BRUSSELS — Forty-four members of the European Parliament are urging FIFA President Gianni Infantino to reverse his decision to allow Russian athletes to play at this year’s inaugural U-15 World Cup in Azerbaijan.
They argue that Russia should not be readmitted to FIFA competitions until it enters peace negotiations with Ukraine, ceases fire and agrees to return children kidnapped from Ukrainian territories.
In a letter obtained by POLITICO, the lawmakers criticize global football body FIFA for ignoring what they described as “around 20,000 Ukrainian children … forcibly kidnapped and separated from their families by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s regime.”
“We urge FIFA to stand on the side of peace and not appease the aggressor – Russia,” the letter reads.
After Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine in 2022, FIFA banned Russia from participating in all of its football competitions. FIFA lifted the blanket ban for youth competitions in 2023, but Russian teams have not played in its U-17 World Cups since.
FIFA announced last week its first U-15 World Cup, in which boys and girls will compete this October in Azerbaijan. At the time, the organization announced that the competition would be open to “all FIFA member associations,” opening the door to Russia’s participation.
Infantino said in February that FIFA should lift its ban on Russia, saying that bans “create more hatred.”
The European lawmakers argue that allowing Russia to participate could lead other member countries to boycott the competition, a stance they call “very understandable.” They argue that this would “distort FIFA sporting events, where the principle that the best team wins will no longer prevail.” Ukraine’s football federation has previously said it would not participate in competitions with Russia.
In March of 2022, Russia appealed the FIFA ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The body dismissed Russia’s claim. Russia’s gradual return to other sports has triggered outrage in Ukraine and been denounced by the EU.
In the Supreme Court term that began in October 2025, the justices delivered major decisions in cases ranging from voting rights to citizenship to presidential power. The Conversation’s Politics and Legal Affairs Editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal judge, about the court’s session.
They focused on two recent decisions: birthright citizenship, which the justices affirmed, and a Mississippi state law that allows mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received up to five days later and still be counted, which national and state Republican parties challenged and lost.
Schalit: Two of the court’s conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberals in saying that the Mississippi mail-in ballots law did not violate federal law and could stand. What do you make of this ruling?
Jones: The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is really emblematic of an emerging pragmatic conservatism that she and the chief justice are showing, which is heartening to see, regardless of whether you agree with their judicial philosophy. Justice Barrett properly cast the question not as one of constitutional import but merely as an interpretation of Congress’ laws that mandate that federal elections be held on the same day. Notably those laws are silent on the issue of when ballots must be received, which has been left to individual states to regulate.
Justice Barrett actually sounded kind of sharp, almost scolding, in the opinion in her criticism of the assertions made by the plaintiffs and some of the justices in the minority. Is that tone typical?
I perceive an increase in what I would characterize as sort of judicial invective among the members of this court. I don’t love that, but sometimes you have to get your elbows up to make a strong point when you’re on an appellate court.
I suspect one of her problems was the sheer illogic of the dissent’s parade of possible horribles if you allow ballots to be counted after Election Day, which really flies in the face of the increasing adoption of mail-in voting. To have the dissenters hearken back to the 19th century and discourse about voting customs then was inapt, and the justice called them on it. She recognized that in the real world today, there are mechanisms that allow for the orderly counting of ballots after Election Day.
Justice Barrett wrote: “Notably plaintiffs admit that they cannot precisely tie this historical practice to the text of the election day statutes. That is a delicately put understatement.”
These types of suits, such as this one brought by the Republican National Committee, plainly intend to promote voter suppression. This traditionally helps Republican candidates. I don’t think the majority was blind to that purpose. Perhaps the justice’s visceral reaction was triggered by that attempted charade.
This lawsuit is really a smaller version of what the president is trying to do with the SAVE Act, which is to cut off mail-in voting, absentee voting and any counting after the election. This is based on a canard – that allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day necessarily triggers rampant fraud.
In effect, the dissenters are parroting what the current administration is saying in support of the SAVE Act, and we know that there is no empirical evidence to support those contentions. Adopting the Republican National Committee’s position would necessarily disenfranchise voters in the military and law-abiding citizens who are permitted to vote absentee or by mail and have their ballots postmarked at or prior to Election Day. That’s simply not consistent with how we view the franchise of voting in a democracy.
Birthright citizenship – the constitutional principle that almost anyone born in the U.S. gets citizenship – has broad support among Americans. The Supreme Court’s ruling strongly affirmed that right, Yet four justices did not vote to affirm birthright citizenship as a right ensured by the 14th Amendment, and some say that was alarming and points to a future of further challenges. What are your thoughts?
It ended up being a closer decision than I would have thought. But I don’t share the alarm. The only path for those who want to restrict birthright citizenship henceforth is a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely to pass. So I’m not unduly concerned by the margin. I think the majority, through the chief justice, spoke clearly and appropriately about the 14th Amendment.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship on Jan. 20, 2025. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
The president has said in response to the ruling, “I’ll just get Congress to change things.”
He’s wrong.
That assumes that Congress can overwrite a constitutional right in the 14th Amendment that’s now clearly established by precedent. They cannot do so. The only way to change the court’s ruling is either to have a subsequent court reverse it or through the amendment process.
Good luck with either. For now, the door is closed.
As a former federal judge, what is it like to deal with such heavily politicized cases? Does it change how judges deal with them? Did you see methods of dealing with politically oriented cases at the court that looked different than how they might deal with cases that were not political in origin?
No, I don’t. In the end the court did its job, agree or not with the decisions.
They’re in a highly polarized environment, and so it’s easy for a jaded public to feel that everything they do is akin to the actions of politicians in black robes. I don’t adhere to that view, even though I may not agree with everything that the court has done.
One of the notions the court debunked is that it’s fully in the tank with the president, and that he just can run the table in these cases at will. That clearly was not the case, even though, of course, several of the opinions tilted in favor of the strong unitary executive theory. That doesn’t mean that I am in accord with everything the court held.
If you go back several years to the immunity case opinion by the chief justice – which gave ex-presidents absolute immunity for official actions they took while president – and then you look at, for example, this term’s Slaughter decision that allowed the president to fire an independent agency commissioner, both of those cases assume that the president is a rational actor. But there’s some inconsistency between those opinions and the Lisa Cook case, where the justices said the president couldn’t simply fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Clearly, the Lisa Cook result seems in tension with the Slaughter holding. The Cook holding is built on a nod to history, tradition and independence of the Fed, but you could say that about a number of different agencies.
I think, clearly, what Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts feared, and why the Lisa Cook case came down the way it did, unlike the other executive power cases, is that we have a president who just might wreak havoc on the financial system of the United States if he were given the unfettered power to pack the Fed.
So much for the assumption of the rationale actor! But to be sure, for your readers and viewers, those cases are facially hard to reconcile beyond the court engaging in pure pragmatism.
In the end, there remain some really stark philosophical divides on the court. When it convenes in October, we’re likely in for another wild ride.
Anything else you want to say about this session?
The decision in the Mississippi voting case was heartening to me because it truly recognizes the real world, and not the hyperbolic and unfounded speculation in which the dissenters engaged.
In addition, I loved Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in the birthright citizenship case. He nailed it, and it’s one of those decisions that makes you prouder of the country and the traditions that we stand for, including the rule of law. As a former judge who enjoyed turning a phrase, I love great judicial poetry. The chief justice did a terrific job.
John E. Jones III does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
For Ne-Yo, “So Sick” was a life-changing hit. Before the song’s release in late 2005, the artist born Shaffer Smith had already been a successful behind-the-scenes figure in the music industry, most notably as a writer on Mario’s chart-topping “Let Me Love You.” But when “So Sick” also soared up the Hot 100, Ne-Yo secured his own place in the spotlight.
Ne-Yo performs “So Sick” in a new episode of “The One,” an Apple Music video series in which artists present a stripped-down rendition of an especially significant track in their catalog. The video is viewable now on Ne-Yo and Apple Music’s YouTube channels.
Ne-Yo wrote “So Sick” with the Norwegian production duo Stargate after a chance encounter at New York’s Sony Music Studios, where he and Stargate were both working on new music. In John Seabrook’s book The Song Machine, he describes hearing Stargate’s beat for the song for the first time: “When the track started, I teared up.” He channeled his own recent heartbreak into lyrics about a painful breakup, leading to the song that would become his breakthrough hit.
Click to load video
“It’s definitely the one that started it all,” Ne-Yo later told Billboard of the song’s success. “So Sick” became Ne-Yo’s first No. 1 hit as a recording artist, establishing him as a radio fixture for years to come. The song has continued to be hugely popular in the streaming era, racking up enough plays to join Spotify’s Billions Club last year.
“So Sick” was the second single from Ne-Yo’s 2006 debut album In My Own Words, powering it to the top of the Billboard 200 albums chart with more than 300,000 in first-week sales. The album recently turned 20 years old, an anniversary the singer is celebrating with a pair of new vinyl formats, a standard edition 2LP and a limited edition “Enchanted Night” Color 2LP, as well as a new CD edition. The 20th anniversary In My Own Words reissues are due out June 19 and available for pre-order now.
Representatives from Alaska utilities and energy organizations pose outside Idaho National Laboratory’s NRIC DOME during a May tour to learn about advanced nuclear reactor technologies and their potential role in Alaska’s energy future. (Photo courtesy Gewn Holdmann)
A couple years ago, shortly after Governor Dunleavy began his second term, I was killing time in the Juneau airport waiting for a flight when one of his staff called and said, “You might want to sit down before I tell you this.” The Governor had just thrown out a bold challenge: find a path to 10-cent per kilowatt electricity on the Railbelt. My knee-jerk response was, “That’s impossible.”
But my second thought was different: that’s a moonshot.
A goal like that forces you to throw out the playbook. We are not going to achieve 10-cent electricity by continuing down the path we are already on. It requires thinking beyond conventional assumptions and asking where the biggest opportunities lie given the direction federal policy, technology and energy markets are heading.
I still find myself returning to that question. And after nearly three decades working on Alaska energy issues, I have become increasingly convinced that natural gas is not a path to low-cost electricity – whether that means imported LNG or a North Slope gasline.
Should we be cheering for the Alaska LNG project? Absolutely. As an LNG export project, it has the potential to create jobs, generate state revenue and monetize a resource that has sat largely stranded for decades. But as a low-cost source for domestic power? Not so much.
The reason is simple. When fuel is a significant component of the cost of generating electricity, that cost doesn’t disappear once the plant is built – it continues for as long as the plant operates. Over time, fuel prices tend to rise, even if only with inflation, and history has shown they can also spike unexpectedly in response to global events.
Hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants follow a fundamentally different economic model. They require much larger up-front investments, but once built, fuel costs are low, predictable and far less exposed to global commodity markets. As those capital investments are paid off, the cost of producing electricity tends to trend downward. That is why historically, many of the places with the world’s lowest-cost electricity have achieved it through long-lived investments in hydroelectricity or nuclear power.
That does not mean electricity from these sorts of projects will be inexpensive on day one. Bradley Lake is a good example. When the hydroelectric project came online in the 1980s, it was one of the Railbelt’s most expensive sources of electricity because its construction costs had to be recovered. Today, with those capital costs largely paid off, it is one of the cheapest.
I recently wrote about the Susitna Hydroelectric Project because I think it’s worth taking another look. The state has already invested heavily in the studies required to develop it, and with today’s generous federal incentives – which could offset as much as 50 percent of capital costs if construction begins before 2033 – the project’s economics could look a lot more attractive.
But hydropower isn’t the only infrastructure-based technology Alaska could be looking at. Advanced nuclear qualifies for many of the same incentive programs and offers a few additional advantages. It can also co-generate heat – a major advantage in Alaska’s climate. And unlike hydropower, billions of dollars are currently flowing into the sector from both the federal government and private industry. That investment is accelerating innovation, driving down costs, and creating intense competition – not only among reactor developers, but also among prospective customers hoping to secure future reactor deployments and the energy they will produce.
The race to criticality
Last year, President Trump launched an energy moonshot of his own. Through four executive orders issued in rapid succession, he sought to jump-start a new era of nuclear energy in the United States. The orders established several ambitious targets, including rebuilding the nuclear supply chain and workforce, having ten large reactors under construction by 2030 and quadrupling U.S. nuclear generating capacity by 2050. But the most immediate goal was to have at least three advanced reactors achieve criticality by July 4, 2026.
Achieving criticality might sound alarming. However, in the world of nuclear energy, criticality is a good thing. It means a reactor is operating as intended, with each fission event, on average, causing one more fission event. When this happens, the chain reaction becomes self-sustaining and the reactor is officially “alive” and capable of producing power.
This goal was specifically focused on advanced reactors – a new generation of nuclear technologies designed to be smaller, safer, more standardized and easier to build than today’s conventional plants. Dozens of companies are pursuing these designs and billions of dollars have already been invested. Yet despite all of that activity, no advanced reactor has entered commercial operation in the United States.
That is what makes the President’s deadline so interesting. It cuts through the hype and provides a simple litmus test of industry readiness. Either three advanced reactors will achieve criticality by this week – or they won’t.
Field trip to INL’s National Reactor Innovation Center
I recently invited a group of utility executives and senior engineers from Alaska’s electric power industry to Idaho Falls. The trip was an opportunity to learn about the technology firsthand from leading experts. But I also wanted them to experience something more intangible: the sense of momentum building around advanced nuclear energy. The feeling that it may finally be approaching an inflection point – a transition from a technology of the future to one they can begin actively planning around.
If advanced reactors are going to meet the President’s deadline, Idaho National Laboratory is where that effort will ultimately be put to the test. Many of the technologies that defined the first nuclear age were invented, tested or demonstrated in the Idaho desert. But that was another era. More than half a century has passed since a new reactor achieved criticality there.
Yet even as construction of new nuclear power plants largely stalled in the United States after the early 1990s, INL maintained the expertise, facilities, and institutional knowledge that made it the nation’s premier nuclear research laboratory. After all, nuclear energy never disappeared. Existing reactors still generate roughly 20 percent of America’s electricity and the nuclear Navy remains a cornerstone of our national defense.
But there is a noticeably different energy around the lab these days. Activity has ramped up dramatically and employees proudly wear shirts emblazoned with the number “53” – a reminder that the next reactor to achieve criticality at Idaho National Laboratory will be the 53rd in its history.
Over the course of two long days, we visited some of the laboratory’s most important facilities. One place we were not allowed to enter, however, was DOME – a repurposed containment structure that has been transformed into the nation’s premier test facility for advanced nuclear microreactors.
I had visited the facility before, but access has become much more restricted since Radiant Nuclear moved its Kaleidos reactor there earlier this year. Designed to produce just one megawatt (MW) of electricity, Kaleidos is tiny compared to any existing commercial reactor in the U.S. – literally three orders of magnitude smaller in terms of power output. Its compact design allows it to be transported in shipping containers and deployed in locations that would be impractical for conventional nuclear plants. While still several years away from commercial production, a reactor of this scale could eventually provide an alternative to diesel generation for remote power needs, including in Alaska.
But we also learned about larger reactor designs known as small modular reactors, or SMRs. Unlike microreactors, which are intended to serve relatively small loads, SMRs are designed for more mainstream electricity generation. Rather than building a custom-designed reactor on site, most SMR concepts rely on standardized reactor modules that can be manufactured in factories and then transported to their final destination. Utilities can install a single module or add additional modules over time as electricity demand grows.
Many SMRs incorporate passive safety systems that rely on the laws of physics – rather than pumps or operator actions – to safely shut down and cool the reactor if something goes wrong. Because of these features and because many do not require water for cooling, these reactors have a much smaller footprint than conventional nuclear plants. This means there is a lot more flexibility in where they can be sited, including right next to the loads they are intended to serve.
And those loads are not just electrical. The ability of nuclear energy to provide high-temperature process heat is one reason there is so much interest in these systems. Industrial facilities such as chemical plants, refineries, steel mills and ammonia producers require large amounts of high-temperature heat, and those loads have proven particularly difficult to decarbonize.
We also took a slight detour through the desert to drive by the site where Oklo is beginning construction on its 75 MW Aurora reactor commercial demonstration plant. For now, it is little more than a large hole in the ground. But eventually, the reactor will be installed entirely underground, while the powerhouse will sit above it in an elegant A-frame building designed to look something like a ski chalet. They definitely have the marketing down.
Oklo already has customers lined up if this pilot proves successful. The company is pursuing a business model that many other developers are also adopting. Rather than selling reactors, they envision retaining ownership and selling electricity and heat under long-term contracts. In other words, the power purchaser would not be buying a nuclear reactor – it would be buying energy at a pre-agreed price, significantly reducing the risk for the customer whether it is a utility, military installation or industrial end-user.
Oklo was a familiar name to many of the tour participants, particularly those from Golden Valley Electric Association. It’s the same company that was selected by the U.S. Air Force to supply the 5 MW microreactor planned for Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks. What struck me, however, was how much of the company’s attention now appears focused on its larger 75 MW Aurora reactor. Company representatives assured us that the Eielson project remains important, but the Aurora seems to be emerging as Oklo’s standard commercial offering, with future deployments intended to be built in multiples of that basic unit size.
That got me wondering: could there eventually be an opportunity to do both? Build the 5 MW microreactor at Eielson to serve the Air Force mission and then, if the technology proves successful, follow it with a larger 75 MW reactor at the same location supplying power to the GVEA’s grid? A project of that scale would go a long way toward reducing the Interior’s unhealthy reliance on liquid fuels to meet peak demand. It is at least a conversation worth having.
Nuclear at the tipping point
On June 4th, exactly one month ahead of President Trump’s target date, Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 microreactor achieved criticality at INL. During our visit to the lab, we had walked right past the very nondescript building that houses the reactor. Then, less than two weeks later, Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 followed. I would not be surprised if one or two other vendors make the deadline as well – we will know the final tally within a few days.
In the grand scheme of things, these criticality demonstrations are partly symbolic. None of these reactors will immediately begin producing commercial electricity; achieving criticality is simply one step on the road to full commercialization. But they may also represent a tipping point – the moment when the slope is no longer uphill. After decades of slow progress, advanced nuclear may finally have accumulated enough technical, financial and political momentum that deployment begins to accelerate much faster than many of us expect.
I am writing this article while visiting Richland, Washington – home of the Hanford site and, along with INL, one of the deepest concentrations of nuclear expertise in the country. For years, many assumed this region would host X-energy’s first commercial reactors. The local utility Energy Northwest had partnered with the nuclear vendor to develop four Xe-100 reactors totaling 320 MW, with plans to eventually expand to as many as twelve units. Amazon had also signed on to support the project and purchase power, making Richland seem like the obvious frontrunner.
Instead, X-Energy’s first commercial units will be installed at Dow Chemical’s Seadrift facility in Texas. Unlike a data center, Dow could make use of both the electricity and the high-temperature process heat produced by the reactors, improving the overall economics of the project. The Richland project is still moving forward, but it got bumped to second place.
There is a lesson here for Alaska. States do not lead by waiting for certainty. They lead by skating to where the puck is going – making strategic investments, building partnerships and positioning themselves for the opportunities of tomorrow. By the time a technology is fully proven, the first wave of deployments may already be spoken for. If Alaska waits until advanced nuclear is a sure thing, we may find ourselves at the back of a very long line.
Getting ahead of that curve does not require Alaska to commit to building a reactor. It just requires preparing for the possibility. That effort could take many forms. It might begin with issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to better understand which reactor designs are the best fit for Alaska’s unique needs. It could include evaluating potential Railbelt sites and pursuing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Early Site Permit to preserve future siting options. Or it might involve exploring with the Air Force whether the Eielson microreactor pilot project could create opportunities for future expansion or shared infrastructure. It should also include bringing together the state, utilities, local governments and other stakeholders to consider when and where nuclear could make sense in light of all our energy options.
None of these actions commits anyone to building a reactor. They simply preserve options, shorten future lead times and position the state to move quickly if – or when – the technology proves itself. Many states are already taking exactly these kinds of preparatory steps.
When Governor Dunleavy challenged us to pursue the moonshot goal of 10-cent electricity on the Railbelt, former Senator Click Bishop responded by covering a whiteboard in his Juneau office with proposed energy projects. Whenever someone came in with a new idea, he added it to the board. Over time, it grew to include virtually every major energy-related opportunity in Alaska, all placed on a more or less level playing field. The goal was not to pick winners and losers. It was to keep as many viable options moving forward and let economics, technology readiness and execution determine which ones ultimately succeed. The vision was an Alaska with abundant, affordable energy capable of supporting new industries, attracting investment and creating opportunities that simply do not exist in a high-cost energy economy.
That is exactly how we should still be thinking today.
Alaska needs leadership and a coordinated effort to keep multiple opportunities moving forward. We cannot afford to pin all of our hopes on a single outcome. If we are serious about building an affordable energy future, we need to think beyond conventional assumptions and invest in the opportunities most likely to shape tomorrow’s energy landscape.
Whether advanced nuclear ultimately becomes part of Alaska’s energy future remains to be seen. But I would hate to see that decision made for us because we failed to prepare while the opportunity was still within reach. Preparing today does not commit Alaska to nuclear energy. It simply preserves our ability to choose tomorrow.
You wanted power rankings? I got your power rankings right here. Don’t like mine? You can always get your own. Remember, these 2026 FIFA World Cup power rankings change as the tournament goes on. And we do have changes from last week. My colleague Thierry Henry is going to be happy because France is right at No. 1. I don’t think there’s a lot of people that are going to disagree with that. A couple other things to keep in mind here. With Morocco beating the Netherlands, the Atlas Lions are in. And for the first time at this tournament, Mexico gets in after what I saw in that win over Ecuador. So welcome, Mexico. And the U.S. is hanging around too. Agree? Disagree? Let’s dive into it: Odds to win the World Cup: +3000 (9th) After earning six points from its group stage with wins over Paraguay and Australia, along with a loss to Türkiye, the U.S. will try to win its first knockout stage game since 2002 when it takes on Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday. A pro-U.S. crowd in the San Francisco Bay Area should help things, but the co-hosts can’t underestimate this opponent. Next opponent: Bosnia and Herzegovina (Round of 32, July 1) Odds to win the World Cup: +1700 (6th) Is Cristiano Ronaldo back? He proclaimed he was when he scored twice against Uzbekistan. Portugal finished second in its group after a scoreless but still electric draw against Colombia in Miami. Ronaldo now gets a reunion with former Real Madrid teammate Luka Modrić as the two 40-year-old superstars face off in Toronto. Next opponent: Croatia (Round of 32, July 2) Odds to win the World Cup: +2700 (8th) What a way to break a 40-year drought. El Tri came out strong against Ecuador for its first knockout round win since 1986 in front of an absolutely pulsating crowd in Mexico City. Now comes what will potentially be a match for the ages against England for a chance to reach the quarterfinals. Next opponent: England (Round of 16, July 5) Odds to win the World Cup: +2500 (7th) Morocco is living up to its high expectations after reaching the 2022 semifinals. A stoppage-time goal against the Netherlands led to a penalty-shootout win over the Dutch to advance to the round of 16. That’s now four games and no defeats so far at this tournament. Next opponent: Canada (Round of 16, July 4) Odds to win the World Cup: +1000 (5th) Under manager Carlo Ancelotti, the Brazilians are rediscovering their style of “Joga Bonito.” Having relied on Vinícius Júnior for goals in the group stage, the five-time champions saw Casemiro and Gabriel Martinelli instead come up clutch in the round of 32 win over Japan. The reward for the win? Having to contain Erling Haaland and the infamous Viking Row. Next opponent: Norway (Round of 16, July 5) Odds to win the World Cup: +800 (4th) When England needed him the most, Harry Kane stepped up in heroic fashion. Down a goal against a superb DR Congo side, Kane rallied the Three Lions with two second-half goals in the round of 32 classic. Now comes a match against the tournament co-hosts in Mexico City that will be absolute theater. Next opponent: Mexico (Round of 16, July 5) Odds to win the World Cup: +3300 (10th) It still feels as though Colombia has yet to kick it into the next gear — which is a scary thought. Luís Diaz and Daniel Muñoz have been the standout players for the Los Cafeteros, who wrapped up the group stage as winners following a nervy draw against Portugal in Miami. Next opponent: Ghana (Round of 32, July 3) Odds to win the World Cup: +700 (3rd) This is another team that is still finding its rhythm. A relatively staid win over Uruguay saw La Roja win the group. Lamine Yamal is fit again. It’s now time to flip the switch in the knockout rounds and make that expected run to the final. Next opponent: Austria (Round of 32, July 2) Odds to win the World Cup: +410 (2nd) The people want to see Lionel Messi, even if it’s just a substitute. Because even when he comes into the game in the second half like he did against Algeria, he still scores golazos. He now has 19 career goals at the World Cup, extending the record he broke earlier in the tournament. Next opponent: Cape Verde (Round of 32, July 3) Odds to win the World Cup: +180 (1st) There shouldn’t be a surprise as to who is now No. 1 in the rankings. If you were to rank the best players in the world, France arguably has three of them — Ousmane Dembélé, Michael Olise and Kylian Mbappé — near the top. The path to the final is looking clearer for Les Bleus. Next opponent: Paraguay (Round of 16, July 4)Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
It’s time to get out your calendars and circle these dates. Every college football season has a handful of games that decide conference races, reshape the College Football Playoff picture and produce moments fans remember for years. With just over two months until kickoff, FOX Sports’ Joel Klatt lists 10 matchups he believes will define the 2026 season. Klatt: This is the first big game for Kyle Whittingham, and it’s going to be an indication of whether Michigan is going to be back in playoff form. Are the Wolverines going to compete for a Big Ten title? We’re going to find out in Week 2 on September 12th. Both of these programs want to raise their level this year to the upper-echelon of these conferences. Oklahoma wants to be an upper-tier SEC title contender. Michigan would like to do the same in the Big Ten. This game is obviously a monster game in this direction, even if it’s not directly tied to the standings in each conference. It’s also about the individuals in this game. What does Oklahoma quarterback John Mateer look like after an offseason to get healthy? What does the offense look like for Oklahoma? It’s the same question for Michigan. What is the marriage going to look like, what is the blueprint, what is the recipe, what do we get out of the Jason Beck- Bryce Underwood marriage? Klatt: This is going to be an absolute monster rematch. This is not Arch Manning in his first game as a real starter. This is not Julian Sayin in his first time as a real starter. Now, you have incumbent starting quarterbacks. These two teams are going to start in the top five. I cannot wait for this game. I think it’s going to be a phenomenal game. The loser of this game is behind the eight-ball. Klatt: I couldn’t resist. Lane Kiffin going back to Oxford. This could be incredible. There’s not enough security on the planet for Lane going back into Oxford. The way that he left that team in the playoff was wild. I think this game is going to have real implications in the SEC because these are two teams that I would categorize as fighting for those at-large spots. I don’t expect either of these teams to win the SEC. I think that would be reserved for my two favorites in that conference — Georgia and Texas. That doesn’t mean these two teams won’t be very good. Obviously, there are all the questions around the transfers jelling and how Kiffin is going to do with that. He had a lot of success doing this exact thing at Ole Miss. Both Trinidad Chambliss and Kewan Lacy are back at Ole Miss. This team gained a lot of confidence under Pete Golding and that run to the national semifinal. These two teams are going to try to be in the top-four spots in the SEC. They’re going to be battling for those at-large spots in the 12-team playoff. Klatt: These teams are trying to level into that top four in the Big Ten and grab one of those at-large spots. This one is a sneaky game that’s going to be really good. USC has to play Oregon, and then Washington. Both of those games are at home. Then the Trojans travel across the country and go to Beaver Stadium to face Matt Campbell and his Nittany Lions. I think Lincoln Riley is very confident about his team. I am bullish on USC. I think they’re better at the line of scrimmage. Year 1 for Matt Campbell, I think Penn State has a real shot at 10 wins. This becomes a monumental game, at home, to try to protect Beaver Stadium for Campbell in his first year. Penn State should be 5-0 going into this game. If the Nittany Lions beat USC, their floor becomes 10 wins. Klatt: The Red River rivalry is always one of the best games in the sport. It’s one of my favorite games in college football. And this one’s going to be huge for SEC implications and College Football Playoff implications. The pressure that will be on Brent Venables and these Sooners when they go to Dallas to face Texas is massive. What if Texas has two losses, and now everyone’s on Steve Sarkisian’s case? There’s a scenario where one, or both of these teams, has one or two losses. This game is always great. And I think this year, it could have even more implications. Klatt: SEC dominance is on the line. These two teams split their two matchups last season. The winner is going to be in the driver’s seat. I’m not down on Alabama, but I do think this is a program that’s not going to have as good of a football program as they had a year ago. They’re losing their most important player in Ty Simpson. I know their defense wasn’t great, and they’re losing a few players off that defense. Can they replenish and be better? They lost Germie Bernard. Can Ryan Coleman-Williams come back to the form he showed as a true freshman? He’s going to need to. Klatt: Supremacy in the Big Ten is on the line as Ohio State goes to Indiana. Indiana can run the Big Ten. The Hoosiers beat Ohio State a year ago. They are the reigning national champions. They have not lost at home under Curt Cignetti. They are 14-0. If Indiana beats Ohio State, all of a sudden, the Hoosiers are the premier program in the Big Ten, which is wild. Obviously, I think you could say that coming into the year because, again, they are the reigning Big Ten and national champs. But you do have a sense of history, whereas Ohio State really runs the conference. You have to get through Ohio State. But if Indiana wins this game, all of a sudden, that’s flipped, and the Hoosiers put themselves on the mountaintop. I just think about this game in that lens, and it just means everything in this conference. This is a chance for Ohio State to reassert themselves as the top team in the conference. Ohio State could hand Curt Cignetti his first loss at home and remind everybody, ‘Hey, we’re the Buckeyes. We are the pre-eminent program in the Big Ten.’ The winner of this game is almost assuredly going to go to the Big Ten title game and has the chance to be the No. 1 overall seed in the College Football Playoff. Klatt: Notre Dame fans watched Miami get that last playoff spot and jump them in the rankings. There is some saltiness in South Bend. There is no doubt about that. Marcus Freeman’s program believes they can go and win a national title. But the same can be said for Miami and Mario Cristobal. Notre Dame is going to have its quarterback back and should have one of, if not the best defenses in the country. This team is not going to have many statement opportunities, and this is one of them. That is why this game is going to be so important as it relates to the shape of the season. Can the Hurricanes do everything they need to do regardless of the outcome of this game? Yes, because obviously they’ve got the ACC championship game backstopping them, and there’s not much in the ACC. If Miami plays clean and Darian Mensah is who we think he can be, they’ve got all these five-star players that are replacing these talented players that were draft picks off the line of scrimmage. If these guys play out, Miami is going to be right back in the top five. Klatt: This is such a good game. It’s a great rivalry. These are two of my top-10 teams in my post-spring rankings. I think there’s a real chance that the winner of this game is going to the SEC championship game. I think there’s a real potential that it’s a win-and-in game for the playoff. Can Texas bounce back? Remember this is a team that was in the national semifinals two straight years under Steve Sarkisian. This team missed the playoffs a year ago. A lot of people thought they were the No. 1 team in the country to start, and then they got hot late. They started playing much better, particularly at quarterback late, and beat Texas A&M, 27-17. That one was at home. Now they’ve got to go on the road and face A&M. Klatt: It is absolutely my honor to call this game. Kyle Whittingham’s first in his stint as the head coach of the Michigan Wolverines. And he’s going to find out what Ryan Day knows all too well, which is, you are judged based on this game. A lot could be on the line for the Buckeyes. If you miss the playoffs as the Ohio State Buckeyes, life is not going to be good. Meanwhile, Michigan, this is not an easy schedule. Can the Wolverines be in a position where, if they beat Ohio State, they go to the College Football Playoff? Ohio State dominated at the line of scrimmage for the first time in a long time last year. They snapped that four-game losing streak to Michigan. They beat them in Ann Arbor, 27-9.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
When Bosnian refugees started arriving in Utica, New York, in the mid-1990s, it was a down-on-its-heels Rust Belt city that had seen its population crater by roughly a third from a mid-century peak of just over 100,000 residents.
“I thought I came to another war zone when I came here,” said Hanka Grabovica, who arrived in the Mohawk Valley city in 2001 when she was 16 years old, citing the prevalence of boarded-up buildings and garbage on the streets. “Utica was pretty bad back then.”
Grabovica, now president of the Bosnian American Community Association, was part of a wave of refugees who settled in Utica after fleeing the brutal war in their native country — and its messy aftermath — that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia. Exact figures are tough to pin down, but it’s believed that about 6,000 Bosnians now live in Utica — or nearly 10 percent of the total population.
The epicenter of Bosnian American culture will never be as conflicted as tonight, when Bosnia and Herzegovina faces the United States in a Round of 32 match. It’s just the second time that Bosnia has qualified for the tournament since it became an independent country in 1992.
This will be the first time Bosnia has advanced to the knockout rounds, heightening the delirium among Bosnians from Sarajevo to St. Louis (the largest enclave of Bosnians in the U.S.) to Utica ahead of tonight’s kickoff.
“Seeing this national team progress to the World Cup is definitely something amazing,” said Sandro Sehic, secretary of the Bosnian American Community Association of Utica, noting that many ethnic Serbians and Croatians who live in the country still refuse to play for the national team owing to lingering tensions from the war. “Bosnia is still struggling politically, socially. There are still so many problems that are still affecting the country.”
The arrival of the Bosnians in Utica has been followed by waves of other immigrants — most notably a large influx of Karen refugees originally from Burma — that have helped revitalize the city. East Utica, once primarily an enclave of Italian Americans, has become a center of the Bosnian community. Last November, a traditional Bosnian fountain called a sebilj — modeled after a famous fountain in Sarajevo — was unveiled in the neighborhood as a symbol of their importance to the city.
“We were very, very fortunate that the Bosnians have claimed this as their home because they reconstructed some parts of our city,” said Rob Palmieri, who served as Utica’s mayor from 2012 to 2024. “It has been a wonderful blend bringing the city back to vibrancy.”
The current mayor, Mike Galime, points to Two Brothers Cafe & Pizzeria as emblematic of the entrepreneurial spirit Bosnians have brought to the city. The restaurant serves up pizza slices (of course), but also Bosnian specialties like burek (meat pies) and cevapi (grilled sausages).
“It’s like a perfect, perfect example of that melting pot,” Galime said.
There will be many viewers with divided allegiances at tonight’s watch party sponsored by the Bosnian American Community Association at the Utica Club Lounge.
“We are proud Americans, but we are also proud Bosnians and tonight we celebrate both,” said Grabovica, the assocation’s president. “The U.S. is our home, but Bosnia is our heritage — and soccer brings us together.”
Matt Mahan suffered a disappointing finish in California’s gubernatorial primary last month, but the World Cup has offered the mayor of Silicon Valley’s largest city the chance of an immediate remontada.
His home San Jose, riding a sports tourism surge, stands to gain more economically today as the U.S. national team opens knockout play in Santa Clara. Mahan told POLITICO on Friday that he had not yet attended a match in the bordering city, but had been soaking in the action at watch parties in San Jose, where attendees have been so numerous they’ve begun watching from the tops of nearby parking garages to get a better view.
A FIFA official watch party in downtown San Jose’s San Pedro Square is streaming all 104 games and has hosted more than 300,000 fans, by the city’s count.
“It’s been just an incredible experience,” Mahan said. “We’re on track to double, if not triple, the amount of attendance we expected.”
A shooting a block from the venue Sunday evening was a reminder of the security challenges posed by such large gatherings, but city officials said the deadly incident wasn’t connected to the event and didn’t occur while matches were being streamed. Watch parties resumed on Monday and are set to carry on through the tournament — with an additional screen to spread out the crowds.
The U.S. match against Bosnia and Herzegovina today will be the last of six tournament games played in the South Bay, capping a banner sports year in which the region hosted the Super Bowl and NCAA March Madness games. San Jose officials tweaked their plans for the lineup’s longest and only international competition based on how the other events went, adding TVs to watch parties and looking for ways to limit congestion, Mahan said.
“One of the things we learned during the NFL Super Bowl experience was that it got fairly congested in the middle of the action, and we want to spread people out a little bit more, and so we’ve, we’ve got multiple screens up there, very large screens, so there’s no reason to crowd up front,” Mahan said.
Local governments coordinated to plan for the string of high-profile events, and San Jose hired dedicated staff to prepare for them. The planning, overseen by former Olympic short track speed skater Tommy O’Hare, took two years, while the city became involved in seeking the U.S., Mexico and Canada’s joint bid to host the World Cup over a decade ago.
The city embarked on a marketing campaign to attract visitors to San Jose Mineta International Airport — a lesser-known hub than SFO but one just minutes driving from Levi’s Stadium. Mahan opted not to name names over security concerns, but he said “a ton” of foreign dignitaries have landed at SJC during the tournament.
Representatives from China, South Korea and a half-dozen other countries were set to attend an overlapping summit in San Jose on international innovation and investment this week, mingling with expected attendees from Bay Area tech giants including NVIDIA and Apple.
But the mayor — a Democrat who finished sixth in the state’s jungle primary for governor in June — said the focus during the tournament has been less on fostering international relationships than on the fan experience.
“Our North Star has been, you know, whether you can afford a ticket to the big game, we want you to be able to have a fun, accessible, and memorable World Cup experience in downtown San Jose,” Mahan said. “I think we’ve proven that we’re offering that.”
