Thursday, September 24, 2026
Home Blog Page 82

Fifa says ‘nobody selling football’ as plan continues

0

Fifa says that “nobody is selling football” as it vowed to continue with the controversial plan to sell stakes in its competitions to private investors.

Uefa – the body that governs European football – voted on Thursday to boycott World Cups if the plan proceeded.

Concacaf, which governs football in North and Central America and hosted this year’s World Cup, said its 41 member associations also “rejected” the proposal made by Fifa president Gianni Infantino.

Fifa oversees world football and Infantino would need 106 of its 211 members to vote in favour for the proposal to go through. Uefa and Concacaf members combined make up 96 of those votes.

In a statement released on Friday, Fifa claimed the consultation process had been “disrupted by incorrect media reports”.

“We respect the feedback and concern aired in public and reaffirm our commitment to an open and democratic consultation,” the statement read.

“We will proceed with this consultation process to ensure that each MA (member association) has the ability to express its vote based on facts.

“Nobody is selling football. This is not something Fifa would ever entertain.”

What are Infantino’s plans?

Fifa wants to create a commercial subsidiary to run its main events, including its World Cups, and external investors will be able to buy stakes in it.

It said it would “invite third parties to make minority, non-controlling investments” in a new subsidiary – Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE).

In a 25-page document created by investment bank JP Morgan, it is made clear that Fifa’s tournaments will expand to hit an estimated increased pay-out of 24m euros per member association in the 2035-2039 cycle.

It mentions “new business initiatives” and “attracting top talent with incentive-driven compensation”.

The World Cup is described in it as the “most widely viewed” sporting event but Fifa, by contrast, is said to be “under-monetised”.

There is no mention in the document of the women’s game.

On Friday, Fifa said FFE had been proposed “to ensure all Fifa member associations have the opportunity to take meaningful ownership of the commercial opportunity of football in their respective countries”.

“This does not come at the cost of either the spirit or the governance of Fifa or football itself,” it added.

Infantino previously wrote to Fifa members saying they will receive $40m (£30m) if they back his controversial proposal. He set a deadline of 19 September for federations to accept his plans if they want to access an initial $20m (£15m).

However, Uefa has accused Fifa of using football “to enrich themselves and their friends”.

If approval is granted, Fifa says Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the proposed investor group for FFE.

Thrive is an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner – the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared.

What did Uefa and Concacaf say?

Uefa and Concacaf have led the opposition to Infantino’s plan.

“The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product,” Uefa’s statement on Thursday read.

“It is one of football’s greatest sporting legacies. It has been built over generations by players, national teams and supporters across every continent.

“No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.

“This is not merely a profound failure of leadership, but an abdication of Fifa’s duty as the custodian of world football.”

Concacaf said its members “expressed deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal” and the “artificially short deadline imposed”.

It also questioned the need for private investment after what Fifa claimed was the most profitable World Cup in history.

The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) said that it is “deeply concerned that Fifa’s unilateral actions appear to undermine the very foundations of continental football”.

The AFC also said it was “unacceptable” that it had not been consulted before the proposal was publicly announced, nor provided with “detailed governance, financial or legal analysis”.

The governing body overseeing football in South America, Conmebol, is yet to publicly comment on the proposals. The governing bodies in Africa (CAF) and Oceania (OFC) have said they will discuss Fifa’s plan in August.

Chelsea manager and 2010 World Cup winner Xabi Alonso was asked about the situation during his side’s pre-season tour of Australia.

“I think that football has to be for the people, not in private hands and I think that the way we love it is this way and we have seen a great World Cup and it’s good to defend the interests of all the people,” he said.

“Hopefully it won’t happen and we will do it – we will keep the game as attractive and as authentic as we like it and that’s why it creates these emotions, these passions.”

What happens now?

It feels as though no-one who matters knows how this situation is going to play out just yet.

“Not sure the detail was considered when deciding the overall policy,” was the response from a senior European football source when asked what this decision means for the U20 Women’s World Cup, starting on 5 September, being hosted by Poland and featuring plenty of European nations.

Uefa’s boycott threat will be activated if Infantino’s funding deal is accepted.

Given 19 September is the deadline for countries to accept Fifa’s deal and bank $20m (£15m) on 1 January, in theory, countries could be pulling out of that tournament in the middle of the quarter-finals and before the semis.

After that, the next senior matches in a Fifa competition are the Women’s World Cup play-offs in October, which feature England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland among others.

Infantino became Fifa president in 2016 when he beat Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman al-Khalifa by 115 votes to 88. The Swiss is due to stand for a fourth term in March.

Prior to this week, it had been anticipated he would be re-elected unopposed. FAs around the world, including some in Europe, have already confirmed their intention to support the 56-year-old.

But sources say in addition to rejecting Infantino’s plan, the vast majority of the Concacaf members are either losing faith in the Fifa president’s ability to govern the game, or have lost it altogether.

Do ‘smaller’ nations need more support?

While Uefa members are among the richest on the planet, many nations elsewhere rely on Fifa funding for basic infrastructure.

“There are the aspirations and needs of small nations, but you’ve also got large nations who have the power,” former Football Association chief executive Mark Palios told BBC Breakfast.

“It’s not dissimilar to the attempts to form a European Super League. On one end you’ve got the people who create the cash, but on the other end you still need competition.”

Rogers Byamukama of the Ugandan Football Federation argued that any avenue that could lead to more resources for nations like his should be explored.

“First and foremost, you need to understand that football is a very expensive venture, especially on the African continent where the resources are not easy to come by,” he told Newsday on BBC World Service.

“For instance in Uganda, the number of infrastructure projects that have been funded by Fifa from the resources generated by Fifa, especially at the World Cup, both from ticket sales as well as sponsors.

“On top of that, there are many grassroot programmes that have been funded by Fifa, including schools for football.

“From my perspective, any avenue that brings in more resources is good because those resources would be distributed and given to federations, especially on the African continent and that would inspire growth.”

Byamukama acknowledged Uefa’s right to speak out, but suggested that its members are not reliant on Fifa funding like many associations in the rest of the world where Infantino remains popular.

In the first two cycles of the Fifa Forward development programme, through to 2022, $2.8bn (£2.08bn) was made available for investment across the 211 member associations.

Fifa Forward 3.0 – covering the years 2023 through to 2026 – has produced a 30% increase in funding.

Fifa has provided a further $5m (£3.7m) for every member association, with another $60m (£44.48m) paid to each confederation for their own projects.

After being re-elected unopposed in 2019 and 2023, Infantino is expected to win another term in 2027.

Navigating the micro-valley

0

Seductive flower market strategies that stand the test of time

In July 2026, the Ethiopian Ministry of Trade and Regional Integration, in strategic partnership with the UK Embassy, convened a high-level consultative forum at the Ethiopian Standards Institute (Quality Village). Featuring the virtual participation of His Excellency Biruk Mekonnen, Ambassador of Ethiopia to the United Kingdom, the dialogue focused on supercharging Ethiopian export performance within the UK market and scaling the competitive edge of the cut flower sector. A central highlight of the session was the Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS). As the UK’s post-Brexit successor to the European Union’s Everything But Arms (EBA) framework, the DCTS offers a streamlined preferential trading structure designed to boost developing-nation trade while preserving unilateral duty-free privileges for East African cut flowers. The workshop operationalized this framework, outlining core compliance requirements, utilization strategies, and long-term commercial benefits. Although the DCTS mirrors the EU’s EBA initiative by providing tariff-free and quota-free market access, this structural alignment is secondary.

The vital strategic priority for Ethiopia’s floriculture industry lies not solely in leveraging trade preferences, but in actively repositioning itself to capture premium, high-value market segments globally.

The global floriculture trade has long been tethered to a handful of colossal volume peaks, notably Valentine’s Day, Christmas, and Mother’s Day. While these mega-holidays generate massive revenue surges, they expose export-oriented economies like Ethiopia to severe systemic vulnerabilities. Exporters relying solely on these peak dates face immense market gluts, steep price volatility, and catastrophic spot-market price crashes if minor logistical bottlenecks or transit delays occur within a narrow forty-eight-hour window. Every commercial flower farm deals with grades of production and biological volume peaks that rarely align perfectly with global mega-holidays. Secondary stem lengths, mixed-variety bunches, and specific colour palettes that fail premium grading standards frequently face disposal or dumping onto saturated spot markets at a complete loss, or are sold locally. To insulate Ethiopian flower farms from systemic shocks, the former Horticultural Development Agency of Ethiopia, in strategic partnership with the Royal Netherlands Embassy, formulated the foundational Market Destinations Flower Days Map.

Serving as a tactical navigation tool, the map identified strategic international hubs, promotional windows, and peak consumer periods across Western and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation, Australia, and the Middle East. By delivering data-driven insights into seasonal demand fluctuations, the initiative empowered farms to reduce market search costs and optimize harvesting schedules, minimize cargo waste and streamline freight logistics amid volatile transport costs, and strengthen global positioning by reinforcing Ethiopia’s reputation as a reliable, structured supplier while securing long-term contracts with European wholesalers and retailers. The Market Destinations Flower Days Map tracks international holidays and special celebratory days month by month to help flower exporters and logistics planners anticipate peak market demands. Spanning the entire year from January through December, it provides a comprehensive reference matrix for tracking global market dynamics and shipping requirements. This granular calendar maps specific cultural, national, and religious holidays across primary and secondary European, Middle Eastern, and regional export destinations. By leveraging secondary and niche holidays, Ethiopian growers have transformed operational challenges such as natural volume peaks and secondary grades of production into highly profitable, diversified revenue streams.

Secondary and niche holidays create essential micro-valleys in the international floral calendar. These act as localized events that absorb surplus production which would otherwise go to waste, composite sales, or local distribution. Furthermore, different destination markets maintain distinct cultural preferences regarding stem lengths, packaging weight, and colour symbolism. Knowing that a destination market is celebrating a localized event allows farms to pre-sort stems according to regional preferences rather than forcing standardized bunches onto unwilling buyers. Armed with a destination calendar, Ethiopian exporters can approach European and Middle Eastern importers weeks in advance with pre-packaged, destination-specific proposals. This diverts surplus volume into structured micro-valley orders, prevents price cannibalization on spot exchanges, and ensures a higher net realization per stem across the annual harvest cycle.

A rigorous examination of the destination calendar reveals a rich tapestry of civic, religious, and academic milestones across target export markets that offer strategic intervention points for Ethiopian growers. During the winter and early spring months from January through March, January 21–22 marks Great Mother’s Day and Great Father’s Day in Poland, offering an immediate post-Christmas outlet for mixed bunches and secondary rose grades. February 23 marks Men’s Day, or Defender of the Fatherland Day, in Russia through Turkey, representing a massive market for structured, masculine colour palettes like deep reds, blues, and structural greens. March 8 brings International Women’s Day, a massive continental event particularly dominant in Eastern Europe and Russia that acts as a secondary mega-holiday matching or exceeding Valentine’s volume for specific varieties such as mimosas and tulips. Shortly after, March 19 brings Father’s Day in Italy, providing an early spring market entry for potted plants and structured cut flowers.

As spring transitions into April through June, the calendar features a mix of civic liberation days, professional recognition events, and family milestones. April 19 marks Secretary’s Day across France, Belgium, and Northern Ireland, serving as a classic corporate gifting holiday ideal for mid-grade bouquet placements in professional office settings. May features Mother’s Day across various European clusters, such as France on June 3, Poland on May 26, and a synchronized Mother’s Day across Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Northern Ireland, and Switzerland on May 13. This staggered timing allows farms to pivot shipments across borders sequentially. Father’s Day is similarly staggered across nations during June, occurring on June 10 in Belgium, June 17 in France and the Netherlands, and June 23 in Poland—a temporal dispersion that effectively prevents supply chain logjams. Additionally, June 30 marks the end of the school year in Belgium, presenting a vital academic milestone where teachers receive floral tokens of appreciation, driving demand for cheerful, mixed-variety bunches.

Autumn brings a shift away from romantic gifting toward institutional and gratitude-based milestones. September 1 marks the first day of school in Russia and Poland, where academically driven floral demand behaves entirely differently than romantic holidays, absorbing vast quantities of standard-grade stems that command stable price premiums. September 22 marks the Day of the Customer in Belgium, where retailers utilize floral gifts to reward client loyalty, creating commercial demand for bulk corporate arrangements. September 27 marks Thank You Day in Germany, a micro-valley tailored for expressions of gratitude suited for mixed pastel bunches. In October, extended educator peaks unfold in the Russian Federation through Teachers’ Days on October 7 and 14, alongside Great Parents’ Days on October 7 and 28. As the calendar closes in November and December, regional gift-giving traditions provide final volume absorption before Christmas, highlighted by Great Parents’ Day in Belgium on November 18, Russian Mother’s Day on November 25, and Sint Nicolaas on December 5 in the Netherlands and December 6 in Belgium a major regional gift-giving festival where floral elements complement traditional confections.

The global floriculture market is not static; comparative advantages fluctuate due to shifting energy costs in heated European greenhouses, freight rate volatilities, currency fluctuations such as euro-to-birr dynamics, and evolving trade agreements. Relying on fixed, legacy export routes is an existential risk for Ethiopian flower farms. Market diversification driven by the Flower Days Map allows producers to dynamically reallocate export volumes to regions experiencing favourable economic conditions or localized supply deficits. Because different holidays command distinct price premiums and elasticities, moving away from high price spikes and severe delivery penalties toward the stable, predictable demand curves of academic milestones and civic gratitude days helps financial modelers accurately predict net realizations per stem. By pairing specific holiday price elasticities with production grading forecasts, farm managers can optimize greenhouse climate controls and pinching schedules weeks in advance to target high-yield micro-valleys while smoothing cash flow volatility.

The strategic significance of the Market Destinations Flower Days Map has been elevated by recent Ethiopian legislation. Current government regulations expressly permit both domestic and foreign investors to purchase flowers from domestic producers and export them in the capacity of traders. This liberalized framework transforms the Map from a useful planning tool for growers alone into an indispensable commercial instrument for an entire class of trading enterprises. Traders can now source secondary grades and surplus volumes directly from farms, match those volumes with precision to the micro-valleys identified on the calendar, and ship pre-sorted, destination-specific consignments without the necessity of owning production assets.

Ethiopia’s horticultural triumphs were never accidental; they were architected through deliberate, Institutional-backed ecosystem engineering spearheaded by the former Ethiopian Horticultural Development Agency (EHDA). Yet, despite generating vital foreign exchange and transforming the nation into a premier African floral powerhouse, the agency was suddenly abolished.

The future of Ethiopia’s floriculture sector hangs in the balance, as the possibility of reviving an independent entity akin to the original EHDA remains uncertain. As the agricultural landscape undergoes significant transformations, its trajectory will depend heavily on the strength of its institutional framework. Policymakers must grasp a crucial truth: to maintain Ethiopia’s status as a leader in floriculture, it requires the same level of intentional and leading -edge support that initially fostered its growth. Whether that comes from a revitalized specialized body or a modernized approach.

Teha Dedefo

0

2. Education: (የት/ት ደረጃ)
Degree in General Mechanic
3. Company name: (የመስሪያ ቤቱ ስም)
Yetebaberut Auto Spare Parts 
1. Title: (የስራ ድርሻህ)
Partner
2. Founded in: (መቼ ተመሰረተ)
2021
3. What it does: (ምንድነው የሚሰራው)
Supplying spare parts for heavy and light duty vehicles
4. Headquarters: (ዋና መስሪያ ቤት)
Adama
5. Start-up capital: (በምን ያህል ገንዘብ ስራዉን ጀመርሽ/ክ)
250,000 birr
6. Current capital: (የአሁን ካፒታል)
Growing
7. Number of employees: (የሰራተኞች ቁጥር)
5
8. Reason for starting the business: (ለስራው መጀመር ምክንያት)
High demand for quality spare parts in the transport sector
9. Biggest perk of ownership: (የባለቤትነት ጥቅም)
Financial freedom
10. Biggest strength: (ጥንካሬህ/ሽ)
Integrity
11. Biggest challenge: (ተግዳሮት)
Supply chain delays
12. Plan: (እቅድ)
To expand distribution centers across the city
13. First career path: (የመጀመሪያ ስራ)
Auto Mechanic
14. Most interested in meeting: (ማግኘት የምትፈልጊ/ገው ሰው)

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed
15. Most admired person: (የምታደንቂ/ቀው ሰው)
Aliko Dangote
16. Stress reducer: (ጭንቀትን የሚያቀልልሽ/ለህ)
Listening to music
17. Favorite book: (የመፅሐፍ ምርጫ)
None
18. Favorite pastime: (ማድረግ የሚያስደስትህ)
Watching movies
19. Favorite destination to travel to: (ከኢትዮጵያ ውጪ መሄድ የምትፈልጊ/ገዉ ስፍራ)
USA
20. Favorite automobile: (የመኪና ምርጫ)
Mercedes-Benz G-Class

The Core Paradox of AI Discourse

0

A balanced position is often the hardest one to hold in public debate. Most discussions about artificial intelligence are pulled toward two extreme poles: the hype-driven optimists who exaggerate AI’s promise, and the doomsday pessimists who amplify its dangers beyond reason. Both positions are loud, emotionally satisfying, and easy to perform. Both are also incomplete.

The optimist imagines AI as a near-magical force that will transform everything for the better. In this view, AI is a solution to productivity, creativity, medicine, education, and even governance. The pessimist, by contrast, sees AI as a destabilizing threat: a technology that will destroy jobs, concentrate power, flood society with misinformation, and perhaps even endanger humanity itself. Neither position is entirely wrong. The problem is that both are usually pushed to the point of distortion.

What makes this especially difficult is that the two extremes are not merely arguments. They are identities. They are performances. They are emotional shelters. The optimist and the pessimist often need each other, because each side’s exaggeration helps validate the other’s. The future-tech evangelist needs the warning voice in order to appear visionary. The alarmist needs the hype machine in order to appear sober and prophetic. Together they create a kind of public theatre in which nuance is the first casualty.

This is the real paradox of AI discourse. The technology is new, powerful, and still unfolding. Yet our reaction to it follows familiar human habits. We are drawn to certainty, even when certainty is not justified. We prefer dramatic conclusions to careful uncertainty. We reward the people who sound most confident, not necessarily the people who are most correct. As a result, AI becomes less a subject of rational analysis and more a stage for competing psychological needs.

The persistence of the extremes is not simply a matter of ignorance. It is also a function of human cognition. We are wired to overreact to threats and to overestimate opportunities. Negativity bias makes us focus on what could go wrong. Novelty bias makes us overvalue what seems revolutionary. AI activates both at the same time. It looks like a promise and a warning simultaneously, which is exactly why so many people talk past one another when they discuss it.

The pessimist treats AI like a fire alarm. Once the alarm sounds, the only instinct is to run, shout, and panic before checking whether there is actually a fire. The optimist treats AI like a finished sculpture: polished, complete, and ready to be admired from a distance. But AI is neither an alarm nor a sculpture. It is more like wet clay. It can be shaped, bent, misused, improved, hardened, or broken. It is unfinished. That means our response should also be unfinished, adaptive, and grounded in evidence.

This is where pragmatism enters. Pragmatism is not a weak compromise between two strong positions. It is not a lukewarm middle that tries to keep everyone happy. It is a disciplined way of thinking that asks what actually works under specific conditions. It judges claims by results, not by emotional intensity. It accepts that a technology can be useful and dangerous at the same time. It resists the temptation to make AI into either salvation or catastrophe.

Holding that middle ground is difficult because it offers less emotional reward. The optimist gets the rush of prophecy. The pessimist gets the satisfaction of warning others before disaster strikes. Both positions can make a person feel intellectually superior. Both allow someone to say, “I see what others do not.” Pragmatism is less glamorous. It does not promise applause. It requires patience, humility, and the willingness to change your mind as evidence changes. That is exactly why it is valuable.

The hard-won middle is also the only position that treats AI as a real system rather than a symbol. A pragmatic view asks: what task is AI doing? Under what conditions does it help? Under what conditions does it fail? What safeguards are in place? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What feedback loops exist? What governance mechanisms are missing? These are not exciting questions, but they are the correct ones.

A useful way to think about AI is through the metaphor of a knife. A knife can perform surgery or cause injury. The tool itself is not the moral answer. The answer lies in who holds it, for what purpose, in what setting, and with what oversight. AI is similar. It is not automatically good or bad. Its effects depend on context, restraint, monitoring, and institutional design. A conditional approach is therefore more honest than a categorical one. It says, “AI can be beneficial if X safeguards exist, and dangerous if Y protections are absent.”

The same logic applies to the broader public debate. The optimist and the pessimist are not really fighting over facts. They are fighting over which possibility to animate. The optimist points to a gleaming demo and sees a future of abundance. The pessimist points to a plausible disaster and sees a future of collapse. Both are describing potential futures, not settled realities. The question is not whether possibility exists. The question is which possibility we prepare for, and how.

This is why the sculpture and the clay matter as metaphors. The optimist sees the sculpture and forgets the clay beneath it, the labor, the mess, the revisions, the unfinished work. The pessimist sees the clay and assumes it will never become anything useful. Pragmatism sees both. It recognizes that the sculpture was once clay, and that clay only becomes meaningful through patient shaping. AI is in that stage now. It is not finished, and it is not formless. It is a material in motion.

This also helps explain why the debate so often feels theatrical. The optimist performs as the visionary prophet. The pessimist performs as the lone truth-teller. Each role is seductive because it offers a clear moral identity. One gets to be the bearer of hope; the other gets to be the bearer of warning. But both roles depend on exaggeration. Both are energized by contrast. And both are weakened by the arrival of a third voice that says, in effect, “Let’s examine the evidence first.”

That third voice is the pragmatist. The pragmatist does not deny AI’s promise, and does not dismiss its threat. Instead, the pragmatist asks what institutional, technical, and ethical structures must exist for AI to be used well. This includes regulation, auditing, transparency, accountability, and continuous revision. It also includes the recognition that governance is not static. As the technology evolves, so must the oversight around it.

History gives us many examples of technologies that carried both promise and peril. The printing press democratized knowledge, but it also destabilized authority and helped fuel religious conflict. Electricity transformed industry and daily life, but it also caused early accidents and required entirely new safety systems. The Haber-Bosch process helped feed billions by enabling fertilizer production, but it also contributed to the manufacture of explosives. In each case, the technology was not simply a blessing or a curse. It was a double-edged breakthrough.

AI fits this pattern. It can improve diagnosis in medicine, streamline research, expand access to education, and support productivity across sectors. It can also displace workers, intensify surveillance, reproduce bias, and flood public discourse with synthetic content. The fact that these two outcomes coexist is not a contradiction. It is the nature of powerful tools. The real question is whether society can shape institutions quickly enough to maximize the gains while limiting the harms.

This is why the “middle” is not a place of indecision. It is a place of responsibility. It requires more work than either extreme. It asks people to resist the emotional pull of easy answers. It demands that policymakers, engineers, business leaders, and citizens stay with the uncomfortable truth that AI is not one thing. It will not be uniformly liberating or uniformly destructive. It will be what we allow it to become.

That means the future of AI will not be decided by slogans. It will be decided by governance. It will depend on whether institutions can enforce standards, whether companies can be held accountable, whether workers can adapt, whether education systems can respond, and whether the public can remain informed enough to judge claims critically. In other words, the real issue is not whether AI is inherently good or evil. The real issue is whether we can build the right structures around it.

We should be suspicious of anyone who speaks about AI only in absolutes. The true believer wants to sell inevitability. The doom speaker wants to sell fear. Both simplify a complicated reality into a message that is easier to repeat. But the world is rarely that simple. If we want AI to serve human purposes, we need less performance and more calibration. Less rhetoric and more evidence. Less prophecy and more practical design.

Pragmatism is not glamorous. It will not always go viral. It does not produce the satisfying certainty that extreme positions offer. But it is the only approach that keeps us close to reality. And reality is where good decisions are made.

AI is not a miracle and it is not a monster. It is a powerful, unfinished tool. Whether it becomes broadly beneficial or deeply harmful will depend less on its existence than on the systems we build around it. That is the core paradox of our time, and the reason the middle ground matters.

The hard task is not choosing between blind faith and blind fear. The hard task is learning how to shape the clay.