The International Olympic Committee said Thursday that youth athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports should be allowed to compete under their national flag and anthem, easing restrictions on Russian athletes that have been in place since the country’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The updated position applies to the 2026 Youth Olympic Games in Dakar, Senegal, but it did not mention the Milan Cortina Winter Games next year, where Russian athletes are expected to compete as neutral competitors under stringent regulations. “With its considerations today, the Olympic Summit recognised that athletes, and in particular youth athletes, should not be held accountable for the actions of their governments — sport is their access to hope, and a way to show that all athletes can respect the same rules and each another,” the IOC said in a statement. Still, the IOC maintained its guidance that Russia should not be allowed to host international sports events, although it said events could be hosted in Belarus. It also reiterated that restrictions on government officials from Russia and Belarus should stay in place for both youth and adult sports events. Russia has long faced scrutiny from the IOC over allegations of doping, with a number of Russian athletes who competed in the 2014 Sochi Olympics being stripped of their medals. IOC President Kirsty Coventry, who took the helm of the organization in June, has signaled that she would be open to seeing Russia compete in the 2026 Olympic Games, sparking a fierce backlash from Ukraine. The decision came out of this week’s Olympic Summit in Switzerland, at which key stakeholders decided to take up a recommendation from the committee’s Executive Board to change its guidance for Russian youth athletes. In its statement, the IOC said, “The Summit also reaffirmed that athletes have a fundamental right to access sport across the world, and to compete free from political interference or pressure from governmental organisations.” European soccer governing body UEFA attempted to allow Russian youth to participate in its competitions in 2023 but ultimately scuttled the effort following opposition from countries including Ukraine.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into whether Google breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as video uploaded to YouTube, for artificial intelligence purposes. The investigation will examine whether Google is distorting competition by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, or by granting itself privileged access to such content, thus placing rival AI models at a disadvantage, the Commission said on Tuesday. In a statement, the EU executive said it was concerned that Google may have used the content of web publishers to provide generative AI-powered services on its search results pages without appropriate compensation to publishers, and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. Further, it said that the U.S. search giant may have used video and other content uploaded on YouTube to train Google’s generative AI models without compensating creators and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. The formal antitrust probe follows Google’s rollout of AI-driven search results, which resulted in a drop in traffic to online news sites. Google was fined nearly €3 billion in September for abusing its dominance in online advertising. It has proposed technical remedies over that penalty, but resisted a call by EU competition chief Teresa Ribera to break itself up.

Soccer may be the world’s most popular pastime, but much about Friday’s lottery draw setting the match schedule for next summer’s World Cup has been programmed with just one fan in mind. Never before has the sports governing body given out a peace prize to a politician eager for one, or booked the Village People and Andrea Bocelli to play alongside. President Donald Trump’s appearance on the Kennedy Center stage will be at least his seventh encounter this year with FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who has logged more face time with Trump this year than any world leader. Infantino’s savvy navigation of the American political scene has helped FIFA build institutional support for a tournament facing unprecedented logistical complications. But that success is beginning to weaken Infantino, as the third-term FIFA president faces newfound internal opposition for his over-the-top courtship of Trump. Our interviews with six international soccer officials across three continents reveal widespread frustration with Infantino’s decision to side with Trump even as White House policies cause chaos for World Cup-bound teams, fans and local organizers, clashing with Infantino’s promise to have a tournament that welcomes the world. “[FIFA] has always promoted a very cozy, close relationship with politicians and political actors in a variety of ways, including by having them in their bodies or running the National Football Associations, for example,” said Miguel Maduro, the chairman of FIFA’s governance and review committee between 2016 and 2017. “This said, the extent of this cozy relationship that we’ve seen and and the public character that has been assumed between Mr. Infantino and Mr. Trump is different even from what we saw in the past,” said Maduro. “It’s not that things like that didn’t happen in the past, but it didn’t happen so obviously and so emphatically as they do now.” Our reporting found that Infantino did not inform his 37-member FIFA Council before creating the FIFA Peace Prize this year, three people familiar with the matter told POLITICO. Over the past year, at least three of FIFA’s eight vice presidents have publicly or privately expressed their concerns about the lengths Infantino is willing to go to please Trump. While Infantino has won his last two terms unopposed, when he stands next for reelection in 2027 he will likely have to answer to FIFA’s 211 member federations for his willing entanglement in the controversies of American politics. Infantino’s allies say that those opposed to many of his soccer-related initiatives — focused on growing the game in emerging markets and expanding FIFA’s flagship tournaments — are using his Trump ties to exploit differences on unrelated issues. “If a challenger to Gianni for the 2027 election emerges, it will be in the next six to eight months and the World Cup will be a litmus test,” said a person involved with World Cup planning granted anonymity to characterize private conversations with top soccer officials. “If something goes off the rails or somebody decides they want to make a run against him, they’re going to use his relationship with Trump to exploit the cracks.” THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENTS Infantino launched his first campaign for FIFA’s presidency as an underdog. A corruption scandal had toppled much of FIFA’s leadership in 2015, forcing a so-called “extraordinary congress” the next year in which members would vote to decide who would complete the unfinished term vacated by the newly suspended president Sepp Blatter. FIFA, comprised of national soccer federations, picks its president through a secret ballot of those members — one nation, one vote. To win in a multi-candidate field, one must capture two-thirds of the total ballots cast, with rounds of voting until a single candidate locks in a two-way majority. The favorite to succeed Blatter was Sheik Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, a Bahraini royal who headed the Asian Football Confederation and appeared to have stitched together a coalition of Asian and African nations. Infantino, a polyglot Swiss-Italian lawyer who had spent seven years as secretary general of European confederation UEFA, pitched himself as someone who could disperse the organization’s wealth back to member countries. “The money of FIFA is your money,” Infantino said in a speech shortly before the vote. “It is not the money of the FIFA president. It’s your money.” Infantino and Al Khalifa ran neck-in-neck in the first round. With a clear two-person race, the United States — which had been supporting Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein of Jordan, who finished a distant third — switched its vote to Infantino in the second round, triggering a rush of support from the Western Hemisphere that gave Infantino a conclusive 115-vote total. A fourth candidate, former French diplomat Jérome Champagne, credited Infantino’s victory to “a strong alliance between Europe and North America and the Anglo-Saxon world.” “Prepare yourself well but be vigilant,” Blatter warned Infantino upon his election in a public letter. “While everyone supports you and tells you nice words, know that once you are the president, friends become rare.” Once in office, Infantino’s initiatives were focused on expanding FIFA’s most valuable properties. He converted a ten-day, exhibition-like competition among seven regional club champions into the month-long FIFA Club World Cup. He also pushed, with mixed success, to grow the size and scope of the World Cup and increase its frequency. In 2017, Infantino announced that the first World Cup under an expanded format — up from 32 countries participating to 48, adding a week of matches to the schedule — would take place in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Facing the first tournament in which hosting responsibilities would be shared by three countries, Infantino visited Trump to secure assurances of government support. Infantino went on to win subsequent terms in 2019 and 2023, and when Trump returned to the White House for his second, in 2025, their political trajectories became permanently intertwined. Infantino set out to raise his profile in American life and his relationships with the country’s political class, including through a campaign-style tour through many of the American cities hosting matches for the inaugural Club World Cup in 2025 and the World Cup the following summer. Infantino sat next to Trump at the tournament’s final, held at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium in July, dragging him onto the winners’ platform as Infantino went to award a trophy and medals to champions Chelsea. Trump lingered awkwardly on stage to the befuddlement of Chelsea’s players, who had not expected they would share the moment with an American politician. Other appearances with Trump placed Infantino squarely between a president intent on solving overseas conflicts and punishing foes, while closing American borders to visitors and trade, and FIFA member nations who may hold starkly different views, or worse. Infantino stood quietly in the Oval Office as he said he would not rule out strikes against fellow World Cup co-host Mexico to target drug cartels, and joined Trump’s entourage on a trip designed to cultivate investment opportunities in the Persian Gulf. When FIFA had to delay the opening of its annual congress in Asuncion, Paraguay, to accommodate Infantino’s travel from a Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum in Riyadh, two FIFA vice presidents were among those who joined English Football Association chairwoman Debbie Hewitt and other federation heads exiting in protest. European confederation UEFA — with 55 member nations, FIFA’s largest — attacked him with unusually pointed language. “To have the timetable changed at the last minute for what appears to be simply to accommodate private political interests,” UEFA wrote in its statement, “does the game no service and appears to put its interests second.” GIANNI ON THE SPOT In September, Trump said he would try to move scheduled World Cup matches out of Democratic-run jurisdictions that are “even a little bit dangerous.” Infantino, whose organization had spent years vetting and preparing those cities for the tournament, said nothing. But a potential rival to Infantino’s leadership took issue with both the American president’s threat — since repeated but not acted upon — and the FIFA president’s silence. “It’s FIFA’s tournament, FIFA’s jurisdiction, FIFA makes those decisions,” FIFA vice president Victor Montagliani, the organization’s leading figure from North America, said at a sports-business conference in London six days later. While president of the Canadian Soccer Association, Montagliani helped to secure his country’s participation in the three-way so-called “United Bid” for next summer’s World Cup. (The Vancouver insurance executive also helped bring the Women’s World Cup to Canada in 2015.) He now serves as president of CONCACAF, the 41-member regional federation encompassing the 41 nations of North America, Central America and the Caribbean. Close to Prime Minister Mark Carney, Montagliani has come to believe Infantino has catered too much to Trump for a tournament realized through the cooperation of three nations, according to three of the people familiar with the dynamics of FIFA’s leadership. (Montagliani declined an interview request.) The leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada will all participate in a ceremonial ball draw in today’s draw. “With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them and football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans,” Montagliani told an interviewer at the London conference in late September. “That’s the beauty of our game, is that it is bigger than any individual and bigger than any country.” Montagliani’s “FIFA’s jurisdiction” remarks did not land well with Infantino’s inner sanctum. “It is ultimately the government’s responsibility to decide what’s in the best interest of public safety,” FIFA said in a statement to POLITICO in October after Trump’s next round of threats to relocate matches. The relationship between Infantino and Montagliani has further soured in recent months as Trump reignited tensions between Washington and Ottawa over an anti-tariff ad taking aim at U.S. trade policy, according to a person close to Montagliani granted anonymity to candidly characterize his thinking. Montagliani has his own thoughts on how far relationships with government figures should go but respects Infantino’s perspective, that person said, maintaining the two men had a good relationship despite occasional differences. Others around FIFA have their own parochial concerns with Trump. Despite being among the first teams to qualify for the tournament, Iran threatened to boycott Friday’s draw because some members of its delegation were denied visas for travel to Washington. According to a FIFA official, Iran ultimately reversed course and sent Iranian head coach Ardeshir Ghalenoy after FIFA worked closely with the U.S. government and Iran’s soccer federation. Another qualifying team, Haiti, is also covered by the 19-country travel ban that Trump signed in June. The State Department said that while the policy has a specific carveout for World Cup competitors and their families, the exception will not be applied to fans or spectators. The president of the Japanese Football Association, Tsuneyasu Miyamoto, told POLITICO in an interview last month that he was worried that Trump’s immigration policies could subject Japanese travelers to “deportations happening unnecessarily.” Infantino has stopped short of pressuring Trump to make exceptions to immigration policy for the sake of soccer. FIFA officials have said that when it chooses a tournament location it does not expect that country to significantly alter its immigration laws or vetting standards for the tournament, although many past hosts have chosen to relax visa requirements for World Cup ticketholders. Many European countries’ soccer federations, led by Ireland and Norway, have pushed to ban Israel from international soccer due to its military invasion of Gaza. The movement received an apparent boost from UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin, who supported unfurling a banner that read “Stop Killing Children; Stop Killing Civilians” on the field before a UEFA Super Cup match in August. “If such a big thing is going on, such a terrible thing that doesn’t allow me to sleep — not me, all my colleagues,” — nobody in this organization said we shouldn’t do it. No one,” Čeferin told POLITICO in August. “Then you have to do what is the right thing to do.” European countries were set on a collision with Trump, whose State Department indicated it would work to “fully stop any effort to attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup.” UEFA pulled back on a planned vote over Israel’s place as a Trump-negotiated peace agreement took hold. Infantino joined Trump and other heads of state in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, for a summit to implement the agreement’s first phase. Nothing threatens to awaken opposition to Infantino as much as his decision to invent a FIFA Peace Prize just as Trump began to complain in October about being passed over for one from the Norwegian Nobel Committee. According to a draft run-of-show for Friday’s draw, Trump is scheduled to speak for two minutes today after receiving the Peace Prize. “He is just implementing what he said he would do,” Infantino said at an American Business Forum in Miami, also attended by Trump, on the day news of the prize was made public. “So I think we should all support what he’s doing because I think it’s looking pretty good.” According to FIFA rules, the organization’s president needs sign-off from the 37-member FIFA council on certain items like the international match calendar, host designations for upcoming FIFA tournaments, and financial matters. FIFA’s charter does not contemplate the creation of a new prize specifically to award a world leader, but those familiar with the organization’s governance say it may violate an ethics policy that requires officers “remain politically neutral.” (In 2019, FIFA honored Argentina’s President Mauricio Macri, who previously led venerable club Boca Juniors, with its first-ever Living Football Award.) “Giving this award to someone that is an active political actor, by itself, is, at least in my opinion, likely a violation of the principle of political neutrality,” said Maduro, a Portuguese legal scholar appointed to oversee FIFA’s governance in the wake of the corruption scandal that helped bring Infantino to office. “We need to know two things: how the award was created and who then took the decision to whom the award was to be given. Both of these decisions should not be taken by the president himself.” Infantino fully bypassed the FIFA Council in deciding to create and award the prize to Trump, according to three people familiar with conversations between Infantino and the council’s members. Even the vice presidents who were given a heads-up ahead of time say they were simply being told after the decision was made. FOUR MORE YEARS? Infantino, a quintessential European first elected with support from his home continent, now sees his strongest base of support in Asia, Africa, and the Gulf countries. He won his last two terms by acclamation, after delivering on his promises to disperse the $11 billion FIFA takes in each World Cup cycle. The FIFA Forward program, launched in 2016, sent $2.8 billion back to member federations and regional confederations in its first six years, funding everything from the development of Papua New Guinea’s women’s squad to an air dome for winter training in Mongolia. But Infantino’s political choices may be costing him in Europe, where the sport is more established and national federations are less dependent on FIFA’s largesse. Infantino’s defenders say that European soccer officials, including Čeferin, have turned against him because they see his attempts to expand the World Cup and institute the Club World Cup as a threat to the primacy of their regional competitions. Many in international soccer see Montagliani as the most viable potential challenger, although a person close to him says he has no intention of seeking FIFA’s presidency in 2027 and instead plans to seek reelection that year to what would have to be his final term as CONCACAF’s president. But he fits the profile of someone best positioned to dethrone the incumbent, ironically by stitching together the type of trans-Atlantic alliance that lifted Infantino to his first victory. “Mexico is not happy. Canada is not happy, and that’s because they’re politically not happy with Trump,” said a senior national-federation official, granted anonymity to candidly discuss dynamics within CONCACAF. “There’s that direct tension.”

BRUSSELS — A bid to revive a European football Super League is unlikely to find a sympathetic audience in Brussels despite the court victory the breakaway contest scored last week. A Spanish appeals court called foul on European football’s organizing body, ruling that UEFA had illegally stifled an attempt by a dozen top clubs from Spain, Italy and England to form their own contest. The EU “will continue to advocate for the strengthening of our sport model, our national leagues and grassroot sport,” Glenn Micallef, commissioner for culture and sport, said in a statement to POLITICO reacting to the judgment.  The Maltese commissioner said the EU executive would continue to work with UEFA and LaLiga — the European and Spanish federations found by the Madrid court to have breached EU competition law — in order to ensure that money is redistributed from the top clubs to amateur leagues. In June, the Spanish competition authority opened an antitrust investigation into UEFA’s conduct, a case which observers — including a former advocate general — think should be taken up by the European Commission. “[The Super League] contradicts the principles of the European Sports Model and collapsed in 2021 because it was a bad idea from the start,” said Micallef, noting that it was rejected by fans, players and governments across Europe at the time. The commissioner’s comment follows the European Parliament’s adoption of a resolution in October that stated the legislative body’s opposition to “breakaway competitions.” Both Real Madrid and A22 Sports Management have said that they will seek damages from UEFA following the court ruling. Both Real Madrid and A22 Sports Management have said that they will seek damages from UEFA following the court ruling. | Sven Hoppe/Getty Images Despite the Super League’s collapse in 2021, its backers have continued to try to organize a breakaway competition.  In response to last Wednesday’s judgment, A22 said that it had held extensive discussions with UEFA officials aimed at creating an open, cross-border football competition, but that the Switzerland-based federation “refused to pursue a compromise.” “UEFA is clearly legally obliged to recognise A22’s right to organize competitions on an equal footing with their own,” the firm said in a statement. UEFA has said that it will carefully review the judgment before deciding on further steps.

LONDON — Google has “substantial and entrenched market power” in online search meaning it will likely face restrictions in the U.K. to curb its dominance, the country’s competition watchdog confirmed Friday.  The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it would designate Google with “strategic market status” for search and search advertising, the first time it has used its new digital markets powers which came into force in January.  A consultation on what steps the regulator might take to stem that dominance, known as conduct requirements, will follow later this year, the CMA said.   Possible options include choice screens, meaning users can switch more easily between search engines; more transparency and control for publishers whose content is used in Google’s AI overviews; and portability of consumer search data.  Google said the CMA’s actions could delay product launches in the U.K.   Its senior director for competition Oliver Bethell said: “The U.K. enjoys access to the latest products and services before other countries because it has so far avoided costly restrictions on popular services, such as Search. Retaining this position means avoiding unduly onerous regulations and learning from the negative results seen in other jurisdictions.” He added: “Many of the ideas for interventions that have been raised in this process would inhibit U.K. innovation and growth, potentially slowing product launches at a time of profound AI-based innovation.” Google’s Gemini AI assistant is not in scope of the designation, but the CMA said its position will be “kept under review.” Will Hayter, executive director for digital markets at the CMA, said: “By promoting competition in digital markets like search and search advertising we can unlock opportunities for businesses big and small to support innovation and growth, driving investment across the U.K. economy.” Google is the CMA’s first target under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. It reached a provisional decision in June to designate Google. It is also intending to designate Google and Apple in mobile ecosystems, with a decision on that due later in October.  

Half of the U.S. government’s biggest antitrust cases against tech giants are hitting “pause,” and half are plowing forward despite a lapse in government funding. The cases against four Big Tech giants — Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon — are some of the most closely watched in Washington and the corporate world. They’re also among the most politically vulnerable, as the companies’ CEOs try to forge tighter relationships with Donald Trump and his White House. The cases against Google and Meta are continuing during the federal government’s shutdown. Both companies are near a resolution, with a judge looking to finalize his decision in one of Google’s cases and another expected to issue a decision on Meta soon. Cases threatening to break up Amazon and Apple, however, were paused this past week. Amazon was not slated to go to trial until February 2027, and discovery and depositions for Apple were scheduled through January 2027. Judges in both approved the government’s request for a pause until federal funding is restored. Just how much the shutdown affects the cases will likely come down to how long the government remains shuttered. A few days or weeks of stopped work is unlikely to cause much disruption, while a longer delay could push back trial dates already scheduled for 2027. Judges also have wide discretion on whether to pause litigation. Even during a shutdown, the FTC and DOJ are still required to proceed with a case if ordered by the court. Both Google and Meta are in the late stages of their cases. In one of Google’s cases, concerning its search empire, the government requested a pause until it re-opens. D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta instead ordered it to proceed, noting that antitrust litigation continued during the 2019 shutdown. Mehta has an Oct. 8 hearing scheduled to finalize his remedies ruling, in which he refused to break up Google for monopolizing the online search market. In the DOJ’s other case against Google, which targets the company’s monopoly in the online ad market, the government has not filed a request to suspend proceedings — though the department’s lawyers did ask for a pause in court this week, and were turned down. That case has been in a remedies trial since last week. The FTC didn’t file a request to pause its case against Meta’s acquisition of Instagram, which is awaiting a judge’s decision after going to trial this spring. The FTC and DOJ were not immediately available for comment. District Judge John Chun in Washington state, however, granted the FTC’s request to suspend proceedings in its case against Amazon, which has to do with the company allegedly prioritizing its own products in its online store. Chun ordered that depositions currently in process could continue. A day later, District Judge Leda Dunn Wettre approved a similar request in New Jersey from the Justice Department in a case concerning Apple’s alleged monopoly in the smartphone market. The federal judiciary has announced that the courts will stay open at least through Oct. 17 using court fee balances and other funds that aren’t affected by the lapse in appropriations. The judiciary was operational for the entirety of the 2018 shutdown, which lasted for five weeks. The FTC and DOJ are continuing to accept pre-merger notification filings during the current shutdown. Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University, said Mehta’s decision to push forward with Google’s case could be due to his desire to wrap it up. “My guess is that Mehta is almost done with this and wants it resolved before technology changes … whereas Amazon and Apple are much earlier,” he said. Vanderbilt University law professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth said one of many factors in any judge’s decision is ensuring fairness to either side, especially when considering how much unpaid work needs to be done for the government’s lawyers. “If you ask an entire trial team to go to trial on furlough, that seems pretty unfair,” she said. “Whereas, if there are a couple of briefs or deadlines that are due, and you’re supposed to be moving along to discovery.”

Last week, as the leaders of other Western nations used their trips to the United Nations to announce recognition of a Palestinian state, President Donald Trump was able to do little but watch disapprovingly. But now that a question about Israel is coming to the fore in a very different international organization, Trump finds himself with potentially much more power. Next week, the executive committee of soccer’s European governing body UEFA could vote to suspend Israel from the continental federation where its teams have competed internationally since the 1990s. Dozens of UEFA members have encouraged the organization to reconsider Israel’s standing, which could begin a process of effectively banishing the country entirely from international soccer, much as UEFA and its global analogue FIFA did in 2022 with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. Trump, who has proposed undoing the Russian ban as part of a potential resolution to its war with Ukraine, now may be the only world leader with the influence to keep Israel from the same fate. It is an unanticipated source of influence for Trump in his second term, derived entirely from the United States’ temporary position as the primary host of next summer’s World Cup. “We will absolutely work to fully stop any effort to attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup,” a State Department spokesperson told POLITICO. Trump has dangled the ability to compete as a possible reward for Russia to end its war in Ukraine and is expected to enforce his antagonistic posture toward Iran by blocking the country’s fans from traveling into the U.S. to cheer on their team. Some prominent Brazilians fear his administration will limit visas to spectators or government officials from their nation, too, as a way of gaining an upper hand in trade negotiations. “We know soccer is so important to so many countries all around the world,” White House FIFA World Cup Taskforce head Andrew Giuliani told POLITICO last month. “The president knows that better than anybody, and I think he’s willing to utilize whatever he has to to actually create peace around the world.” SWITCH OF PLAY When FIFA awarded the United States co-hosting duties for the 2026 tournament, Trump celebrated it as personal affirmation. “I fought very hard to get it in the U.S., Mexico and Canada,” he said in June 2018. “We are very honored to be chosen.” But Trump did not expect to be in office when the tournament took place in the summer of 2026. Now that it is months away, Trump is finding that being at the center of the world’s preeminent sporting event — and the practical and symbolic power that accompanies it — provides him a new, unexpected tool to use to advance American interests. Trump has grasped for leverage in international negotiations wherever he can find it, often mixing issues traditional diplomats would keep at a distance. He threatened to impose tariffs on French wine unless the country cut its tax on digital services, and on all imports from Mexico if it did not curb outbound migration. He floated intervening in the prosecution of a Huawei executive to help secure a trade deal with China. Trump expressed a willingness to mix sports and diplomacy in May, when he learned during the inaugural meeting of his White House task force that Russia was forbidden from participating in the tournament. The country had been under a joint ban from FIFA and UEFA, dating from the early days of the Ukraine invasion in February 2022, which excluded Russian teams from all international competition. (Those policies have since been relaxed to permit youth teams to compete under certain conditions.) Trump suggested that allowing Russia to compete again “could be a good incentive” for the country to end the war, a top diplomatic priority that continues to elude and frustrate Trump. “We want to get them to stop,” said Trump, sitting next to FIFA President Gianni Infantino. “Five thousand young people a week are being killed. That’s not even believable.” During another White House visit by Infantino three months later, Trump again invoked Vladimir Putin, this time brandishing a photograph of the two men together in an attempt to spur Russia’s president to resume negotiations over a possible truce. “He’s been very respectful of me and of our country, but not so respectful of others,” Trump said in the Oval Office, with the World Cup trophy at his side. “He may be coming and he might not, depending on what happens. We have a lot of things coming in the next couple of weeks!” A senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss Trump’s thinking on the World Cup said that the president’s priority is to showcase American ingenuity, spotlight domestic infrastructure and highlight the economic impact of his policies on the country’s cities — not to use tournament plans as leverage in other negotiations. But if they yield progress toward ending wars as a byproduct, the official said, Trump would happily accept it. James Talarico on immigration, his faith, and how Democrats are getting it wrong Much of Trump’s new influence comes from his close personal rapport with Infantino, who has spent significant time ingratiating himself with American political figures and raising his public profile. He has met with Trump at least a dozen times and traveled the country on a campaign-style tour of host cities for the World Cup and this year’s Club World Cup. Now the State Department may be counting on that relationship, as the Trump administration tries to aid an ally losing support from other Western countries from also losing its position on the soccer field. THE WANDERING TEAM Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the country has struggled to find a permanent home in the governing structure of international soccer. Unlike most national teams, which fight for World Cup places against other teams on their continent, Israel is functionally unable to play against its neighbors due to an Arab League boycott in place since the country’s 1948 founding. (Israel won its sole major international trophy, the 1964 Asian Cup, only after 11 of the 15 other competitors withdrew.) After a brief period competing as a far-flung outlier in the Oceania Football Confederation, Israel joined the Union of European Football Associations in 1991. Instead of traveling to Beirut or Kuala Lumpur for foreign matches, Israeli players are now more likely to end up in Dublin or Athens. That has subjected Israel to new political pressures since the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, and its military response. Then, citing security concerns, UEFA decided to indefinitely relocate all international matches from Israel, forcing the country’s teams to play in neutral locations overseas. The country has played its home matches for World Cup qualifying in Hungary. The situation has grown even more complicated as European public opinion has turned aggressively against Israel amid its siege of Gaza. Many European clubs no longer want to host Israeli squads in continent-wide tournaments. When the Israeli national team has traveled to play qualifying matches in other countries, some national governments have imposed travel restrictions on players, while others limited stadium attendance due to security concerns. The national team, which remains in contention to reach next year’s World Cup, now faces two crucial matches next month in countries whose soccer leadership have been critical of its actions in Gaza. Italy’s federation president has said “there is nobody who could be indifferent to this feeling of suffering and pain,” while the Norwegian Football Federation announced in August that it would donate proceeds from the match to organizations delivering aid in Gaza. “Neither we nor other organizations can remain indifferent to the humanitarian suffering and disproportionate attacks that the civilian population in Gaza has been subjected to for a long time,” federation president Lise Klaveness said then. Well over half of UEFA’s 55 member associations have called on its leadership to take action against Israel, a high-ranking UEFA official told POLITICO, prompting ongoing discussions within soccer’s governing body about how to deal with Israeli clubs and the national team. UEFA’s executive committee could vote to suspend Israeli club teams from European club tournaments. Maccabi Tel Aviv saw its Europa League match last week in Thessaloniki, Greece, met with protesters carrying a banner that said GENOCIDE. UEFA officials, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, justified the discussions to boot Israel from continental competitions by citing security concerns. “We are responsible for the safety of fans and players in the stadiums,” one representative said, noting that match organizers “fear fatalities.” A UEFA decision to suspend Israeli club teams could provoke a similar campaign forcing FIFA to reconsider the place of the country’s national team in World Cup qualifying. A State Department statement said the U.S. government would work to block any “attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup,” but it did not address European club competitions under UEFA’s purview. If the United States were not hosting next year’s tournament, it would be just one of 208 member nations in FIFA — a weaker position than it has in the United Nations, where at least the U.S. can wield a security-council veto to relieve pressure on Israel. (It did so again this month to block a draft resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.) But Infantino is highly motivated to keep Trump happy as a way to ensure preparations for next summer’s tournament proceed with full federal support. It is unclear whether Trump has personally appealed on Israel’s behalf to Infantino, who has asked UEFA’s President Aleksander Čeferin to approach the matter with patience, according to a European soccer official, citing the possibility that a peace deal between Israel and Hamas could moot the question. “It’s looking like we have a deal on Gaza, and we’ll let you know. I think it’s a deal that will get the hostages back. It’s going to be a deal that will end the war,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House on Friday. EVERYWHERE YOU WANT TO BE Trump’s willingness to commingle the World Cup with his other diplomatic challenges is winning attention worldwide from those who think he could wield the easiest power at his disposal — to control who enters the United States during the five-week tournament — as a cudgel. That power was on display around last week’s United Nations General Assembly, when Trump’s administration used it to punish representatives of countries vexing his foreign-policy agenda, several of which have qualified for a place in the World Cup. A visa issued to Brazilian Health Minister Alexandre Padilha circumscribed his movements to the U.N. headquarters and a few blocks around his hotel, while Iranian diplomats were barred from shopping at Costco and Sam’s Club without State Department permission. On Friday, the State Department announced it was revoking the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro after he spoke at a pro-Palestinian gathering while in New York. Iran is among the 12 countries whose citizens face a total travel ban under an executive order Trump signed in June. Two others, Equatorial Guinea and Haiti, could still qualify for the World Cup. (The ban also partially restricts travel from another seven countries, none of which are still in contention for a tournament spot.) Under the order, Iranian fans will be barred from the United States next summer, despite historical precedent in which World Cup hosts allow ticketholders free border entry. “You’ll have an issue with [visas for] Iran,” Giuliani told POLITICO. Although the travel ban includes an exemption for athletes, coaches and essential personnel participating in “major sporting events,” including the World Cup, that carveout does not extend to fans. American authorities will still have to approve visas for heads of state, business leaders and other prominent officials hoping to cheer on their teams. “There are other conversations [about Iran] that are teed up for the president and Secretary Kristi Noem and Vice President [JD] Vance, which we’ll be discussing here in the fall,” Giuliani said, in an interview at the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters. Brazilian officials worry that the administration could weaponize World Cup visas for the country’s sports fans, part of a spiraling conflict with its origins in a prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro and the aggressive enforcement by the country’s election regulator against online political speech. CNN reported in July that Trump is actively considering blocking visas for Brazilian fans. Since then, the State Department has imposed visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials and their families and Trump has imposed a 50 percent tariff rate as payback for what he characterizes as a “witch hunt” of Bolsonaro. A Brazilian government official cautioned that it was unlikely that American consular officials would deny visas en masse for Brazilian nationals wanting to attend the World Cup and noted that Brazilians already encounter lengthy delays in obtaining visas to enter the United States. But the Trump administration has already demonstrated a willingness to interfere with international sporting events in the service of its diplomatic aims. Iran’s men’s team was denied visas to compete in next month’s FIP Arena Polo World Championship in Virginia, reported the Tehran Times this week, much as a Venezuelan Little League team and Cuban women’s volleyball team were earlier in the year. Those events foreshadow the higher-stakes flashpoints that could arise as the list of 48 countries that will send teams to the World Cup is finalized this fall. Among those that have already secured a place are some where Trump might be looking for any possible geopolitical edge. The U.S. is still trying to wrangle a new trade deal with South Korea, for example, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the United States “stands ready to do what is needed” as it works to boost Argentina’s President Javier Milei’s fortunes ahead of an Oct. 26 election. “Many times, it’s sports diplomacy that creates opportunities for foreign leaders who might not see other things eye to eye, to actually sit down,” Giuliani said. “By the time the World Cup kicks off next June, hopefully we have some of these foreign wars solved.”

Mario Monti is a former prime minister of Italy and EU commissioner. The European Commission sanctioned Google on Sept. 5, for abusing its dominant position in the bloc’s advertising technology market. The sanction had two components: a €2.95-billion fine, as well as the obligation of introducing changes to the company’s business model that will ensure the discontinuation of the abuse. In reaction, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a statement on how “Europe today ‘hit’ another great American company.” Taking to social media, he warned: “We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American ingenuity and, if it does, I will be forced to start a Section 301 proceeding to nullify the unfair penalties being charged to these taxpaying American companies” — a proceeding that would presumably lead to the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. But, with all due respect, Trump is missing a key point: There is no discrimination here. The Commission sanctions cases of abuse of dominance that take place in the EU market, whether they’re carried out by EU or non-EU companies. More to the point, this is exactly what the U.S. antitrust authorities do with respect to the U.S. market. Incidentally, just yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission in Washington opened an investigation into the advertising practices of Google and Amazon, much along the lines set out by the Commission. We’ve been here before — and with the same players too. Let’s rewind 20 years to when I was Competition commissioner: In 2004, the Commission sanctioned Microsoft after a long investigation involving constructive discussions with Co-founder Bill Gates, then-CEO Steve Ballmer and then-General Counsel Brad Smith, among many others. Eventually, it imposed a fine of almost €500 million and, more importantly, ordered changes to the company’s business model. Interestingly, the complaints that prompted the investigation mainly came from U.S. companies, including the start-ups of the early days of the internet economy. They were complaining that Microsoft, which had — through its merits — legally earned a highly dominant position in operating systems for personal computers, was leveraging its position onto neighboring markets by obstructing other companies in a variety of ways, thus stifling innovation. In fact, I remember one such U.S. start-up — only about three years old when we began our investigation — had a rather intriguing name: Google. And I remember then-CEO Eric Schmidt visiting the Commission to praise our “courage.” The European Commission sanctioned Google on Sept. 5, for abusing its dominant position in the bloc’s advertising technology market. | Beata Zawrzel/Getty Images Incidentally, European corporate leaders, who sometimes urge the Commission to be less rigorous in its enforcement of competition rules, should also keep these past cases in mind — especially if they want a more innovative and competitive European economy, as we all do. Perhaps they should put the issue into a broader perspective and think twice. With its Microsoft decision, the Commission — followed by several other competition authorities across the world — allowed for the emergence of Google and other start-ups to become hugely successful. In fact, it put pressure on Microsoft to change its behavior and embrace a corporate culture building on collaboration rather than monopolization, supporting open-source projects and fostering partnerships with other companies. And many analysts believe it is these changes, stimulated by the past determination of competition authorities, that help explain Microsoft’s success over the last decade, under the leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. Against this backdrop, Trump’s view that EU competition policy is driven by discriminatory motivations against U.S. companies is simply unfounded. What’s true is that in any national or supranational context like the EU, institutions such as competition authorities and central banks have been set up in the eminent American tradition — dating back to the late 19th century (with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890) and the early 20th century (with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) — precisely with the goal preventing these abuses, whether by companies in the marketplace or by governments abusing future generations via high inflation. Of course, it’s no surprise that leaders with an autocratic vision wouldn’t feel at ease with institutions entrusted by governments and parliaments of the past with preventing power from becoming absolute. But it was the U.S. that set postwar Germany, and later the EU, on this track. When occupying the country after World War II, America imposed the creation of two institutions on the newly born Federal Republic of Germany: First, the Deutsche Bundesbank — an independent central bank modeled on the Federal Reserve System, meant to avoid a repetition of the hyperinflation that contributed to the advent of Nazism. Second, the Bundeskartellamt competition authority, modeled on the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, with the power to prevent the reemergence of cartels and trusts in heavy industry — another factor that had contributed to Hitler’s aggression and World War II. Then, at Germany’s request — and on the basis of the country’s democratic and economic resurgence — these two institutions were transposed to the EU level. So, today we must thank the U.S. not only for its decisive help in saving the continent from Nazism and Fascism and protecting it from Soviet Communism, but also for injecting postwar Europe with such powerful antidotes to the aberrations of the past. Perhaps Trump might forgive us if we aren’t ready to give up this great American legacy.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to impose more tariffs against the European Union after the bloc levied a €2.95 billion fine against Google for violating anti-monopoly laws. “As I have said before, my Administration will NOT allow these discriminatory actions to stand,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. The European Commission announced the penalty against Google Friday for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology market — a decision the search giant vowed to appeal. The company now has 60 days to propose a remedy to the EU, which has left a forced breakup on the table. Trump and his administration, most notably Vice President JD Vance, have been outspoken in criticizing European tech laws they say disproportionately harm U.S. tech companies and chill free speech. Trump’s comment Friday comes as his Justice Department prepares to go to trial with Google later this month to resolve a similar case involving Google’s online advertising monopoly. A federal judge already ruled Google has an illegal monopoly in that case, and another trial will be held to determine a remedy, which could include breaking up the company. His comment also comes a day after Trump hosted a White House dinner with tech executives, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founder Sergey Brin, in which the president congratulated the company for avoiding a breakup after a judge on Tuesday found the company had illegally monopolized the online search market. “I’m glad it’s over,” Pichai told Trump during the dinner. “Appreciate that your administration had a constructive dialogue, and we were able to get it to some resolution.” Trump in his Friday post indicated he might order an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a little-used provision that allows the president to impose trade restrictions if an investigation finds that a country is engaged in a practice that is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. “We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American Ingenuity,” Trump wrote of the EU’s fine. “Google must now come forward with a serious remedy to address its conflicts of interest, and if it fails to do so, we will not hesitate to impose strong remedies,” said European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera in a statement Friday. The Commission’s multibillion-euro fine falls short of the €4.34 billion fine the EU executive slapped on Google in 2018 over abuse of dominance related to Android mobile devices, but is higher than the €2.42 billion fine the firm faced for favoring its own comparison-shopping service in 2017.

The European Commission today fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology market. The American tech giant is alleged to have distorted the market for online ads by favoring its own services to the detriment of competitors, advertisers and online publishers, the EU executive said in a press release. The search firm’s ownership of various parts of the digital ads ecosystem — including the software that both advertisers and publishers use to buy online ads — creates “inherent conflicts of interest,” according to the Commission. “Google must now come forward with a serious remedy to address its conflicts of interest, and if it fails to do so, we will not hesitate to impose strong remedies,” said European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera in a statement. Google now has until early November — or 60 days — to tell the Commission how it intends to resolve that conflict of interest and to remedy the alleged abuse. The Commission said it would not rule out a structural divestiture of Google’s adtech assets — but it “first wishes to hear and assess Google’s proposal.” In 2023, the Commission issued a charge sheet to Google in which it concluded that a mandatory divestment by the internet search behemoth of part of its adtech operations might be the only way to effectively prevent the firm from favoring its own services in the future. The Commission had originally intended to deliver the fine Monday, before Brussels’ trade czar Maroš Šefčovič intervened to halt the decision amid continued tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. This article is being updated.