The European Union (EU) released its “biggest package” of sanctions in two years against Russia, describing the measures as far-reaching and restrictive. They specifically target crypto with a total ban on providers and platforms established in that country.
“Russia is becoming increasingly reliant on cryptocurrencies for international transactions,” the EU said in an April 23 statement. “The EU is introducing a total sectoral ban on providers and platforms established in Russia that allow the transfer and exchange of crypto assets.”
The bloc also banned Russia’s central bank digital currency (CBDC), the ruble-pegged RUBx stablecoin and all EU support for the development of the digital ruble.
The sanctions include measures against 20 Russian banks and four third-country financial institutions and entities connecting to the Russian System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), the Russian banking messaging network, according to a Chainalysis report.
The blockchain intelligence firm said the EU also imposed sanctions on TengriCoin, a Kyrgyz crypto exchange operating as Meer.kg, where significant amounts of the government-backed stablecoin A7A5 are traded.
That measure follows years of escalating enforcement targeting the wider Garantex–Grinex–A7A5 ecosystem that has been extensively tracked, Chainalysis noted.
As documented, A7A5 has been prolific, processing $119.7 billion to date and functioning as a purpose-built settlement rail designed to bridge sanctioned Russian businesses into the global financial system, the firm said. In the 2026 Crypto Crime Report, that figure exceeded $93.3 billion in less than a year.
“The new measures now create an ecosystem-wide crypto restriction on Russia and Belarus,” the blockchain intelligence firm said.
The firm said that people from the EU are now no longer allowed to transact with cryptocurrency service providers (CASPs) and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms from Russia and Belarus. They are also barred from providing Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) crypto services to Belarusian individuals and entities.
The EU also stated that “netting transactions with Russian agents are now forbidden, to prevent the circumvention of EU sanctions.”
Countries referenced in the sanctions package in connection with financial services, trade flows, or intermediary activity include Kyrgyzstan, China, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
If the 23rd edition of the FIFA World Cup has become prohibitively expensive – with tickets fetching prices at more than $2m for the final – blame dynamic pricing, along with greed, says longtime gaming and sports executive Peter Moore.
“Dynamic pricing doesn’t belong in the World Cup and football,” Moore told Al Jazeera in a recent interview from his home in Santa Barbara, California.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“It works with music, but for the World Cup, there are hundreds of thousands of people booking trips in advance. They’re asking themselves, ‘Do we want to visit and pay $2,000 for a third-tier game, Saudi Arabia versus whomever?’ And FIFA taking a 30 percent cut of dynamic pricing is outrageous”.
The 71-year-old former chief executive of Liverpool FC from 2017-20 is calling out FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, in interviews and on social media.
“Gianni Infantino misread the situation and thought he could get away with it,” Moore said.
“Now, tickets are in the hands of bots and speculators, who don’t intend to go to games. They are harvesting tickets and hoping they can sell them in the next six to eight weeks, and I don’t see that happening.”
He added: “I just hope enough people are there to add to the atmosphere of the game”.
Certainly, there’s a gloomy feeling hanging over this World Cup – at some US venues, anyway; from high prices for tickets and transportation, to the luck of the draw on getting a visa (hopefully you haven’t visited Cuba lately).
When you arrive, there’s the spectre of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents targeting fans. Finally, you get through the turnstiles and you could be greeted by lots of empty seats.
How FIFA is rolling things out also raises questions about who the World Cup is for.
The demographic could be more corporate, less diverse socio-economically, with fewer authentic fans attending than in previous tournaments.
Under travel bans imposed by Trump in an executive order, fans from four participating countries – Ivory Coast, Haiti, Iran and Senegal – cannot enter the country unless they already have valid visas.
“It’s the world’s game, but who is this World Cup for if the world can’t get in?” Moore said.
“FIFA is taking advantage of the unique commercial opportunities in the US, dynamic pricing and the secondary market being legal here, to make money – Infantino has said [he expects FIFA revenues from the World Cup to exceed] $11bn. Why not make it more reasonable and accessible and make, maybe, $8bn?
“FIFA is a nonprofit, built to serve players and fans of the world. That’s its remit, not to be like a commercial organisation and maximise the opportunity to make as much money as possible.”
FIFA expects to gross $3bn on ticketing and hospitality sales alone.
Moore, right, with legendary Liverpool striker Ian Rush in 2019 [Eric Gaillard/Reuters]
Infantino has defended high ticket prices, saying that the tournament held every four years is FIFA’s only source of income and that it reinvests the revenue to develop football in all 211 member nations.
MLS commissioner Don Garber recently called FIFA’s dynamic pricing policy “a good idea”, adding that Infantino compared the World Cup to “dozens and dozens” of NFL Super Bowls, which feature some dynamic ticketing. And, Garber added, US fans are accustomed to paying high prices for “premium” events.
But the Super Bowl’s appeal is based on the contest being held once a year, not dozens of times. One way to devalue the Super Bowl would be to schedule several of them a year.
As for supporters from the other 47 countries taking part? They thought they were going to a World Cup, not a Super Bowl. And they are probably not used to dynamic pricing or legal profiting from ticket resales.
In the US, though, above-value ticket resale is legal, and FIFA being involved in reselling “changes everything,” Moore noted. “It means: tickets are no longer just for fans. They’re tradable assets.” Which brings in speculators, who conduct business “like traders, not supporters”.
Maybe it was inevitable that the spirit of the World Cup would be hijacked by savage capitalism. But it doesn’t seem everyone is ready for that, just yet. The World Cup is not only a sporting competition, but a universal gathering. Or so we thought. Perhaps it is just another “premium event”, like so many Taylor Swift concerts – but with worse dance moves.
Welcome then to the first soulless World Cup?
“It’s dystopian, and it’s an existential threat to the game,” Moore said, referring to both the ticketing situation and broader problems of the World Cup.
“Ultimately, is this going to be the first of every World Cup where FIFA maximises profit, rather than allow as many as possible to come and support their country?”
Moore said he is reluctant to attend the World Cup, though he could zip down the Pacific Coast Highway to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.
“For me, I look every day, on StubHub, SeatGeek, TicketMaster,” Moore said. “I’m used to it with live music. We can stand outside Allegiant [Stadium, in Las Vegas] and watch our phones for when ticket prices go down, when touts need to unload tickets for the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Shakira. But the international fan can’t do that for the World Cup, fly to America and book hotels, and hope prices will go down”.
If you are planning on being there, Moore advises checking the resale market close to game times.
“I’d just watch, and as the weeks go on, if tickets aren’t moving, the secondary market will come down,” Moore said.
“But to a reasonable price? I don’t know. It’s the regular fans that create the excitement at the World Cup, from Brazil, Colombia, Africa. How are they going to afford to travel and come to games when it’s $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 [per ticket]. Who’s got that kind of money?”
For the fans who do get through the turnstiles, maybe the power of football will overcome everything and they’ll experience what we think of as the eternal World Cup vibe. But a part of them might also feel like they just got fleeced by FIFA.
Football’s global governing body promises to increase the funding for the tournament to help cover participation costs.
Published On 27 Apr 202627 Apr 2026
FIFA says it is in discussions with national football associations to increase prize money for all 48 teams participating in the World Cup.
In response to requests by European teams to increase prize money and to assist with costs associated with their participation this summer in the World Cup, the world governing body is set to fulfil those wishes, it said on Sunday.
The proposal must be approved at Tuesday’s FIFA Council meeting, being held before the 76th FIFA Congress in Vancouver, Canada.
FIFA announced in December a record World Cup prize fund of $727m, with the winning team taking home $50m and each team receiving at least $10.5m. Since that December announcement, FIFA and national associations have engaged in talks and aim to resolve the issue.
UEFA, European football’s governing body, contacted FIFA after hearing from several of its member associations regarding the costs of participating in the World Cup, including travel, operations and taxes, particularly in the United States. Canada and Mexico are the other host countries.
FIFA said the prize money on offer is set to increase, with the world governing body projected to surpass $11bn in revenue in the current four-year cycle of 2023 to 2026.
“FIFA can confirm it is in discussions with associations around the world to increase available revenues,” a FIFA spokesperson told the Reuters news agency.
“This includes a proposed increase of financial contributions to all qualified teams for the FIFA World Cup 2026 and of development funding available to all 211 member associations.
“The FIFA World Cup 2026 will be groundbreaking in terms of its financial contribution to the global football community, and FIFA is proud to be in its strongest ever financial position to benefit the global game through its FIFA Forward programme.”
The biggest slice of FIFA’s initial funding package for the North American showpiece – $655m – was to be performance-based payments to the 48 participating nations.
Additionally, each qualified nation would be entitled to $1.5m to cover preparation costs.
FIFA’s 2025 annual report said 93 percent of its total budgeted revenue had already been contracted by the end of 2025, thanks to the success of the inaugural 32-team Club World Cup held in the US last year.
A number of major U.K. networks and industry partners have teamed to launch a new masterclass-focused training initiative aimed at raising industry standards when it comes to textured hair and dark skin tones.
The ‘Textured Hair & Make-up for Deep Skin-Tones Accelerator,’ comes from Dandi, the diversity and inclusion service from the team behind the TriForce Creative Network, and builds on the 2025 Hair & Make‑Up Equity Guidelines. According to Dandi, it provides a “practical, scalable solution to ensure equitable, culturally competent styling across the UK’s screen industries.”
In a recent survey, 71 % of actors from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds still reported that hair and makeup departments were unable to meet their needs, something that undermining wellbeing, authenticity and production values.
The accelerator — giving hands-on training, industry insight and direct access to employers — is backed by Prime Video Pathway, following their pilot programme in Scotland in 2025 as well as BBC, Sky, Channel 4, ITV and Screen Alliance North. Two 2026 programs, featuring masterclasses in partnership with the Kevin Fortune Hair Styling Academy, have been set for both the north and south of the U.K., with each course to recruit 10 participants.
“Working with such incredible partners, we can shift the landscape tangibly with solutions that directly address the fundamental issues surrounding Black hair and make-up. Where the guidelines set the standard, the Accelerator delivers the solution. Inclusive styling is essential, not optional,” said Dandi CEO Fraser Ayre.
In 2024, Variety reported how Afro hair had been shockingly overlooked by the U.K. industry in terms of on-set provisions and knowledge, with many Black British actors — including many majors names — turning up to shoots to find hair departments without the necessary skills to handle Afro-textured hair as compared to their white co-stars. In many cases, artists were forced to arrive hours earlier to do the hair themselves or even send over their own video tutorials to explain certain processes.
Bitcoin ($BTC) rose as Asian markets opened, climbing above $79,000. However, it subsequently retreated to around $77,600 due to selling pressure, failing to break above $80,000.
Bitcoin’s ability to hold above $75,000 in recent weeks has fueled bullish expectations, but one analyst claims the bottom has not yet been reached.
Leading Bitcoin investor Michael Terpin stated in a recent interview that he expects $BTC to bottom out in October at $57,000.
Terpin, who predicted that $BTC could bottom out around $57,000 this October, also stated that a recovery to $100,000 does not seem likely within 2026.
Explaining the basis of this prediction, the analyst noted that it typically takes about a year for Bitcoin to bottom out after a cycle peak.
Recalling that Bitcoin reached its peak last October, the analyst, based on historical average peaks and dips, predicted that the bottom would be in October, around $57,000.
Terpin also stated that a bullish reversal and a recapture of $100,000 would be critical, but that this is unlikely to happen this year.
He added that such a recovery would depend on sustained and increasing institutional buying from firms like Strategy, continued net inflows into ETFs, and the absence of large-scale selling during market downturns.
Britain’s leading forum for television and media confirmed the news on Monday. Jones is currently the British Phonographic Industry’s (BPI) chief strategy officer, having joined the music trade association — also home of the BRIT Awards and Mercury Prize — in 2020 as director of public affairs.
Prior to joining the BPI, Jones was head of corporate relations at Channel 4. She’ll take over from the RTS’s outgoing CEO Theresa Wise later this year, working closely with their board of trustees, as well as overseeing the Society’s educational activities, awards, conventions, national and regional centres, and membership community.
Jones said to be asked to lead the institution into its next phase is “a huge privilege.” She added: “Theresa leaves an impressive legacy that I look forward to building on with the support of the RTS’s brilliant team, board and network of volunteers around the U.K. I can’t wait to get started.”
Jane Turton, chair of the RTS board of trustees, described Jones’s experience of production and broadcasting as “a valuable asset to the RTS as we continue to grow the Society, adapting to the demands of a very fast-changing media world.”
“Sophie is passionate about the educational aspects of the Society and the opportunities we have to support the sector in bringing in and developing career opportunities for the broadest base of talent,” said Turton. “The trustees and I very much look forward to working with her as we continue to champion excellence and support new talent, ensuring that the Society remains a vibrant and inclusive home for the whole industry.”
The DOJ moved to intervene in xAI’s lawsuit challenging Colorado’s AI discrimination law.
The department argues the law violates the Constitution by requiring companies to prevent disparate impact.
The move reflects the Trump administration’s push to limit state AI regulation.
The U.S. Department of Justice moved Friday to intervene in xAI’s lawsuit against Colorado, escalating a legal fight over how states can regulate artificial intelligence and whether companies can be held liable for “algorithmic discrimination.”
In a press release, the DOJ said Colorado’s law, SB24-205, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it requires AI companies to prevent unintentional “disparate impact” based on protected characteristics such as race and sex while exempting certain uses intended to advance diversity or address historic discrimination.
“Laws that require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology are illegal,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement. “The Justice Department will not stand on the sidelines while states such as Colorado coerce our nation’s technological innovators into producing harmful products that advance a radical, far-left worldview at odds with the Constitution.”
Colorado passed SB24-205 in 2024, and after a delay, the law is set to take effect on June 30. It requires companies that build or use high-risk AI systems in decisions such as hiring, student admissions, and mortgage lending to assess and reduce discrimination risks, disclose how those systems work, and notify consumers when AI plays a role in consequential decisions.
Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s xAI sued Colorado, arguing that the law forces AI systems to produce ideologically biased or inaccurate results. The DOJ’s intervention aligns the federal government with Musk’s AI company in challenging the law.
Cody Barela, a partner at Colorado-based law firm Armstrong Teasdale, said the DOJ’s argument that Colorado’s law slows AI development may be stronger than its constitutional claim.
“I think that particular argument will be less likely to win, but I do think they have a valid argument in terms of the burdens that the Colorado policy would place on these companies,” Barela told Decrypt, adding that courts may be more receptive to arguments that Colorado’s law emburdens AI startups and could slow U.S. competitiveness.
“The burden on them, in comparison to the delay that it causes in the AI race, might actually be a better argument, and maybe a winning argument based on administration policy—that they basically don’t want any burdens limiting tech companies in the AI race,” he said.
The DOJ’s intervention comes as states move ahead with their own AI rules while the Trump administration pushes to limit state-level regulation, and shift AI policymaking to Washington. Colorado was among the first states to pass a broad AI bias law. At the same time, lawmakers in New York and California have proposed or advanced measures targeting risks tied to generative AI tools.
While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), and U.S. Senators. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), have pushed for safeguards against bias in AI, Justice Department officials called Colorado’s law a threat to innovation and U.S. competitiveness.
If xAI and the DOJ succeed, then Barela said the case could influence how other states approach AI regulation.
“I think there are states that are a lot more willing to avoid placing any restrictions on tech companies, both to promote themselves as tech‑friendly and to bring more companies there,” he said. “Others may just sit back and wait for the federal government to come up with a nationwide policy, rather than start a piecemeal, state‑by‑state process that’s harder to comply with.”
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
On April 27, states party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will gather in New York to begin their five-year review of its function. This year, the review conference opens under the shadow of the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran under the pretext that it was about to develop a nuclear weapon.
As the 191 state parties gather to review the NPT, the grand bargain at the heart of this treaty will be put on trial.
The treaty, which entered into force in 1970, is the central agreement through which most states accepted the current nuclear order. Non-nuclear-weapon states under the treaty (including Iran) have agreed never to acquire nuclear weapons, while the five recognised nuclear-weapon states (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) have agreed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, and to also to pursue the disarmament of their own nuclear stockpiles.
All parties to the NPT retain the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, under safeguards overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Every five years, states meet to review whether that bargain is still being honoured. That is why this conference is happening now.
The problem is that Iran’s case now raises a deeply uncomfortable question for the review conference: Does NPT membership offer any degree of protection for its non-nuclear-weapon states?
To be fair, Iran is unlike any other non-nuclear-weapon state under the NPT, and has given the world reasons to be concerned about its nuclear activities. The IAEA has raised questions about Iran’s unresolved safeguards issues, limited inspector access and its accumulation of uranium enriched far beyond normal civilian needs.
Yet, the agency has not found any evidence of a structured weapons programme. Despite that conclusion – confirmed by US intelligence – the US, an official nuclear state, and Israel, an unofficial nuclear state, decided to attack Iran.
This coercive approach to resolving concerns about nuclear activities is extremely damaging to the NPT. If the issue was uncertainty about what Iran’s nuclear facilities are up to, then bombing them does not create any clarity. If the issue was limited access for weapons inspectors, waging war and blockading the country would not make inspections easier. If the issue was nuclear latency, attacking safeguarded sites risks teaching other states that remaining below the weapons threshold provides neither reassurance nor protection.
This is the darker lesson now hanging over the review conference in New York. Iran’s working papers submitted to the conference, raise important issues. Tehran evokes Article IV of the treaty and the right to peaceful nuclear technology. It argues that attacks on safeguarded facilities violate the very logic of the treaty. It points to Israel’s position outside the NPT, and to the long-unfulfilled promise of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
One does not have to accept Iran’s entire case to see why these arguments will resonate with other conference attendees. They speak to a wider anxiety among non-nuclear-weapon states: That the rules are observed when applied to the weak, and are bent when applied to the powerful.
It does not help that the location of the review conference is in the US – a party to the ongoing conflict, which is trying to impose by force commitments that are already outlined in the NPT and that Iran, as a signatory, had agreed to. If the war had not started, this could have been a convenient venue for the US and Iran to hold supplementary talks to resolve differences.
But the war, as well as other violations – such as the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – put US commitment to international law and UN-facilitated diplomacy under question. Notwithstanding all this, Iran’s existing mission and technical experts may be well placed to carry a quieter parallel track at the review conference.
In the coming four weeks, the NPT state parties have work to do. They can reaffirm that attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities are unacceptable. They can press Iran on safeguards without pretending force is needed for verification. They can place the enrichment debate within the treaty’s actual terms, and remind the US that zero enrichment is not an NPT requirement. They can also bring up the issue of the regional imbalance created by Israel’s nuclear opacity and non-membership.
As the conference begins, it is important to remember the key role the NPT has played in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons for over 50 years. Preserving the treaty is key to maintaining this state of affairs. That is why, at the review conference, states parties should categorically refuse to let the NPT’s basic bargain be rewritten by war.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Bitcoin ($BTC) failed to hold its move toward $80,000 after a sudden wave of selling hit the derivatives market. The price dropped about 2.5% within a few hours and moved back below $78,000.
CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost said there was no clear announcement behind the move. He linked the correction to strong sell activity in futures markets as $BTC approached the $80,000 zone.
Darkfost said Binance recorded about $1.2 billion in sell volume within one hour. Across all exchanges, Bitcoin saw about $1.35 billion in selling pressure during the same period.
The analyst said the data shows Binance remains a key venue for Bitcoin derivatives activity. The sharp move forced $BTC to reverse before breaking the $80,000 level.
Funding rates remain deeply negative
Darkfost also noted that Bitcoin funding rates have stayed highly negative for several weeks. He said the 30-day cumulative funding rate has reached -7%, one of the lowest readings on record.
Such negative funding can create short-term pressure when traders build aggressive short positions. However, late short entries can later turn into buying pressure if prices move against them.
On-chain data points to stronger holders
Another CryptoQuant analyst, GugaOnChain, said Bitcoin’s current cycle looks different from past panic phases. He argued that large holders did not sell heavily during the recent geopolitical shock.
The analyst said Bitcoin saw early de-risking after the 2025 top. He said weak hands sold during the decline, while stronger investors absorbed supply near lower price zones.
GugaOnChain also pointed to Bitcoin’s realized price and spot recovery as signs of stronger market structure. He said the spot price recovered toward $79,000 while realized price stayed near $54,100.
The analyst added that Binance reserves fell by about 44,000 $BTC after the shock. He described this as evidence that coins moved away from exchanges and into longer-term storage.
Bitcoin now trades in a market split between short-term derivatives pressure and stronger spot behavior. Traders are watching whether negative funding will keep weighing on price or create conditions for a short squeeze.
The leading cryptocurrency, Bitcoin ($BTC), rose as Asian stock markets opened, climbing above $79,000.
Bitcoin once again approached the $80,000 mark, but the rally stalled at $80,000 as last-minute buyers sold at the break-even point.
According to analysts, Bitcoin is facing significant selling pressure around the $80,000 level, which is considered the break-even point for recent buyers.
Despite a 16% increase in April and strong institutional accumulation, Bitcoin reached a 12-week high, surpassing $79,300 overnight during Asian trading hours before pulling back today.
However, a sharp pullback subsequently brought the price back to the $77,600 level. This retracement once again thwarted Bitcoin’s attempt to regain the $80,000 level, a feat it has attempted since January.
This rise occurred amid uncertainty surrounding the US-Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz issue, and was partly driven by news that Iran had presented a new offer to the US to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a potential agreement between the two countries increased risk appetite among investors.
However, this rise was short-lived. According to analysts, this pullback is due to profit-taking by short-term investors.
$80,000 is Critical in Bitcoin’s Rise!
At this point, it is being noted that the $80,000 level could be a short-term turning point in the market.
$BTC Markets analyst Rachael Lucas explained that the $80,000 level is where the last buyers reached the entry price. She noted that this has historically been a point of selling pressure, where investors who have been in losing positions for weeks try to exit the market.
“$80,000 is near the break-even point for recent buyers, and it’s a point where profit-taking selling pressure could emerge.”
Besides Lucas, LVRG Research Director Nick Ruck also commented on the recent movements in Bitcoin.
Ruck stated, “If spot demand continues to increase, the recent uptrend could extend further, but investors are primarily watching whether $BTC can remain above the $80,000 to $83,000 region. At this point, investors are also monitoring the Fed’s interest rate decision on April 29th and other key economic data releases.”
