qualify for knockouts
Tuesday, 16 June 2026
Global AI spending expected to surge 47 pc to $2.59 trillion in 2026
Saturday, 13 June 2026
World Communication Awards 2026: Your chance to celebrate excellence

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)Thursday, 11 June 2026
Birth rates are declining in most of the world, including Australia. Here’s why that really matters
Liz Allen, Australian National University
Birth rates have been declining worldwide since the peak of the post-second world war baby boom. Birth rates have now reached below replacement in most of the world, including Australia. Put simply, populations on average aren’t replacing themselves.
Everyone from Elon Musk to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to the pope have opinions on declining total fertility (or birth) rates – the average number of births per woman.
Overpopulation has dominated popular discourse since the 1960s. While fears of overpopulation remain, especially tied to immigration, concerns have shifted to depopulation and the related economic and national security issues.
Overpopulation fears to depopulation woes
In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned the 1970s would bring “people, people, people, people” and an overpopulation “cancer” resulting in famine and war. Human extinction was imminent, we were warned.
Overpopulation-associated human extinction has not come to be.
The global total fertility rate has more than halved since 1950. Average birth rates for OECD countries now sit at 1.46 births per woman, well below the 2.1 required for generational replacement.
World population decline is projected by the mid-2080s. China is now in its fourth year of population decline. South Korea has been declining since 2019 with its near-global record low birth rates. Germany has seen deaths outnumber births since 1972. Japan, Greece, Italy, Cuba and Thailand are also among those in the depopulation club.
Without immigration, the United Kingdom would also see population decline, with deaths outnumbering births. Australia is about a generation away from the same fate. Immigration controls have seen depopulation in Canada.
Birth rates a solution to the ageing ‘problem’
Enormous advancements since the 1950s, mostly in health and medical technologies like immunisation, mean humans are living longer. We’re also having fewer children, and as a result populations are ageing.
An ageing population is a mark of success and human ingenuity, but economic systems tend to view ageing societies as problematic.
Workers and working-aged people are essential to maintain a healthy economy. Individual income taxpayers are the top source of federal government revenue in Australia. Too few people of working age replacing those retiring can seriously undermine economic wellbeing, forcing governments to do more service provision with less financial resources.
Below-replacement fertility and its implications for government bottom lines have resulted in Australian politicians calling on Australians to have more babies. “Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, treasurer Peter Costello famously said in 2004.
In 2020, former prime minister Tony Abbott suggested the wrong kind of women were having children, calling on “middle class” women to have more. Talking the budget, treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2024 said it would be “better if birth rates were higher”.
Human catastrophe of low birth rates
People are increasingly saying the choice to have children is constrained by external factors. Worldwide, around one-in-five surveyed by the United Nations said fears about the future would or has resulted in them having fewer children than they wanted.
Housing affordability, economic stability, gender inequality and climate change present insurmountable barriers for having a much-wanted family.
The lack of choice to have children in below-replacement regions, I’d argue is indeed a human catastrophe. How is it that we’ve allowed society to become so hostile that children are out of the question for so many who want them?
The intergenerational bargain is well and truly corrupted.
We are confronted with the tough question of who will care for us with the children gone.
Can a human catastrophe be avoided?
The burden of having a family falls on working-aged people, especially women.
A baby bonus or one-off payment is unlikely to change people’s minds and increase the total fertility rate; such payments merely change timing. Instead, increasing total fertility rates requires a comprehensive suite of measures from a policy perspective.
Tackling the big four big domains of housing, the economy, gender and climate encompass issues such as
- secure, affordable and appropriate housing
- employment and income security
- accessible childcare
- social and workplace gender equality
- climate change action.
People of childbearing age aren’t being hedonistic when making family and fertility decisions. They’re not thinking about themselves, they’re actually thinking about the future world and weighing what that might look like for prospective children.
Loss of hope among people of childbearing age, including fears of being left behind, contribute to overall concerns about an insecure future.
Not only is the human catastrophe of low births rates reflecting more widespread concerns, such as insecurity, it could also be undermining social cohesion.
Rather than an exploding bomb of overpopulation, the world faces an economic and social implosion due to lacking substantive supports necessary to help raise much-wanted children.
Surely it’s beyond time we ask people what they actually need – and give it to them.![]()
Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Saturday, 30 May 2026
Messi headlines Argentina World Cup squad
Monday, 4 May 2026
AI demand to push global chip industry revenue past $1.3 trillion in 2026
Thursday, 30 April 2026
25 multinationals named to Fortune World’s Best Workplaces list


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

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




