According to the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s announcement, Kyrgios provided a sample on 22 June during the ATP 250 tournament. A World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited laboratory reported on 17 July that it contained benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. His mandatory provisional suspension began on 4 August

Cocaine is classed as a stimulant and is prohibited in competition under WADA’s 2026 Prohibited List. Normally, a positive test for a non-specified stimulant can expose an athlete to a lengthy suspension.

But Kyrgios could be banned for just a month.

Kyrgios separately said that he intends to step away from public life for a convenient 28 days.

Has WADA suddenly become lackadaisical about cocaine?

No, this attitude is because anti-doping authorities have spent years trying to distinguish between athletes taking cocaine to compete and athletes taking cocaine recreationally.

In recent years, those circumstances have been treated very differently.

Cocaine, heroin, MDMA and THC are grouped by WADA as “Substances of Abuse”, covering drugs that are “frequently abused in society outside the context of sport”. If an athlete can establish that cocaine was taken out of competition and for reasons unrelated to sporting performance, the sanction is three months. If the athlete then satisfactorily completes a treatment programme approved by the relevant anti-doping authority, that falls to one month.

The test was in competition, but was the cocaine?

Two players can produce substantially the same laboratory result and face very different punishments.

Under the 2026 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme, a player does not commit a use violation by taking a substance outside competition if that substance is prohibited only in competition. But if the substance, a metabolite or another marker remains in the player’s body when an in-competition sample is collected, its presence can still constitute a separate anti-doping violation.

Cocaine therefore operates on two timelines.

The ITIA knows that benzoylecgonine was present in Kyrgios’s sample on 22 June. The laboratory finding does not establish exactly when he took cocaine or why. The distinction between presence and use is written in into the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme’s anti-doping violations.

Kyrgios must provehis cocaine use occurred out of competition and did not affect his performance.

The burden is his.

But if the cocaine was consumed during the in-competition period, that shortcut disappears. Under Article 10.2.4.2, a player who establishes that in-competition use was nevertheless unrelated to sporting performance can avoid having the conduct automatically classified as intentional, but does not receive the special reduced sanction.

Have players already received short one-month bans for cocaine?

Moroccan player Imran Sibille tested positive for cocaine following an in-competition sample collected at an ITF tournament in Catalonia on 9 March 2025. The ITIA later published its full decision.

Sibille admitted the violation but said he had taken cocaine approximately four to five days before the match, outside competition and in circumstances unrelated to his performance. His response included a detailed report from his psychologist.

The ITIA accepted his account and he completed the treatment programme, qualifying Sibille for a one-month ban.

It was even backdated to 8 May, when his provisional suspension began, and expired on 7 June. However, his results from the tournament were disqualified along with the associated ranking points and prize money.

So why is cocaine still prohibited at all?

Cocaine is a central nervous system stimulant.

A review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine explains that CNS stimulants can reduce tiredness and increase alertness, competitiveness and aggression, although it also notes the lack of convincing evidence that cocaine produces a genuine performance benefit.

A 1997 review of drugs and athletic performance found that the limited studies of cocaine and exercise showed little to no performance gain, and that the euphoria generated by the drug could create an illusion of improved performance.

There are also fairly obvious disadvantages to attempting elite sport while taking a drug that places additional strain on the cardiovascular system. Research into cocaine and exercise has identified potentially serious cardiovascular effects, while another review concluded that acute and chronic cocaine abuse can negatively affect exercise performance.

How has tennis historically punished cocaine?

Cocaine has been testing tennis’s anti-doping rules for more than 30 years.

In 1995, Mats Wilander and Karel Nováček tested positive at the French Open. After challenging the case, both eventually withdrew their appeals in 1997 and received three-month suspensions, as well as having to pay back significant figures in prize money.

The creation of the World Anti-Doping Code produced a more standardised system and, for cocaine cases, occasionally a much harsher one.

Martina Hingis tested positive for a cocaine metabolite in a sample provided at Wimbledon on 29 June 2007. Hingis denied knowingly taking cocaine but the independent tribunal rejected her arguments.

Crucially, Hingis could not establish how the cocaine entered her body. The tribunal therefore rejected her claim of No Fault or No Significant Fault or Negligence.

She received a two-year suspension, backdated to 1 October 2007, and forfeited her Wimbledon and subsequent ranking points and prize money.

Richard Gasquet’s case, known as the “cocaine kiss” case, two years later showed that explaining the route of ingestion was essential. just how much could depend on explaining the route of ingestion.

Gasquet tested positive for a very small quantity of a cocaine metabolite in Miami. He argued that he had been contaminated by kissing a woman who had consumed cocaine during a night out.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ultimately accepted the contamination argument. The ITF and WADA had appealed seeking a two-year sanction, but CAS dismissed their appeals after finding that Gasquet had committed no fault or negligence.

Why did the rules change?

During consultation on the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code, WADA recorded repeated concerns about sanctions involving what it then called “street drugs”.

“Cocaine is a particular problem,” WADA wrote in its summary of the proposed changes to the Code.

WADA pointed to the number of cocaine findings recorded across sport, with many being found to be recreational use outside competition rather than attempts to gain a sporting advantage.

The question became whether somebody who used cocaine socially outside competition should face the same anti-doping consequences as somebody who deliberately used a prohibited stimulant.

A welfare argument was also made. In cases involving substance-use problems, treatment could well be a more appropriate response than a lengthy exclusion from sport. The existing system was also forcing anti-doping organisations to spend considerable resources determining sanctions in cases where the conduct did not necessarily affect the competitive level playing field.

The 2021 Code therefore created the Substance of Abuse category.

WADA designated cocaine, MDMA, heroin and THC because they were frequently abused outside sport, and introduced the three-month sanction with a possible reduction to one month through an approved treatment programme. by an anti-doping test from deliberate performance enhancement.

But the one-month sanction disappears next year

The 2027 World Anti-Doping Code will retain special treatment for qualifying Substance of Abuse cases but change the sanction.

During the review process, stakeholders raised three main complaints about the present system:

• one month could be too short even for an anti-doping authority to evaluate and process a case.

• Requiring completion of a treatment programme could be logistically difficult.

• And mandatory rehabilitation could be excessive for a first violation where there was no evidence that treatment was actually needed. WADA set out those concerns in its summary of the proposed 2027 changes.

The new structure replaces the current one-month possibility for a first qualifying violation with a flat two-month suspension and no rehabilitation requirement. A subsequent violation involving the same Substance of Abuse carries four months, potentially reducible to two through a treatment programme.

The 2027 Code was scheduled for adoption by WADA’s Foundation Board in December 2025 and takes effect on 1 January 2027.

Ten years on, Infantino is fighting to keep his career. His plan to operate the World Cup and FIFA’s main commercial operations through FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) met with revolt.

With three confederations, half of the six that make up FIFA, calling for his head, Infantino removed FFE and has apologised for the plan. However, he has defended FFE’s core goals and refused to resign from his position as FIFA President.

The opposition to him is broad. UEFA, AFC and CONCACAF, representing European, Asian and North American football, refuse to drop their threatened boycott of FIFA competitions until Infantino is gone.

But CAF and Conmebol (Africa and South America) remain firmly on his side, as do many member nations, especially smaller ones who have seen their revenues skyrocket during Infantino’s tenure.

World leaders are similarly divided. Canada’s Mark Carney and the UK’s Andy Burnham have called for Infantino to go, while Trump, who received a FIFA Peace Prize from the Italian executive, has defended him to the hilt.

But the immediate dispute may now reach further back. UEFA’s lawyers may go back to the beginnings of Infantino’s career.

The immediate dispute may now reach further back. UEFA’s lawyers have demanded that 18 FIFA officials, including Infantino, preserve material about FFE to be used in potential future proceedings. The Telegraph has reported that UEFA is also considering a full review of Infantino’s 16 years spent atop European then world football.

So we went digging. The list of allegations is not a continuous corruption case, it is incredibly varied. It is also not meant to be a ruling on Infantino’s guilt or innocence, but as a journey through a career riddled with a surprisingly consistent stream of allegations of corruption, cronyism, and governance clashes.

We initially found 76 separate controversies. We narrowed them down to 45 as instances of related behavior were combined. Sometimes, matters that came out in the same scandal were separated when they tackled unrelated issues. Where possible, we have always sought to include Infantino or FIFA’s statements about the case.

Read more

He claimed that he and two accomplices were travelling towards the stadium carrying homemade bombs and an AR-15. They planned to attack police officers and players from both teams, he said, singling out Lionel Messi. Argentina nevertheless played that evening, beating Jordan 3-1 in their final group match.

Ten days later, another threat appeared before Argentina faced Egypt in Atlanta. An account on X claimed its owner was about to enter the stadium with four bombs strapped to his body and kill Messi. During the match on 7 July, police received a separate telephone warning that three bombs had been placed inside rubbish bins in the stadium. Explosives officers and detection dogs searched the venue. They found nothing.

The incidents became public one month later.

The headlines immediately became fantastical.
US Stopped Multiple Plots to Assassinate Lionel Messi During the 2026 World Cup, Police Report Says

Messi faced terror threats during FIFA World Cup 2026; leaked police document reveals plot to blow up footballer

What actually happened

The story began with an investigation published on 7 August by Spanish crime reporter Luis Rendueles.

Rendueles had obtained daily reports produced by the International Police Cooperation Center (IPCC), the multinational command centre through which US agencies and police officers from participating countries exchanged information during the World Cup.

In April, the FBI told the US Senate that it would manage the IPCC, with officers from 46 countries sharing real-time information about matches, fan events and other security incidents. The centre worked alongside an FBI intelligence hub which collected and circulated World Cup threat reports.

Its daily summaries therefore provide a valuable record of what security services were dealing with during the tournament. They include threats against players, stalking incidents, attempts to approach teams, online abuse and warnings concerning stadiums.

But they are operational summaries: records of information received and action taken during a live security operation. Rendueles did not report that he had obtained the completed investigations into the people behind the Messi threats. Nor did the FBI release a report announcing that it had captured assassins or disrupted attacks.

The Dallas report recorded what an unknown caller said: that he had two accomplices, that they possessed homemade bombs and an AR-15, and that they were travelling towards the stadium to attack police officers and players.

While those details are alarming, they all came from the caller.

The published account does not say that police found the supposed accomplices, intercepted a vehicle or recovered a rifle, explosives or bomb-making materials. It does not name the caller, describe an arrest or say whether investigators established that he was anywhere near the stadium.

It is possible that authorities identified him and have not disclosed the result. But the public record currently takes the story only as far as the telephone call.

The same problem applies to Atlanta.

Before Argentina played Egypt on 7 July, an X user reportedly threatened to enter Atlanta Stadium with four bombs attached to his body and kill Messi. The post described a would-be attacker, explosives, a target and an apparently imminent attack. Once again, none of those details was independently established in the reports subsequently published.

No account identifies the user, places him at the stadium or says that explosives were found in his possession. There has been no publicly disclosed arrest or criminal charge arising from the post.

During the match, a different person telephoned police and claimed that three bombs had been hidden in rubbish bins around the stadium. Explosives officers and detection dogs searched the venue. They found nothing.

Once the incidents are combined, however, they form an apparently convincing sequence: A man threatens to enter the stadium wearing bombs. Explosives teams sweep the venue. The attack fails.

That is not quite what the reports show. They show that police received two separate warnings, treated them seriously and found no explosives.

The evidence therefore supports a serious but narrower account of what happened. Messi was explicitly named in at least two threats during the World Cup. A third person made a separate bomb threat against a stadium in which he was playing. US authorities investigated the warnings and conducted at least one physical search.

What the evidence does not establish is that anybody built a bomb, acquired a rifle, assembled accomplices, travelled towards either stadium or took any other practical step towards killing Messi.

The threats were real. As far as is currently known, the plots were not.

How a threat became a plot

The story grew through small changes in language.

Rendueles’s original investigation carefully attributed the claims about the weapons and accomplices to the people making the threats. He did not report that officers had intercepted gunmen, recovered weapons or arrested an assassination team. But that distinction began to disappear as the story travelled.

On 8 August, La Gazzetta dello Sport published the headline “Messi attack foiled, police report reveals plot”. Its article called Messi “the primary target of a terrorist plot” and the Dallas threat an “elaborate plan.”

The Hindustan Times then reported that a leaked document had revealed a plot to blow up Messi. It described the Dallas caller and his alleged accomplices as “carrying homemade bombs and an AR-15.”

That was what the caller claimed. The available reports do not establish that police ever saw those weapons or confirmed that the accomplices existed.

By 9 August, Colombia One was reporting that the United States had stopped “multiple plots to assassinate Lionel Messi” and that the threats had been “neutralized.”

The transformation was complete. Several unrelated communications had become multiple assassination plots. The authorities’ response to the threats had become evidence that they had stopped the resulting attacks.

The documents also acquired greater official weight in the retelling. Internal daily security reports obtained by a journalist became a “leaked police dossier” and then an American police report revealing completed investigations. Some accounts suggested that US authorities had released the findings themselves.

They had not. The FBI has not publicly released the documents, identified the people behind the threats or announced that it disrupted an attempt to kill Messi.

What an actual sports plot looks like

The same period provides a useful comparison.

Before the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House on June 14, US investigators uncovered what the Justice Department describes as a coordinated plan to attack the event and kill government officials and other attendees.

In that case, investigators identified alleged conspirators and obtained their communications. They found weapons, ammunition, body armour and tactical equipment. The group allegedly discussed explosive-laden drones, snipers, targets and escape plans. Members were assigned roles, trained and arranged travel. Eight men were indicted on terrorism-support and murder-conspiracy charges.

Those defendants have not been convicted and the allegations must still be proved. But the case shows why authorities use the word plot: investigators allege that identifiable people communicated, obtained resources, allocated roles and took practical steps towards violence.

Nothing comparable has been disclosed in relation to Messi.

It remains possible that investigators identified one or both authors and have withheld details. Protective-security agencies do not publish every assessment, and the absence of public evidence cannot prove that no private intelligence exists.

The bureau’s public post-tournament accounts also make no mention of such a case. Its San Francisco field office’s summary, for example, said matches and fan events in its area concluded without any significant security incident and described the bureau’s work as investigating suspicious activity, evaluating information and mitigating threats.

While we wait for proof, there is no reason to pass the time by inventing assassins.

The talks ran some seven hours. No press was admitted and no questions were taken.

A letter was published to inform the hoi polloi of the footballing world that FIFA's secretary general and Management Board had heard Infantino apologise and had accepted that FIFA Forward Enterprised (FFE) was mishandled rather than misconceived. Infantino accepted that "mistakes were made in the process” and that it "should have been handled differently". The Management Board had therefore concluded, with "full support", that Infantino could stay in office.

And who signed this letter of full support for Gianni Infantino?

Gianni Infantino himself.

And Secretary-General Mattias Grafström, whom the letter also states has Infantino’s full support in return.

If only the rest of the footballing world could be so tidily aligned. In the days before and after Salé, Infantino faced:

• reports that he offered Morocco the 2030 World Cup final in exchange for its backing, which FIFA has vehemently denied

• a former FIFA vice-president accusing the organisation of blackmail

• American host cities waiting for FIFA payments they say were promised

• European clubs continuing to demand money due from the Club World Cup

• the Jordanian football federation also demanding owed money

• Portugal legend Luís Figo calling for his head

• heads of government publicly abandoning him

The Sports and Crime Briefing dives into Gianni Infantino’s week from hell.

FIFA’s confession is that it got caught

Read more

The Dane was second in the Tour de France, behind Tadej Pogačar, with the peloton due to start the mountainous 15th stage later that morning. Vingegaard was required to provide a sample, a process he said took approximately 40 minutes. Three hours later, officers visited Pogačar and tested him at 5am.

The yellow jersey later said he had managed around four hours’ sleep before abandoning any attempt to return to bed, listening to Eminem and drinking coffee instead.

The tests were conducted by the International Testing Agency, which has managed the UCI’s anti-doping programme independently since 2021. The ITA can collect blood or urine from riders during and outside competition, monitor their Athlete Biological Passports and use information from laboratories, performance data and its own investigations to decide who should be tested and when.

There appears to be almost no precedent …

Read more

National associations are also beginning to abandon him in public. The Dutch federation said it saw no future under Infantino and had lost confidence in his leadership. Germany’s DFB had already refused to support his re-election and is now accusing him of acting unilaterally and irresponsibly. England’s FA backed a full review of FIFA’s leadership and governance.

The knives are coming out inside FIFA. Infantino’s senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned in protest, disowned any involvement in FFE and called it “a bad deal for football”. Chief operating officer Kevin Lamour said senior staff had been deceived and described FFE as one man’s project.

These attempts predate FFE, with the Guardian reporting that moves to call the emergency meeting were “already under way” after FIFA lifted Folarin Balogun’s World Cup suspension following several calls involving Donald Trump.

Yet against all of that, a small cluster of federation presidents has chosen an odd line of defense.

They accept Infantino was wrong about FFE.

But they seem to think admitting he was wrong is itself the achievement and is proof that he is fit to remain in office. And much of this campaign feels oddly coordinated.

Read more

More than 200 of FIFA’s 211 member associations had reportedly endorsed him ahead of the vote in Rabat on 18 March 2027. No challenger had declared. He had already been returned unopposed by acclamation in Paris in 2019 and again in Kigali in 2023.

Three days ago, the coronation ended.

On 28 July, FIFA proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise, a commercial subsidiary that would house the business and event operations of the World Cup and other FIFA competitions, with a minority stake sold to private investors. Joshua Kushner’s investment vehicle was expected to lead the transaction. FIFA gave all 211 associations until 19 September to decide whether to participate, with tens of millions of dollars in additional funding attached to acceptance.

Europe answered first. On 30 July, all 55 UEFA associations rejected the plan and threatened to boycott every FIFA competition while it remained alive.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade,” UEFA said. “It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Then Concacaf turned. Its 41 associations across North America, Central America and the Caribbean rejected FFE too.

In Asia, the AFC said it had not been consulted and accused FIFA of bypassing the established channels of football governance.

Africa, Latin America and Oceania have been more cautious, promising review and consultation.

Now, the language has turned. Media reports say that Infantino may have scuppered his chances at re-election.

But while Infantino’s presidency is under its greatest pressure, it is not close to being over.

The reason is that Infantino has spent the last decade building a patronage system where those who support him have serious financial incentives to do so.

Will Infantino Fall? Not Yet

Football associations are rebelling against Infantino’s FFE proposal. They have not yet rebelled against Infantino.

Read more

The chair of the English Football Association is also one of FIFA’s eight vice-presidents. Yet, according to the FA, she and her organisation were “completely unaware” that Infantino was preparing to place FIFA’s commercial future inside a new $20 billion company and sell part of it to private investors.

Nine days after the final, FIFA publicly announced FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. One day later, The Times revealed that the 211 associations which must support the plan have until September 19 to decide.

That gives them 53 days to consider a company that would combine FIFA’s broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing businesses with the operational delivery of its men’s, women’s and youth tournaments.

I broke down the numbers behind this worrying proposal for the Sports and Crime Briefing yesterday (and incidentally wrote the 2nd most-read article in the history of the newsletter!)

No asset list, independent valuation, shareholder agreement or detailed governance structure has been published. FIFA has not explained whether FFE would own its commercial rights or license them, how long the arrangement would last, what rights investors would receive or how they could sell their interests.

But yet, members have 53 days and counting to approve.

An Artificially Close Deadline

Infantino’s letter tells the associations that “the decision on whether or not to proceed with this proposal belongs entirely to you”.

Does it really?

Read more

The FIFA president accused journalists and other detractors of having been “consumed by hate and criticism” during the World Cup. Those sitting “behind their pens”, he wrote, had spread false rumours while FIFA worked on the front lines to deliver the tournament. He reduced the relationship between FIFA and its critics to five words: “While you divide, we unite.”

Forty-eight hours later, FIFA asked those same critics, and the football world, to absorb a proposal that would fundamentally change how the sport is financed.

FIFA plans to create a new commercial company called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. The company would combine FIFA’s broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing rights with the operational delivery of its tournaments across men’s, women’s and youth football.

Private investors would be invited to buy minority interests. FIFA hopes to raise up to $4.2 billion on an initial equity valuation of $20 billion, meaning that outside investors could collectively acquire roughly one-fifth of the business.

Infantino described FFE as a “focused, dedicated business” whose value would be shared more widely across the game. The money raised would finance a new programme offering each of FIFA’s 211 member associations up to $20 million for major development projects. Infantino called it the “democratisation of football”.

Incidentally, Infantino stands to benefit colossally from this new arrangement, according to the Times, as he could become a chief executive of FFE, placing him in a commissioner-type role for world football once his term as FIFA president expires.

And the announced lead investor in this scheme is Joshua Kushner, brother to Jared, the son-in-law of President Donald Trump.

UEFA responded that the proposal “crosses a line”, pointing to the absence of transparency over who ultimately benefits.

The Sports and Crime Briefing breaks down the numbers and what they mean.

Takeaway 1: FIFA Is Selling Part of Its Commercial Future

FIFA is not offering investors shares in FIFA itself.

It is constituted as a Swiss association, governed through its member associations rather than conventional shareholders. FFE would be a separate company, initially owned and controlled by FIFA.

FFE would bring together FIFA’s commercial rights, including broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing, with the delivery of tournaments across men’s, women’s and youth football.

Read more

That same day, Russia launched one of its largest combined attacks of the war on Ukraine. Ukrainian Olympic skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych counted the barrage on X: 600 drones and 90 missiles. “It’s sad to see childhood legends turn into moral bankrupts for whom nothing is more valuable than Russian rubles,” he wrote. “Shame.”

Pirlo rejected any political reading of the day. “We came exclusively for sport and for the children,” he said. “Football has the unique power to bring people together, to overcome borders and to offer a moment of joy, especially to young kids who dream of becoming footballers.”

Two months later, Pirlo’s job as an ambassador for Fonbet helped sabotage the most important coaching appointment in Italian football.

How close was Pirlo to the job?

Seemingly one signature away. After Pep Guardiola declined, technical director Paolo Maldini and advisor Leonardo settled on Pirlo, with Italian media reporting a four-year contract to the 2030 World Cup at no more than €1.5 million a season plus bonuses tied to Euro 2028 qualification. His backroom staff was already assembled, with Roberto Baronio lined up as his deputy. His agent Tullio Tinti had begun the paperwork to free him from his club, United FC Dubai. The announcement was expected around the FIGC Federal Council of July 28.

What exactly happened?

Read more

The diagnosis, delivered to camera, was that Kane was suffering from magia negra (black magic), mal de ojo (the evil eye) and mala energía (black energy).

The segment went viral in late June, shortly after the World Cup began.

But the ritual had not originated in Peru. It was intended to reverse a curse supposedly placed on Kane some 4,000 miles away, in a shrine town in Ghana’s Ashanti Region.

Spain are world champions. But the 2026 World Cup was shadowed by a different game: traditional priests, curanderos, seers, shamans, witch doctors, tarotists and self-styled prophets attaching curses, blessings and predictions to almost every match. This article is Part One of a new Sports and Crime Briefing investigative series diving deep into these fraud schemes, how they are monetised, and how social media clicks are turned into paying customers.

How a curse crossed two continents

Read more

Campaz, who had scored on his World Cup debut against Uzbekistan three weeks earlier, blazed the shot over the bar.

And while Campaz converted his penalty in the shootout, it didn’t matter and Colombia went out 4-3.

On the evening of July 8, a charter carrying the Colombian squad left Vancouver for Bogotá, landing at around 3 a.m. Colombia time. National icon James Rodríguez was on board, as were his teammates.

Campaz was absent.

The next morning, journalist Camilo Pinto revealed how Campaz's social media had been flooded with abuse since the final whistle.

Among the messages, one stood out.

Read more

“In light of the decision taken on Sunday to suspend the implementation of an automatic one-match suspension, we feel that it is time for European Football Associations, all of whom are member associations of FIFA, to intervene and ask that FIFA investigate the aforementioned decision-making processes,” they wrote.

It is one of the most concerted moves any European institution has made against a sitting FIFA president.

Read more

Russian athletes can now qualify for the Los Angeles 2028 Games on a full national team. FIFA is considering doing the same thing.

Now, Russia’s suspension had nothing to do with doping.Russia was banned in 2023 for annexing Ukrainian sports organisations in occupied territory. According to the IOC, Russia has given up gave up its claim to those bodies and therefore, the IOC’s lawyers concluded the grounds for suspension were gone.

The Sports and Crime Briefing has previously revealed how egregious this is and the amount of death and destruction wrought upon Ukrainian athletes by Russian violence.

But Russia’s older problem, generations of a state-backed doping program, remains open. The IOC even said as much in its decision to reinstate Russia.

“To address the lack of confidence in the global sporting community relating to the return of Russian athletes to international competition and in view of the recent allegations regarding the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)’s governance, and pending confirmation that reinstatement conditions concerning the World Anti-Doping Code have been met, all Russian athletes returning to international competition must meet relevant anti-doping requirements,” it read.

What are the allegations concerning RUSADA’s governance?

Those allegations concern Veronika Loginova, RUSADA’s director general, who is under two investigations by WADA, the global anti-doping watchdog.

In April, Insider reported that her long-term partner is a serving FSB colonel, Dmitry Kovalov, the very officer Russia’s security service assigns to defend its accused dopers in the Swiss courts.

Jens Weinreich’s Sport & Politics newsletter then tracked that the FSB unit running Russia’s Olympic doping operations also runs its political hit squads, including the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.

Loginova has been neither charged nor sanctioned, and nothing has been proven.

But her situation raises a more basic question than her own conduct: in the ten years since Russia’s doping exile began, has its anti-doping system improved at all?

There are four ways to check.

1. Did Russia ever hand over the evidence?

Read more

FIFA ruled that Balogun’s automatic one-match suspension would be suspended for a one-year probationary period, clearing him to play in the United States’ World Cup Round of 16 match against Belgium. UEFA responded by accusing FIFA of going beyond a routine disciplinary judgment and undermining the authority of referees.

“Yesterday’s decision to suspend for a probationary period of a year the implementation of the one-match automatic suspension following the red card issued to the player Folarin Balogun crossed a red line,” UEFA said in a statement.

Belgium called the decision similar to April Fool’s. It then lodged a formal appeal within hours, claiming that FIFA had interfered in the integrity of the competition, perhaps at the behest of US Pr…

Read more

The governor climbed aboard. The Netherlands was set to play Morocco in Monterrey, the capital of Nuevo León.

“Muy contento,” he posted on social media, “se me cumplió el sueño de subirme al Orange Bus.” (Very happy, I fulfilled my dream of climbing onboard the Orange Bus.”

The stunt on the Oranjebus was framed as a politician doing a PR coup by welcoming foreign supporters to his country and state.

But García, a Mexican presidential hopeful, is now in a spot of bother.

Why is he in trouble?

García had wanted this fixture for months. Back in January, he bet the equivalent of his monthly salary that the Netherlands would play in Monterrey.

He declared match day a public holiday, closing schools and non-essential offices. He arranged for free beer, cabrito and tacos to be handed out across Parque Fundidora and the Macroplaza, and booked Enrique Iglesias to perform.

Read more

The video used the captain of Manchester United to lead punters most to a banned betting site.

It was the most polished example of a world of online disinformation that has dogged Portugal.

During the World Cup, after Cristiano Ronaldo put in a poor performance against DR Congo, a forged screenshot showed a demand from João Neves’ partner, the actress Madalena Aragão, that Ronaldo should retire. It was convincing enough to draw a public reply from Ronaldo’s fiancée before it was dismissed.

An ambiguous quote from Neves about Ronaldo was rewritten online into a dressing-room mutiny the players spent days denying.

Can this be stopped given the level of fan support for the World Cup?

Read more

Wahi came off to applause, a France youth international who had switched to the country of his father. He had stalled at Eintracht Frankfurt, barely featuring in the Bundesliga, before a January loan to Nice revived him thanks to five goals in 14 games.

But two weeks before the applause in Philadelphia, Wahi was arrested in Marseille.

On 29 May, hours after he scored twice to keep Nice in the top flight, anti-corruption police detained him on suspicion of spot-fixing. He was questioned and released without charge, and the investigation remains open.

What they were looking at was not a thrown match or a bought result. It was a single yellow card, the kind of spot-fix we have covered closely before at the Sports and Crime Briefing, picked up in a goalless game against Metz on the final day of the French season.

What happened against Metz?

In the final round of the Ligue 1 season, Nice received Metz at home in the Allianz Riviera.

Metz had nothing left to play for. They had been relegated two natchdays earlier, bottom of the table and already down.

Nice had everything to play for.

Read more

There was the sitting president of the United States who had quietly bought stock in the UFC’s parent company while promoting the event. There was the federal lawsuit that tried and failed to halt the whole thing as “deeply corrupt”. There was the absence of any athletic commission willing to sanction the fights. There was a security bill of over 10 million USD the White House insisted cost the taxpayer nothing.

We were wrong. The full scale of the insanity did not reveal itself until the event itself.

On the night, a UFC commentator posted and hurriedly deleted screenshots that appeared to show Eric Trump asking him whether the fights were rigged. A victorious heavyweight used his live post-fight interview to inform the nation that Michelle Obama is a man.

A bonus for winning fighters would be paid in Trump’s own cryptocurrency. UFC fighter Sean Strickland was swarmed at the public fan festival and carried off by a multi-agency federal detail to chants of “USA”. And Alex Pereira had assured his followers that he had communed with nature and that it would therefore not rain.

Brace for the Sports and Crime Briefing’s takeways and why the UFC’s White House event was rather more worrying than weird.

Whose money were the fighters actually paid in?

Read more

It is the latest chapter in a ticketing saga that had been unfolding for eight months, one that has drawn subpoenas from two American attorneys general, an investigation in Texas, a letter signed by 69 members of Congress, a formal complaint to the European Commission and a public rebuke from a sitting US president who is one of Gianni Infantino’s closest allies.

The Sports and Crime Briefing has told the whole story, from the beginning, of how FIFA, with an assist from the White House, became a tout.

The first World Cup with dynamic pricing

The 2026 World Cup is the first at which FIFA has applied variable, demand-based pricing to match tickets. The model will be familiar to anyone who has tried to buy a concert ticket in America in recent years. Prices float as demand pushes them up, and there is no ceiling.

Read more