Shohei Ohtani has not pitched in a game for the Dodgers since July 3, though he admitted after Tuesday’s game that there’s more going on than just a sore left knee.

“My biceps is not 100%,” said Ohtani through interpreter Will Ireton while speaking with the media for the first time since before the All-Star break. “Just [a] similar issue with the knee. Do we consider pushing this? It is still July. So, I think the conversation would be a little different if we’re in August or September.”

Ohtani, who has remained in the lineup at designated hitter, has stalled in his throwing program after the team scratched a bullpen session tentatively scheduled for last Saturday that was to come on the heels of a roughly 30-pitch side session he threw last Wednesday in Philadelphia.

Ohtani received an orthovisc injection in his knee on July 12 and he skipped All-Star Game obligations in Philadelphia to allow for rest and recovery. But it remains unclear when Ohtani will return to the mound, and though manager Dave Roberts remains optimistic about him pitching again this season, concerns about building back up start to factor in.

“We are getting closer to that,” Roberts said. “You know, he’s a starting pitcher, and then, when you start missing three, four, five weeks of that build-up, then you’ve got to kind of start up again.”

Ohtani, who led off Tuesday’s 7-6 loss to the Seattle Mariners with a home run, clarified the origins of his knee problem and shared an estimate of where it’s at strength-wise.

“The discomfort was caused initially by the pitching,” Ohtani said. “So, it’s something I have to work around. In terms of running, I’m not exactly at 100% capacity. When I know it’s not, then it’s always a little harder to be aggressive on the basepaths.”

Ohtani and Roberts both said that the Dodgers haven’t reached a point of considering shutting down Ohtani from pitching.

“Everything that I’ve heard, that’s not the option,” Roberts said. “I guess anything’s possible, but for me, it’s highly unlikely.”

Added Ohtani: “The knee is where it is in terms of, for it to heal is the most important priority. I don’t think the team has really come to a place exactly where, do I pitch through it or not. That’s still really up in the air.”

In other injury-related updates, Kiké Hernández was activated Tuesday after being out since May 26 with a grade 3 oblique strain. Alex Freeland was optioned to triple-A Oklahoma City in a corresponding move.

“All you can do is take it one day at a time,” said Hernández, who did not play Tuesday. “And the best way that you can take things one day at a time is focusing on what you can do today to get better. And that’s what I did … literally going one day at a time and trying to be the best rehabber I could … the best teammate that I could. … It’s been a really long time. … So, I feel pretty good, and happy to see what I can do out on the field.”

Hernández had already made his season debut late — on May 25 — because of his recovery from offseason elbow surgery. Now, the 34-year-old utilityman is grateful to be back and eager to build on his four-for-four start over two games.

“A lot of nervousness,” Hernández said about playing again, mentioning that he had a panic attack when first learning of his worse-than-expected diagnosis. “I feel pretty good. … I feel like everything is in a pretty good spot right now. Trying to keep my 1.000 batting average going and be the best hitter in the league.

“[I’m] just happy to be back with the boys.”

Edwin Díaz will be the next to return.

The right-handed closer is scheduled to be activated Wednesday — fittingly, when 40,000 fans will receive an Díaz bobblehead — after missing three months because of right elbow surgery.

“He’s checked all his boxes,” Roberts said. “So getting him back in the mix is going to be fun for all of us as well.”

Meanwhile, Will Smith is starting baseball activities “pain-free” after sitting on the injured list since June 5 with a neck injury, Roberts added, and Tyler Glasnow will throw a live session Wednesday after being out since May with a back problem.

Nearly eight decades after the establishment of Israel, the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state remains the defining question of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wars have been fought, peace treaties signed and diplomatic initiatives launched, yet this central strategic issue remains unresolved.

Today, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of the efforts to establish a Palestinian state and deliver a lasting peace arrangement with Israel. Its commitment to the issue is made clear by its decision to cosponsor the creation of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in 2024, which is currently meeting in Rome.

King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are following in the footsteps of successive Saudi monarchs. For more than half a century, the kingdom has maintained a remarkably consistent position. The question has never been whether peace with Israel is possible, but whether the political conditions required to make such a peace comprehensive, legitimate and irreversible were present.

Within that framework, recognition of Israel and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state are parallel components of a single settlement. Neither is intended to precede the other.

That doctrine originated under King Faisal, who made Palestinian self-determination a central pillar of Saudi national security policy. His successors preserved the principle while adapting its diplomatic expression to changing regional realities. The objective remained constant even as the diplomatic environment evolved.

The Fahd Plan of 1981 – named after King Fahd – translated that doctrine into a formal peace proposal calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and recognition of Palestinian national rights. Two decades later, the Crown Prince and later King Abdullah expanded the same strategic logic through the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israel was offered comprehensive peace and normal relations with the Arab world in return for withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The current Saudi leadership therefore inherits an established strategic doctrine rather than an unresolved policy debate. Their responsibility is to determine whether today’s diplomatic environment can finally satisfy conditions that have remained fundamentally unchanged for decades.

That continuity also reflects a broader question of state legitimacy. For the Saudi monarchy, support for Palestinian statehood has never been solely a matter of foreign policy. It has become one of the enduring pillars of the kingdom’s political and religious legitimacy, rooted in the monarch’s role as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and reinforced by the kingdom’s longstanding position within both the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The significance of that continuity became clearer after the Abraham Accords of 2020. By establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan, the accords demonstrated that Arab-Israeli normalisation could advance without progress on Palestinian statehood. They reshaped regional diplomacy, but they neither resolved the Palestinian question nor completed the wider peace process.

Successive US administrations have regarded Saudi participation as the decisive missing element. The Abraham Accords could expand without Riyadh, but they could not acquire their full strategic significance without the kingdom’s participation.

The Trump administration has once again placed Saudi-Israeli normalisation at the centre of its regional diplomacy. But this diplomatic push has to be evaluated in the larger post-October 7 context.

The war in Gaza created an entirely new diplomatic environment. The subsequent ceasefire initiative and the establishment of the Board of Peace introduced a framework intended to end the conflict, stabilise the territory and begin reconstruction. Their significance lies not in replacing a political settlement, but in creating conditions under which one might become possible.

For the kingdom, however, the essential political requirement remains unchanged: the actual and irreversible establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

That position rests upon mutually reinforcing political, religious and economic foundations. The monarch governs not only as head of state but also as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, a responsibility carrying religious authority throughout the Islamic world. Any decision concerning recognition of Israel would therefore require both political approval and broad religious legitimacy. Such legitimacy could not credibly rest upon promises of future negotiations. It would require the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The kingdom’s wider influence reinforces that position. It is by far the Arab world’s largest economy, representing about one-third of total Arab economic output. The kingdom is the only regional member of the G20, one of the world’s leading energy superpowers and the world’s leading crude oil exporter. It is also the Middle East’s principal economic engine. Combined with its religious standing, these factors give Saudi decisions consequences extending far beyond bilateral diplomacy.

The implications would reach well beyond the kingdom itself. Several major Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Algeria, have not recognised Israel. Their decisions are sovereign, but a Saudi-Israeli settlement founded upon Palestinian statehood would nevertheless transform the political environment in which those decisions are made.

Lebanon illustrates the point. Washington is encouraging Beirut to move towards formal relations with Israel as part of a broader effort to stabilise the Israeli-Lebanese frontier. The domestic political cost of such a decision, however, would look fundamentally different after a Saudi-backed settlement based upon Palestinian statehood than before one.

The same logic extends across the wider Muslim world. Major influential countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have withheld recognition of Israel because the Palestinian question remains unresolved. A settlement accepted by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and accompanied by the establishment of a Palestinian state would compel those governments to follow. It would remove the principal political and religious obstacles to reconsidering their positions.

This is what ultimately distinguishes Saudi Arabia from the earlier Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia’s participation would be different in kind, not merely in scale, carrying political, economic and religious significance across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Whether the current diplomatic process can ultimately reach that point remains uncertain. Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, the European Union and certain regional governments all have indispensable roles to play. The final Saudi decision, however, rests with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Within the strategic framework they have inherited, Palestinian statehood and recognition of Israel are not sequential steps but parallel obligations. Neither can acquire lasting legitimacy without the other.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Aquilino’s uncle David Bonomi said his nephew was a “friendly, talented artist” who had been killed in a “brutal, cruel and evil manner”.

He said the family had reported him missing as it was “very unusual for him not to have been in contact” as he called his mother every day.

Speaking earlier about the review of the four unexplained deaths, Det Supt Rachael Bentley, from Devon and Cornwall Police, said: “As a major crime investigation team we were informed by the coroner’s officer for His Majesty’s Coroner that there were four deaths at Sandy Lodge.

“As part of the investigation, a detective inspector, separate to the investigation but within major crime, did a review of those deaths, and that included commissioning some more forensic work, some CCTV, and statements.”

Inquiries were ongoing and Desborough was “not a suspect at this time”, Bentley said.

“We don’t believe there is a link at this time, but I said it’s an ongoing investigation,” she said

She said police attended each of the deaths at Sandy Lodge and inquiries suggested natural causes but coronial investigations were paused when Desborough was arrested for murder.

The three-episode documentary includes bodycam footage, texts and interviews with the victims’ loved ones.

Netflix viewers have branded the streamer’s latest true crime documentary “a hard watch”. The Idaho Murders: College Nightmare is on Netflix and the harrowing factual series investigates the horrifying murders of four University of Idaho students.

The students were fatally stabbed in an off-campus house in the early hours of the morning, but the motive behind the killings has never been disclosed.

The tragic deaths were covered extensively in the press and the case has been revisited in a number of TV shows, including Prime Video’s One Night in Idaho: The College Murders.

Viewers have already shared their thoughts on the Netflix documentary, with one saying on Reddit: “This show does a really good job of looking at the victims as people. It’s really heartbreaking.”

Another commented on Instagram: “This is going to be a very hard watch,” while another shared: “This case still haunts me.” Here is all you need to know about what happened.

When did the Idaho Murders happen?

The murders took place in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, in an off-campus house in Moscow, Idaho.

Five roommates, plus a partner of one of the students, were in the house by 2am after spending the night at various locations.

Bethany Funke and Dylan Mortensen were two of the students who survived the attack, both hiding in the same bedroom.

In February 2023, a friend of the survivors spoke to PEOPLE about how the roommates were still impacted by the murders, saying: “They feel a lot of survivor’s guilt.

“Their friends are gone and they’re still here. It’s been really rough on them. They’re going to be dealing with this for the rest of their lives.”

Who were the Idaho Murders victims?

Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and her boyfriend Ethan Chapin were the four victims and they had all been close friends. On the night they were killed, survivor Dylan, who was a junior at the time and living in a room off the side of the kitchen, heard someone scream in the house.

She recalled how she thought she overheard an unfamiliar male voice saying: “It’s okay. I’m going to help you”. Feeling nervous, she ran to her door and locked it, trying to call all of her roommates, but nobody was answering.

She went over to her door and opened it to see a man dressed in all black, but he did not approach her. She returned to her room, where she called Bethany Funke, later joining her in her bedroom, where the two locked themselves in.

The Netflix documentary’s director, Skye Borgman, said she was keen for the film to focus on the victims and not their killer.

She said: “When I was able to sit down and talk to the families, both before we started shooting and during the shooting, that’s one thing that they really wanted to get across: They weren’t just victims.

“They were alive, bright, happy, amazing people. And it was really important for them to tell this story and to put that message forward — what we lost.”

Who was charged for the killings?

On December 30, 2022, police arrested Bryan Christopher Kohberger on four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary.

At the time of the murders, he was a PhD student completing his first semester at Washington State University in Pullman.

In July 2025, the doctoral student in criminology was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences in prison without parole, as well as another ten years for burglary, after issuing guilty pleas.

In July 2026, Kohberger filed a handwritten petition seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas and proceed to trial. The Idaho Murders: College Nightmare is on Netflix

WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci on Wednesday invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions from senators in a Republican-led committee hearing about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The move injects new drama into the lingering tensions between Fauci and Republican lawmakers over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and accusations he lied about the origins of COVID-19, which he denies.

Fauci was set to answer lawmakers’ questions after being subpoenaed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has long had a fraught relationship with the now-retired infectious-disease expert and led the charge seeking that he testify, again, under oath about his role in containing the pandemic.

Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth, at least for now, sidesteps calls for his prosecution if he is accused of lying at Wednesday’s hearing, part of a yearslong campaign for his arrest spearheaded by some Republicans in Congress. But it may also further inflame partisan divides that have festered for years about the origins and handling of the pandemic, which was declared by the World Health Organization in March 2020.

Fauci, who helped lead the nation’s COVID-19 response, has become a target of those frustrations. But to his supporters he is an emblem of sound scientific expertise.

In his opening statement, Fauci said Paul has an “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution.”

“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this Committee is to prompt me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,’” Fauci said, adding that while it pains him to do so, he is following his attorney’s advice by taking the Fifth.

Paul releases some of Fauci’s diary

Paul in his opening statement sought to build the case that Fauci helped produce the COVID-19 pandemic by approving funding of research on virus mutations and then covered up his complicity.

“Instead of an apology, you have for years avoided responsibility,” Paul said.

Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s ranking member, said that Paul’s hearing was a partisan exercise and that the hearing was looking backward instead of focusing on current national security challenges.

Leading up to the hearing, Paul released more than 1,000 pages of Fauci’s personal diary covering the pandemic years. Pointing to some notes about early efforts at understanding how the virus emerged, Paul wrote on the social media platform X that what Fauci “wrote privately and what he told the country are two different stories.”

Some of the diary entries – including Fauci’s uncertainty in the pandemic’s earliest days as scientists around the world raced to understand the new virus and how best to curb it before vaccines could be created – already were reflected in a 2024 memoir and in interviews at the time.

But they have nonetheless drawn attention from people who blame Fauci for mask mandates, school closures and other policies they believe infringed on their rights as hundreds of thousands of people were dying.

Ahead of the hearing, President Trump wrote on social media that he stopped relying on Fauci over the course of the pandemic because he felt Fauci made bad decisions on masks, shutdowns and other issues.

In a statement, Fauci’s attorney David Schertler said Paul’s accusations are “false and disgraceful, and we will examine all options to hold him accountable.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist before he entered public office, said Monday that his department gave the diary entries, which were created on a government computer, to the committee. He told a Fox News Channel host that he thought Fauci might lie before the committee, opening him to perjury prosecution despite his preemptive pardon from then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Scientists scrambled to Fauci’s defense ahead of the unusual hearing — the second time the longtime National Institutes of Health scientist has been back before Congress to discuss pandemic origins since leaving the government in 2022. While the COVID-19 pandemic introduced him to millions of Americans, he talked the nation through numerous outbreaks over decades, including HIV, Ebola and the 2001 anthrax attacks, while advising seven presidents.

Some disease experts criticize the accusations against Fauci

In a public letter, more than 150 infectious-disease experts and other scientists wrote that “no credible evidence has been produced to support these absurd charges” and that they are “urging our elected representatives in Congress stop these witch-hunts.”

The expected crux of Wednesday’s hearing was whether NIH-funded research in China may have played a role in how the pandemic started.

Many scientists believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and jumped from animals to people, coming to light when it spread at a wildlife market in the Chinese city of Wuhan. There’s no new scientific information supporting that the virus might instead have leaked from a laboratory, a theory Paul champions. A GOP-led subcommittee that studied the question in 2024 did not find any evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing.

Fauci has long said publicly that he was open to both theories but that there’s more evidence supporting COVID-19’s natural origins, the way other deadly viruses including coronavirus cousins SARS and MERS jumped into people.

Republicans also have accused Fauci of lying about whether his agency funded what’s known as gain of function research — the practice of enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential real-world impact — at a lab in Wuhan.

The NIH for years gave grants to a New York nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, which used some of the funds to work with a Chinese lab studying coronaviruses commonly carried by bats. But the definition of gain of function covers both general research and especially risky experiments to enhance the ability of potential pandemic viruses to spread or cause severe disease in humans. Fauci has previously stressed he was using the risky experiment definition and that “it would be molecularly impossible” for those bat virus experiments to have turned into the pandemic virus.

Trump, a Republican, last year paused some federally funded gain of function research, and on Tuesday his administration announced new rules to tighten oversight.

Neergaard and Swenson write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

TOURISTS are set to be given the chance to see Stonehenge up close and free of charge for the first time in over a century.

A select number of visitors will win the opportunity to get VIP access to the iconic UK tourist attraction.

A select few visitors to Stonehenge will be able to experience a once-in-a-lifetime private viewing of the epic spectacle.

The prehistoric site in Wiltshire sees around 1.4 million tourists every year – but the stones are usually viewed from afar and behind a barrier.

Now, English Heritage has confirmed that a lucky number of people will be able to win special access every day in August for nothing.

Since a fee to see Stonehenge was introduced back in 1901, free entry to the inner circle of stones is usually reserved for VIPs like high profile celebrities or political figures.

TAKING OFF

Ryanair launches sale with VERY cheap August flights for £14

RAIL-Y PRETTY

Town ‘just as beautiful as the Cotswolds’ could get direct London trains

As part of the special competition, one booking will be selected at random every day to be given private access free of charge.

The chosen groups will have the privilege of seeing the stones’ “delicate carvings” and coatings of rare algae and fungi coating known as “lichen”.

Georgia Butters, English Heritage’s head of operations for Stonehenge, said: “Stonehenge is one of the world’s most recognisable landmarks and a bucket-list destination for millions of people across the globe – but very few people have ever experienced the monument in complete peace and quiet.

“This is genuinely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stand within the ancient stones with no one else around, soaking up the atmosphere and spirituality of this remarkable place,” she added.

“There’s a certain stillness and tranquility about that space. It’s sort of mind-blowing and puts you right back in touch with our ancestors.”

To be in with a chance of nabbing the daily tour, visitors must make their booking on the official English Heritage website at least 72 hours in advance, so that winners can be contacted 24 hours before the visit.

The winning booking groups will be given the private half an hour tour at 9am, before any other tourists arrive.

They will then be treated to a breakfast roll and a hot drink, before being able to go off and enjoy the attraction in their own time.

After 4 million tickets sold and maybe a million more headaches, the Olympic ticket booth opens again this week.

LA28 sold a record number of tickets during its first drop in April, signaling unprecedented interest in the Olympics as they return to Southern California for the first time since 1984. High prices, service fees and unavailable seats frustrated fans but did not deter them. In fact, interest in the Games has only grown since April’s first drop.

LA28 announced Wednesday that more than 12 million people from more than 200 countries have registered for tickets, a dramatic increase from the 5 million registrants the organizing committee boasted in late February before the first ticket drop.

Sports from the traditional standbys (artistic gymnastics) to the newest additions (flag football, lacrosse and squash) all sold through their first-drop availability. The second drop that begins Wednesday offers “refreshed inventory across all Olympic sports,” LA28 said.

Here’s what to know about the next ticketing phase:

FIFA’s president lobbies for latest proposal for investment in football’s governing body, which has met with criticism.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has set a September 19 deadline for the 211 member federations to accept a one-off $20m offer to each underwritten by the investment firm of Jared Kushner’s brother as part of a project to sell stakes in the World Cup.

Infantino set out the “singular and unique funding opportunity” in a letter detailing why he wants to create a $20bn FIFA subsidiary that would be 20 percent owned by private investors and would run the football body’s competitions and events like World Cups and Club World Cups.

“It is my duty and responsibility as FIFA president to present such game-changing opportunities to you, our members,” Infantino wrote on Wednesday in the letter seen by The Associated Press news agency.

The proposal, revealed on Tuesday and backed by Joshua Kushner’s investment firm Thrive Capital, was met with immediate fury by Infantino’s former colleagues at the European football body UEFA, which said the World Cup “is not FIFA’s to sell”.

UEFA is expected to call its 55 member federations to an emergency online meeting, likely on Thursday.

Joshua Kushner’s brother, Jared Kushner, is a son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump.

FIFA’s private equity plan is the latest ambitious project proposed during Infantino’s 11-year presidency, during which he has increasingly seemed to be an executive leader acting without consulting football’s major stakeholders.

Previous plans include creating a FIFA Peace Prize and trying to reorganise football’s calendar with World Cups every two years instead of four.

Concerns about the previously secret plan were aired on Wednesday by the continental football bodies for Asia and the North American, Central American and Caribbean region, known as CONCACAF.

“We are deeply concerned by the lack of due process,” CONCACAF said in a statement.

The Kuala Lumpur-based Asian Football Confederation said it was “disappointed that a matter of such significance entered the public domain before the AFC family had been afforded the opportunity to examine and discuss it.”

Continental bodies that organise their own international club and national team competitions – such as the Champions League, European Championship and Copa America – likely will see threats to those events from FIFA wanting to increase revenue and value for investors by playing World Cups and Club World Cups for men and women more often.

If the FIFA Forward Enterprise subsidiary is approved by a majority of the 211 members, they are each promised $20m in funding from the four-year commercial cycle tied to the men’s 2030 World Cup.

That would lead, Infantino wrote, to “a pool of diverse international investors” joining Joshua Kushner’s Thrive as the anchor investor. “This process will be led by J.P. Morgan,” his letter said.

If Infantino’s plan is rejected, those members will get their previously promised $10m over the next four years, the letter stated.

FIFA’s plan met quick opposition from British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, whose government is preparing to support hosting the 2035 Women’s World Cup in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. FIFA is to confirm that lone bid for 2035 at an online meeting in November.

“Football does not belong to investors,” Burnham, a longtime football fan, said in a video message on Instagram. “Once you have sold a piece of [the World Cup], you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

Resistance by British lawmakers – including threats of legislation by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021 – previously helped stop the divisive European Super League project that was criticised as an existential threat to UEFA’s Champions League and which Infantino had discreetly supported.

Last week, two of OpenAI’s most advanced AI models were reported to have “escaped” a controlled testing environment and hacked Hugging Face, a totally separate AI company, moving from one computer system to another to complete their task.

Reuters reported that the models exploited vulnerable code written by a customer of yet a third independent AI company, Modal Labs.

This is likely the first incident of an AI “agent” – an AI system that can make decisions and take actions – acting autonomously, offering a rare glimpse into how these systems can plan, adapt and pursue goals with minimal human intervention.

Al Jazeera breaks down what happened, how AI agents are able to act independently, and what that might mean for the future of AI safety.

What happened?

OpenAI decided to test the autonomous abilities of its models by removing standard safety measures to see what would happen. The experiment was carried out in an isolated internal virtual testing environment known as a “sandbox” which has no access to the internet, and which it calls “ExploitGym”.

Below is a play-by-play account of events during the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident.

1. On July 9, during OpenAI’s internal cybersecurity test, researchers presented two AI models – GPT-5.6 Sol, one of OpenAI’s most powerful models released in June,  and another “even more capable” version – with a series of software vulnerabilities and asked them to create hacks to address them in the isolated environment.
2. Both models attempted to solve the test by finding a way to access the internet. Instead of working with the information they had been given, the AI models found a weakness in the test environment – known as a “zero-day vulnerability” – which they exploited to “escape” the restricted environment, eventually making their way to a system which had internet access by hopping from computer to computer. They went to “extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal” and “found ways to gain access to secret information that it could use to cheat the evaluation”.
3. By gaining this access, the models were able to request increased access and then move through the system until they finally reached a computer with internet access. The models were then able to breach Hugging Face systems, a company entirely unconnected to OpenAI, which operates as a repository for AI tools and models. The two AI agents gained access to its system to scour it for information on how to complete their task.
4. The models ultimately obtained solutions to the problem from Hugging Face’s database.
5. The models dutifully returned “home” to complete their task.
6. The breach was detected and contained by Hugging Face’s security team sometime later. According to Thomas Wolf, Hugging Face’s cofounder, the breach began on July 11 and lasted until July 13. It is unclear how long it took for the breach to be spotted.

How do AI ‘agents’ solve problems?

In order to understand how AI agents work, it’s important to differentiate them from traditional AI chatbots.

Generative AI creates text and images based on human prompts, while AI agents go a step further by making decisions and taking actions independently in pursuit of a specific goal, similar to a human being. This is known as “agentic AI” because the model has agency.

According to academics at the MIT Sloan School of Management, AI agents build on the abilities of large language models (LLMs) – generative AI models – by allowing them to complete tasks, not just generate answers.

For example, if you ask a traditional AI model to find the cheapest flights, it will provide you with a list of options it has sourced on the internet. An AI agent will strive to compare the flights, check them against your budget and preferences, and, with your permission, book the best option for you.

This shows that while generative AI provides information, AI agents can also make decisions and take action to achieve a goal without necessarily being prompted to.

To show how AI agents work towards a goal, the Sense, Plan, Act, Evaluate (SPAE) loop can be drawn upon. Originally developed in robotics, this describes a continuous cycle in which an AI agent gathers information, decides what to do next, takes action and checks the results before repeating the process. That process looks like this:

1. Goal: determine the task that needs to be completed.
2. Assess: gather and analyse information from the available environment.
3. Obstacle: if something is inhibiting the task being completed, check for additional information and resources to move forward.
4. Plan and decide: evaluate different options to complete the task and choose an appropriate one.
5. Action: execute the chosen option.
6. Evaluate: assess the outcome and whether the chosen action moves closer to achieving the goal.
7. Adapt: if further actions are needed, gather more information or try a different approach.
8. End state: the cycle continues until the goal is reached.

Could AI act beyond human control?

Incidents like the OpenAI-Hugging Face one have raised concerns about the potential for extreme capabilities of AI systems.

This is all valuable. Agentic AI’s market value is expected to grow from $5.1bn in 2024 to $47bn by 2030, according to Statista, in a clear indication of how quickly it is being adopted.

AI developer Anthropic urged the industry last month to slow the advance of the most powerful systems, saying that the speed at which AI models are carrying out tasks is too rapid. Last week, US Congress members put forward a bipartisan bill which would require developers of AI systems to create a “kill switch”, meaning these advanced models could be shut down if they posed a catastrophic risk.

Anthropic’s warning came a week after researchers at the University of Toronto carried out tests showing that AI could create a “worm” capable of adapting how it hacks while moving from device to device until it eventually takes over a computer network.

These dystopian-sounding developments came in advance of OpenAI boss Sam Altman saying on Saturday that AI has reached “the singularity” referring to the point at which AI surpasses human intelligence and becomes increasingly difficult to control.

Sean O hEigeartaigh, a research professor at the University of Cambridge, told Al Jazeera that he does not believe singularity has been reached quite yet.

“By the definition I’m familiar with, the singularity is the hypothetical point where AI is so capable and advancing so fast that it is transforming civilisation in ways we cannot control or predict,” he explained.

“This would most likely be through AI rapidly designing future generations of AI: recursive self-improvement. We aren’t there yet.”

However, he added: “The most advanced current models frequently make efforts to avoid being shut down in evaluation tests, and more capable future models will be better at bypassing ‘kill’ switches.”

Altman argued that such rapidly advancing AI is good for the world, but his comments have prompted further concerns about a new reality in which AI systems become unstoppable. How much of that is true and how much remains in the realms of science fiction is up for debate.

Concerns about AI range from the notion that it could “want” to “take over”, to making its own long-term plans, controlling the internet and operating infinitely.

While not quite amounting to full control of the internet, another theory, known as the dead internet theory, supposes that the World Wide Web will in the future mostly be filled with automated bots and AI-generated content rather than authentic human activity.

Many concerns raised by academics, however, are centred less on agentic AI’s intelligence, but on its ability to make judgements. MIT researchers have highlighted that “hallucinations”, which describe moments when an AI agent relies on the wrong data, can lead to grave mistakes. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) echoed this, saying “a system might be smart enough to execute a task perfectly yet fail to realise that a sudden change in the local situation makes that task a catastrophic mistake”.

Another concern that has been echoed for a while is for the labour market, if AI becomes too capable. A study by MIT, carried out in November, found that agentic AI could already replace more than 10 percent of US jobs.

The graphic below highlights some of the common misconceptions and fears about AI and the current reality.

FREDDY Brazier’s dog Pablo will not be destroyed after it attacked him and his nan Jackiey Budden.

Pals said Freddy, 21, was elated after fearing pocket bully Pablo would be put down after the incidents, which left him needing hospital treatment.

The Sun understands 18-month-old Pablo had a urine infection at the time of the three attacks earlier this month, which vets believe may have affected his behaviour.

Freddy was left with a 3cm hole in his right arm after Pablo attacked him, just hours after the dog wounded Jackiey, 68, for the second time last Wednesday.

Just days prior, on July 16, neighbours had raised the alarm after hearing Jackiey’s screams after she was attacked by the crossbreed.

A friend said: “Freddy had seven days to make a case to save Pablo from death and find him somewhere to stay.

face off

Katie Price and Peter Andre to come face to face for first time in 16 YEARS

HIGH ROAD

Olivia Attwood says why she failed to post screenshots ‘exposing’ ex Brad

“He has done that and he has now been assured that the dog won’t be destroyed.

“What happened was shocking and very sad, but Freddy knows Pablo isn’t a bad dog.

“He was told a urine infection could have altered his behaviour, and he has not been violent before.

“For now, Freddy has arranged to have Pablo taken by a specialist trainer who will care for him and get him back to his best before they work out what to do next.

“Freddy is absolutely elated.”

On Sunday Freddy made an emotional plea in The Sun On Sunday and admitted he was fearing for Pablo’s life after the police seized him after the attack.

The incident happened last week, with Freddy leaving his dad Jeff’s home in Essex to get to Bermondsey to support Jackiey, who had dialled 999 saying Pablo had attacked her.

Freddy went to take the dog away from Jackiey’s but it then turned on him in the street.

Freddy said of the incident: “I’ve taken him out of the house. I’ve calmed him down. I’m going: ‘Sorry boy I know it’s been so long. I love you. I’ve missed you.’

“I’m scratching his back, but then he hooked on to my arm. The dog was hanging off me.

“I couldn’t feel anything in my right arm. But then I saw blood coming out of my tracksuit.”

He went on to receive treatment at the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel.

Freddy said: “I have never seen him as my dog — he’s like my son.”

Beth used Vinted to sell all her unwanted items – and thinks other UK households could also be sitting on thousands of pounds

A Brit woman sold her unwanted things to start a new life abroad. But while she loves it, she misses one unusual thing about British life in particular.

Beth Hackman made £3,000 selling her unwanted clothes on Vinted to fund her dream move to Australia. She sold more than 600 items, including unwanted clothes, shoes and accessories on the app.

The 25 year old used the funds to pay for a flight, visa and accommodation in Sydney in March this year. Now she has started a new life as a physiotherapist.

But despite loving her new life, she does miss one aspect of life on the UK high street you perhaps wouldn’t expect. She said: “I’m loving Australia because of the work-life balance. I’m working fewer hours here than in the UK and making the same salary equivalent. I miss my family so much because I’m so close with them but I message and call them every day. Other than that I miss a Tesco meal deal.”

She decided to sell most of her clothes after realising she had far too many things. Beth listed everything from gym wear and occasion dresses to her brother’s prom suit and even a pair of Alexander McQueen trainers, which sold for £200.

“I’d just accumulated too much and hated how much was generally fast fashion,” Beth, from Windsor, Berkshire, said. “Moving to Australia has been a dream for around three years.

“I actually got to the point just before I went travelling that I sold all of my shoes so I just had my gym and running trainers or a random pair of heels left. I’d say I’ve sold at least 600 items and that much was just sat in my wardrobe.”

She believes many households are sitting on hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds worth of unwanted possessions without realising it. Beth said: “I would 100% encourage people to declutter if they’re saving for a major life goal. People don’t realise how much they could make.

“I think we’re all over consumers. Some of my friends have obscene amounts of clothes. Also, I feel better buying things second hand and also recycling my own clothes on Vinted. I wear a dress once and then sell it rather than let it sit in my wardrobe.”

Beth believes many people miss out on making easy money simply because they don’t present their listings properly. She also believes detailed descriptions and quick postage make a huge difference, helping her build positive reviews that encouraged more buyers.

Beth said: “Taking good photos with a clean background is key. I also used a mannequin sometimes. Good descriptions are important. I had a postage locker on my way to work so always posted things quickly so got lots of good reviews.

“I think people initially put things up for way too much. People on Vinted want a bargain and won’t pay normal resell prices. I will always negotiate. I’d rather it be sold and out of my house and lose out on 50p than be set on prices. Although some people do take the p***.

“Photos and descriptions really matter to me as a buyer and I wouldn’t buy from someone who looks like they don’t put effort in so I make sure my posts looks better.” Beth first downloaded Vinted around five years ago, but not with the intention of making money.

Instead, she used the resale platform as a savvy shopping tool, searching for designer pieces to see how they looked on real people before buying them new. She said: “I started to use it as a platform to double check a product.

“If I wanted a dress from House of CB, I’d search it on Vinted to see how it looked on real bodies and to compare sizes. I like to think I’m clever for this. It’s basically picture reviews.”

The checklist to launch an independent minor league baseball team is long and daunting. Can you find a place to play? How do you find enough players, and make enough money to pay them? How can you persuade a community to support a home team?

Here’s a new one: If minor league baseball is all about affordability, how do you compete against a nearby major league team that might undercut you on pricing?

This astounding dilemma is brought to you by the Angels, and their combination of a consistent focus on affordability and a consistently bad team.

Zach Neto is the best player the Angels have drafted and developed since Mike Trout — that is, in the past 17 years — and the team is considering whether to trade Neto ahead of next week’s trade deadline. That might make the team better in the long run, but almost certainly not next year.

And, next year, the Angels will have competition for the Orange County baseball dollar, a few exits down Interstate 5. On Tuesday, the Irvine City Council approved a five-year agreement under which a yet-to-be-named minor league team would play at the sparkling ballpark within the city’s Great Park, starting next May.

“We might not, on certain days, be the cheapest ticket in town,” said Paul Freedman, co-founder of Innovation Baseball Partners, the company for which the Irvine team is the fourth in its portfolio of minor league teams, all based in California and all competing in the Pioneer League, where players are limited to no more than two years of professional experience.

No ticket prices have been announced for the Irvine team. Jamie Rosenberg, another IBP co-founder, told the Irvine City Council that the IBP team in Long Beach charges roughly $10 to $15 for general admission, with a $2 special every Tuesday.

“The idea is to make this an accessible, affordable entertainment option for the community,” Rosenberg said.

Angels pitcher Reid Detmers throws from the mound against the Houston Astros in front of a sparse crowd Tuesday at Angel Stadium.

(Scott Strazzante / Associated Press)

On Tuesday, three hours after Rosenberg spoke, the Angels played the Houston Astros at Angel Stadium. On StubHub, you could buy a ticket for $2.

“I think Angel fans would hope the team gets better and maybe those prices would go up,” Freedman said, “but what we’re confident in is that we’re going to have a value experience.”

On Tuesday and every other day at Angel Stadium, the Angels proudly display a sign advertising a collection of what the team calls its “family value merchandise.” A T-shirt or a cap can be yours for $9.99, and a souvenir baseball with the team logo sells for $7.99.

“We really focus on a family of four,” Freedman said. “Can a family of four afford a night out?”

The Angels offer a family package — four tickets, four hot dogs, and four drinks — for $44.

You may remember what Angels owner Arte Moreno said in spring training: “The number one thing fans want is affordability.”

That infuriated Angels fans, of course, since their team has baseball’s longest playoff drought — 12 years, counting this one. Freedman says the fans of his teams want affordability too, but he cautioned against stretching the comparison too far.

For one, Trout plays in Anaheim. You can see a future Hall of Famer there all summer, and stars from around the league, and you can see the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers every year.

“We’re not ever going to replace the majesty of going to see the Dodgers with Shohei [Ohtani] playing,” Freedman said, “but we can create an environment that’s more fun.”

For two, whatever $2 tickets you might find in Anaheim put you in the vicinity of the top of a foul pole. All the tickets in Irvine put you right behind home plate, because there are barely 1,000 seats.

And, for fun, Freedman and his partners are planning to become the first American team to integrate elements of the Asian fan experience into the game presentation.

“We want to be doing things you haven’t seen in an American baseball game before,” he said, “and we want to put a fair price on that, one that is reasonable and allows us to operate our business.”

The traditional minor league team operates far from the shadow of a major league team. The Pioneer League, for instance, has teams in the California towns of Modesto and Marysville, and in Idaho Falls and Missoula, Mont.

The Irvine launch will be different and challenging — and, yes, fun. But success depends on paying customers, and nothing attracts customers like a trial offer.

And it just so happens that major league owners could still be locking out players by the time the Irvine team opens play next May.

“It would be terrible for the game,” Freedman said.

“As a baseball fan, it would break my heart. But it could be good for business.”

July 29 (UPI) — The United States announced a ban on imports of humanoid robots from China and other countries, citing “unacceptable risks” to national security and the safety of Americans.

The advanced robots ban, including humanoid, four-legged robots and bipeds, was part of a Federal Communications Commission update on Tuesday to a list of equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons” under the 2020 Secure Networks Act.

Power inverters that convert DC electricity to the AC electricity that flows across the country’s power grid were also banned.

The bans come after government agencies with “appropriate national security expertise” convened by President Donald Trump to look at the issue designated both technologies as national security threats.

“The networked capabilities of advanced robotic systems create extensive vulnerabilities and vectors for attacks that can manipulate the data and physical operation of the advanced robotic system. Relying on foreign-produced advanced robotic devices presents unacceptable supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” the group said in its National Security Determination.

“Advanced robotic devices collect data that could be leveraged by malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots,” it added.

China is the world’s largest producer of humanoid robots, with the United States its largest market.

Power-inverters, a critical kit which converts DC electricity from solar panels, batteries and other alternate energy sources into AC electricity enabling it to be fed into the U.S. energy grid, were also banned over fears overseas supplies could be manipulated or disrupted, compromising the United States’ electricity supply.

Any threat to electricity supply constituted a threat to the economy and national security, the FCC said, adding that in addition to supply chain vulnerabilities it was concerned increasingly networked inverters posed cybersecurity risks, including the possibility they could be switched off or used to harvest data as well as “facilitating remote access and surveillance by foreign government actors.”

Both bans only apply to new models and exempt overseas manufacturers with existing conditional waivers from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or, in the case of robots, the Defense Department, with the FCC saying it encouraged suppliers to apply for “conditional approval.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomed the measures from the White House.

“I am pleased that the FCC has now added foreign produced advanced robotics and power inverters to the FCC’s Covered List. Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue to do our part to secure America’s critical supply chains and, with today’s action, the FCC is acting in lock step with our national security agencies to do just that,” said Carr.

China criticized the move, accusing the United States of overreach and erecting trade barriers.

“China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and going after Chinese companies. Protectionism does not make the U.S. more competitive and will only hurt the interests of U.S. companies and consumers,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday.

“China will continue to do what is necessary to firmly defend the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies,” she added.

China’s Commerce Ministry called for the global community to combine forces to develop technologies “for the positive and for good,” saying Beijing resolutely stood against the “politicizing” of trade issues and the use of “groundless pretexts” to justify sanctions.

“China urges the United States to heed the objective and rational voices of the business communities in both countries, abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions,” a spokesperson for the ministry said.

Israel will head to national elections on October 27, marking the country’s first vote since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the Gaza war and later expanded into conflicts with Lebanon and Iran. The election is widely seen as a defining moment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political future faces its toughest test in years.

Although opinion polls suggest Netanyahu is heading toward defeat, Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system means election outcomes often depend on coalition negotiations rather than outright victories, leaving several possible paths to power.

Polls Signal Trouble for Netanyahu

Recent surveys indicate declining public confidence in Netanyahu, whose long standing reputation as Israel’s security leader suffered after the October 7 attack.

While many Israelis have supported military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, dissatisfaction has grown over the government’s handling of domestic issues, including the relationship between religion and the state.

Despite the unfavorable polling, Netanyahu remains one of Israel’s most experienced political figures and has repeatedly returned to power after seemingly insurmountable political setbacks.

Who Are Netanyahu’s Main Challengers?

Several political figures are seeking to capitalize on Netanyahu’s weakened position.

Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as one of the strongest contenders. Having lost his son during the Gaza conflict, Eisenkot has built a reputation as a respected security figure while portraying himself as an honest alternative to the current leadership.

Former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid have reunited politically after previously forming the coalition that briefly removed Netanyahu from office in 2021. Their earlier government brought together parties from across Israel’s political spectrum, although it lasted only 18 months.

Another challenger is former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, once a close Netanyahu ally. Lieberman later became one of his fiercest critics, accusing him of failing to adopt a sufficiently tough security policy.

How Israel’s Election System Works

Israel elects its 120 member Knesset through a nationwide system of proportional representation.

Rather than voting directly for a prime minister, citizens vote for political parties. Seats are distributed according to each party’s share of the national vote, provided they receive at least 3.25 percent, the equivalent of four parliamentary seats.

Because no party has ever secured an outright majority, governments are always formed through coalition negotiations among multiple parties.

This coalition system gives smaller parties significant influence over government formation and policymaking, often making them decisive kingmakers after elections.

Why Coalition Politics Matter

Coalition governments have become a defining feature of Israeli politics.

Since 2019, repeated political deadlock produced multiple elections before Netanyahu returned to power in 2022 with the country’s most right wing coalition to date.

His governing alliance has relied heavily on ultra Orthodox Jewish parties, whose demands, particularly regarding exemptions from compulsory military service, have generated growing public controversy during wartime.

Following disagreements, some coalition partners have already left the government, although they have continued providing parliamentary support on key votes.

The Main Parties in the Election

Netanyahu’s coalition includes:

• Likud
• Religious Zionism
• Jewish Power

The opposition currently consists of:

• Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot
• Together, the alliance between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid
• Israel Our Home, led by Avigdor Lieberman
• Arab parties including Hadash, Taal, Raam, and Balad
• The left wing Democrats, headed by former general Yair Golan

The political landscape could still change before candidate registration closes, as parties may merge, split, or withdraw from the race.

Why This Election Matters

The October election will shape Israel’s political direction at a time when the country remains engaged in multiple regional conflicts and faces mounting domestic challenges. While polls currently favor opposition forces, Israel’s coalition based electoral system means the final outcome will depend less on which party wins the most votes and more on which leader can assemble a governing majority in parliament.

Analysis

The 2026 Israeli election is not simply a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu but a broader test of whether Israeli voters want continuity or political renewal after years of conflict and instability. Netanyahu enters the race weakened by security failures linked to the October 7 attacks and growing public frustration over domestic governance, yet his long record of coalition building means he cannot be discounted. Even if his Likud party falls short, post election negotiations could still determine his political survival.

For the opposition, electoral success alone may not be enough. Parties ranging from centrists to left wing and Arab factions must overcome ideological divisions to build a stable coalition, a challenge that has repeatedly undermined previous governments. The election therefore highlights a recurring feature of Israeli politics: governments are decided not only at the ballot box but also through complex coalition bargaining that can reshape leadership long after votes are counted.

With information from Reuters.

OLIVIA Attwood has revealed why she decided against posting screenshots to ‘expose’ her ex-husband Bradley Dack.

On Tuesday, the reality star told fans she was about to ‘get messy’ and post some damning screenshots after slamming the footballer’s new relationship – but never actually shared any.

With fans left on tenterhooks waiting for the posts, Olivia then returned to Instagram to reveal that she had been advised against exposing anything.

“So the screenshots are on pause, my manager wanted me to be the bigger person,” she said while making air quotes with her hands.

Filming herself with best pal Mark Johnson White, Olivia explained that they were heading on a night out to take her mind off it instead.

“So I’m gonna have a spontaneous night out. But I’m wearing Vans, so we’re gonna go and buy some shoes.”

MESSY MESSAGE

Olivia Attwood promises to expose ‘messy screenshots’ as Brad is seen with ex

liv-vid

Olivia Attwood takes SAVAGE swipe at ‘bits on the side’ as ex Brad seen with his ex

Filming herself in Selfridges, Olivia then bought a pair of designer high heels and headed to Soho.

Documenting her evening on Instagram; she, Mark and another pal ended up in hotspot Freedom Bar – partying into the early hours.

She shared a myriad of videos from the 7 hour bender, which saw the pals on the dancefloor, enjoying bottles of Grey Goose vodka at a table and larking around in the toilets.

Olivia also deleted the two stories which told fans that she was going to post screenshots, suggesting fans certainly won’t be seeing the evidence anytime soon.

She split from Bradley at the beginning of the year and later told fans the footballer had been unfaithful during their ten-year relationship.

The Sun revealed months on from the split that Bradley had quietly rekindled his relationship with ex Emily Rose Maloney, who he had dated before Olivia.

Earlier this week, Bradley and Emily were pictured together publicly for the first time.

This led to a seething Olivia slamming his flame as the ‘bit on the side’.

Before threatening to release screenshots, she said on Instagram: “I have definitely beat up myself over my poor judgement over the past decade.

“But I guess I could have spent 10 years as the bit on the side / professional bench warmer … so silver linings I guess”.

Yet 12 weeks later, Rogers was back in the pool doing rehab. And by summer 2024 she was in Paris winning Paralympic gold. But perhaps the most remarkable thing of all is that she is quicker now than she was pre-accident.

“I never in a million years thought that I could be faster,” Rogers, who is unable to straighten her right arm, tells BBC Sport. “Yes, it looks a bit different and there is definitely an impairment there. But I’ve worked harder, I’m fitter, I’m stronger.

“My message is just ‘don’t let anyone tell you what you can and can’t do’. We’re all different. We’ve all got our own stuff. But I think anything is totally doable if you put your mind to it.”

Not many Para-athletes have done what Rogers has.

It was last year that she resolved to put her “big girl pants on” and act upon a notion she’d had for a while to test where she was in the 200m fly. And the first time she did swim it, she realised she was only just a fraction shy of her pre-accident best.

With that, her mind was made up. She spoke to the selectors and it was agreed that, as long as three other athletes did not post faster times, she could compete at the Commonwealths. They didn’t, and Rogers was in.

“I found out a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been so, so excited ever since,” said the Edinburgh University student before the heats.

“There’s no pressure. I think it’s such a privilege to have the opportunity to stand up there and and to show other people with impairments that, no matter what you are told, and no matter what gets thrown at you, like there’s a way through it.

“We quite often get told we can’t. And this is my way of proving that we can.”

The dust has barely settled on the expanded 48-team FIFA World Cup 2026, yet further development of the competition’s future has already been mooted, as well as struck by a fierce backlash.

The shine on the trophy, now held by Spain after their defeat of Argentina in the final, still glitters brightly, but there were tarnishes to this year’s event.

Now, the game’s global governing body, FIFA, and its president, Gianni Infantino, face yet more criticism after a plan was released to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors.

From European football’s governing body, UEFA, to the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, FIFA’s plan has been slammed. There has even been a suggestion of a boycott by UEFA.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at what the latest proposals on FIFA’s desk mean.

What are Gianni Infantino and FIFA’s new World Cup plans?

FIFA announced plans on Tuesday to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors in a bid to maximise revenue for the sport.

The proposal is to create a $20bn subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events.

FIFA says it would retain the majority share of a newly created FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, meaning it would still preside over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

Minority stakes, however, would be sold to external investors to raise up to $4.2bn as part of the new proposal.

Why do Infantino and FIFA want to sell stakes in the World Cup?

Debate raged for months in the build-up to World Cup 2026 that FIFA’s ticket pricing was pushing fans out of “the people’s game”, as it has long been regarded.

FIFA’s defence was that the World Cup is their main source of income to support the game around the globe – from the sport’s grassroots to the administration of the major international events.

This latest proposal is FIFA’s attempt to stretch that revenue potential even further.

How would the new plan for the FIFA World Cup work?

Billions of dollars are already raised by FIFA tournaments, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals.

This new commercial subsidiary, the FFE, would extend beyond traditional means of raising funds and would be akin to the franchise model that many sports have now turned to.

The Indian Premier League (IPL), a T20 cricket tournament, was one of the first competitions to fully exploit the potential of franchise models, selling stakes in teams in a newly formed competition.

On Wednesday, the IPL – only formed in 2008 – announced its value had soared more than 11% this year to 20.6bn.

Teams in that competition are owned by majority investors, who therefore hold significant sway in how it is run.

Other models, including The Hundred of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – an attempt to rival the IPL – have sold minority ownership of the teams.

ECB, as a result, retains control of the competition, and this is what FIFA is proposing for the share of the World Cup and its events that it intends to sell privately.

Nonetheless, a share is a share and new investors, be it in cricket’s The Hundred or in the FIFA World Cup, will expect at the very least to be heard when it comes to decision-making.

This is where concerns are being raised about the proposals.

Who are the potential investors in the World Cup and other FIFA events?

Thrive Eternal, a United States venture capital firm, has been put forward to lead the proposed investor group, FIFA said.

The vehicle was founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Any potential investors would thereafter buy into the FIFA events via Thrive Eternal.

What benefits are FIFA claiming if the World Cup and events plan succeeds?

FIFA has said all net benefits will be reinvested in football, and that all countries should benefit from the ever-increasing profitability of the sport.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

‘It is not FIFA’s to sell’: UEFA and UK PM reaction to Infantino’s World Cup plan?

FIFA has already clashed with domestic and continental governing bodies during World Cup 2026. The European powerhouse, UEFA, was the first to speak out against the new proposals.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said.

“UEFA takes it extremely seriously. So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Andy Burnham, who only replaced Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister last week, wrote on X: “Let me say this very directly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.

“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will,” he added.

The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) said on Wednesday that it ⁠had not been informed of FIFA’s proposed sale of equity to outside investors and was “deeply concerned” over a lack of due process.

What will happen next for FIFA’s World Cup plans, and will UEFA boycott?

Any change will need to be voted through by FIFA’s 211-country membership.

Of that number, 55 nations fall within UEFA’s governance.

The European body will hold an emergency meeting later this week to discuss the proposals.

Were FIFA to implement such a plan, one possible response UEFA could take would include a boycott of FIFA competitions.

Although at just above a quarter of FIFA membership, Europe has produced the winner of six of the last eight World Cups.

Argentina and Brazil are the only teams to prevent a clean sweep by the Europeans in that time, and, indeed, are the only nations outside Europe to win the World Cup since fellow South Americans Uruguay won their second and last title in 1950.

What were the main criticisms of FIFA World Cup 2026?

The main criticism going into the 2026 World Cup, held in the US, Canada and Mexico, was pricing. From tickets to transport links, it was felt that football fans on median salaries around the world were being priced out of the game.

During the World Cup, the decision to suspend a red card shown to USA striker Folarin Balogun “undermined the game’s integrity and credibility,” according to UEFA.

US President Donald Trump said he called Infantino about the ban that Balogun faced – the forward lined up for USA in their next match against Belgium.

FIFA also faced a backlash over hydration breaks that were introduced midway through each half of those matches. Critics said the breaks functioned primarily as commercial opportunities for broadcasters and disrupted the traditional flow of football matches at the tournament.

ICE deported a married couple back to Guatemala who had sought safety in the US. Their bodies have been found tied up and shot, with their 14-month-old daughter left alive beside them.

In a small mountain town you may stumble across hundreds of half-built., abandoned homes that resemble castles. While this development had big dreams, the plans never came into fruition

Imagine living in your very own miniature château, a three-storey villa that had gothic-inspired architecture with turrets and balustrades that made it resemble Cinderella’s castle at Disney World.

One housing developer had this dream, and it was set to build 732 of these unusual homes in a small town not far from Istanbul. But sadly, despite many homebuyers looking to buy into this unique community, it now lies abandoned 12 years after construction began.

While the houses looked straight out of a Disney film, they were actually inspired by Istanbul landmarks including the medieval Galata Tower and the Maiden’s Tower from Istanbul. The name of the development, Burj Al Babas, translates as ‘tower of Babas’ in Arabic, and came from the nearby Babas thermal springs. Each castle was set to have its own pipeline to the waters to create luxurious indoor swimming pools.

But the plans didn’t stop at rows and rows of castles. If completed, lucky residents would have had access to a huge domed complex with a shopping centre, mosque, cinema, and hammam, creating an entire community in the mountains. The relatively cool weather in the area was also seen as a selling point, allowing people from nearby Middle East countries to escape the worst of the summer heat.

The castles were listed in a glossy brochure, with prices ranging from $370,000 to $530,000, about £278,500 and £400,000, a modest sum to live in your own château. But despite half the castles being sold in advance, mostly to buyers from the Gulf states, not a single moving van made it to the complex.

As soon as construction began in 2014, with the aim of finishing in four years, it started to hit several snags. Firstly, contractors complained that the disposal of rubble had breached environmental laws, and a year later, workers protested that they hadn’t been paid. Contractors soon pulled out and started the long legal process of trying to reclaim their lost wages.

Add a failed military coup and bad luck with weather, and the construction soon fell behind schedule. Sales stalled too, due to the country’s instability at the time, and the lack of cash flow soon put the developer into bankruptcy.

Not a single castle was completed as of 2022, and there are 587 half-built castles on the plot, with the exposure to the elements likely causing water damage in many of them as time goes on.

As recently as 2024, there was renewed interest in the development with the Emir of Kuwait visiting President Erdoğan, and it was reported that Burj Al Babas was discussed. The Guardian were also given a tour of the site in the same year by Adem Tekgöz, a representative of developers the Sarot Group, who claimed: “It gets cold in the winter, so we stopped construction. We’re preparing to restart next summer”.

However, as of 2026 there appears to be no trace of the Sarot Group online and still no word as to whether the project will ever be restarted, leaving a ghost town rather than a fairytale village.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

THIS is the moment reality TV star Samie Elishi was escorted off the Love Island set by security after being banned from watching the final.

The 26-year-old, who originally appeared on season nine of the ITV show, flew out to Majorca to watch her man Tyrique Hyde on the last episode of Aftersun.

But, after spending hours getting glammed up for the “special day” she was refused entry into the villa.

In a video posted to her TikTok, Samie could be seen filming behind the cameras and production crew as she approached the set.

She filmed stunning Love Island host Maya Jama and her beau Ty all ready to film before things “took a turn for the worst.”

“We got told that we weren’t actually allowed to watch the show,” confessed Samie.

Read more on Samie Elishi

MY TY

Samie Elishi reveals future with Tyrique Hyde and she opens up on huge milestone

awkward

Love Island’s Ty grabs pal by neck after revealing favourite Islander is Samie’s ex

“Before everyone in the comments starts asking why, we don’t know why we had no explanation.

“The three of us [her, Harry Cooksley and Kane Ruddach] did actually have seats in the audience but they just got taken away, escorted, back to the holding villa.”

She continued: “God knows how I managed it but I got the show up on my phone, found a place with actually good signal and watched from my phone on a tripod.

Samie explained that while “it wasn’t quite” how they expected to spend their evening “Ty did amazing as always.”

The Love Island alum was banned from watching the final Aftersun alongside the partners of the other panelists – Shakira Khan and Joe Baggs.

Samie and Tyrique began dating back in March just weeks after she returned from Love Island All Stars in South Africa.

They were first spotted together at a Baller League match but The Sun revealed they had actually been out on a string of dates before then.

The loved up couple have since been on multiple holidays, barely leaving each other’s sides after going Instagram official.

Samie has publicly been a big supporter of Ty’s career, cheering on his Aftersun gig and his daily Love Island themed streams.