Vesper

Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn’t a promoter of civil discourse. He preached hate, bigotry, and division https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charlie-kirk-assassination-maga/ Charles James Kirk, 31, died on Wednesday from a gunshot to the neck at a Utah Valley University campus event just as he was trying to deflect a question about mass shootings by suggesting they were largely a function of gang violence. He died with a net worth of $12 million, which he made by espousing horrific and bigoted views in the name of advancing Christian nationalism. The foundation of his empire was the group he cofounded and led, Turning Point USA, which is a key youth-recruitment arm of the MAGA movement. Kirk was able to launch Turning Point at the age of 18 because he received money from Tea Party member Bill Montgomery, right-wing donor Foster Feiss, and his own father, also a prolific right-wing donor. He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people. It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male. California Governor Gavin Newsom framed Kirk’s project as a healthy democratic exercise: “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate.” This downwardly defines both “discourse” and “good-faith.” There is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.” Many of the facile defenses of Kirk and his legacy are predicated on the idea that it’s acceptable to spread hateful ideas advocating for the persecution of perceived enemies as long you dress them up in a posture of debate. This is just class privilege. The man who said, “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot” said it while wearing a nice shirt and a tie on a podcast instead of tattered overalls in the parking lot of a rural Walmart. That does not make it any less racist. It’s true that we cannot know what was in Charlie Kirk’s heart because we are not telepathic. But we can make reasonable inferences based on the things he said and did publicly because we are also not colossally stupid. He built a large following, and acquired real political power saying these things—to young people, to the president and his minions, to deep-pocket right-wing donors—and there are far too many people who have been ready to suggest that he was able to do this through a combination of natural charisma and good old-fashioned hard work. Speaking about and addressing the late Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who is Black, he said, “It’s very obvious to us you are not smart enough to be able to get it on your own. ‘I could not make it on my own, so I needed to take opportunities from someone more deserving.’” Kirk was smart enough to ask his father for a check when wanted to found Turning Point, and had always been happy to curtail opportunities for more deserving people when they failed to conform to his own ideology. It’s this that makes it particularly galling to see him cast by some as a free-speech warrior. He created a professor watchlist explicitly designed to get academics fired who dared talk about the right’s usual assortment of verboten topics—anything to do with race or gender, in particular. He also offered the standard right-wing plaint about left-wing indoctrination in American universities even as he went on campus tours trying to indoctrinate young people into his hard-right Christian nationalist worldview. When we decline to speak ill of the dead, it’s because we have compassion for the living. In this respect, I am sorry for Kirk’s children. I don’t know if Kirk was a good father, but if he was, that does little to mitigate the damage he did to other people’s children. I can only hope for the sake of his kids that they have role models who will teach them that it is wrong to profit off the dehumanization of people because of who they are. When asked about mass shootings he said, “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Perhaps Kirk did not believe that his own life would be cut short by gun violence, but, like the rest of us, he has witnessed countless school shootings. When he said “some gun deaths” are acceptable, he surely knew he lived in a country where the deaths he deemed acceptable included those of children, some of whom were the age of his own. There is no inherent virtue in caring about your own children; that is the bare minimum requirement for effective parenting. Virtue lies in caring about the safety and well-being of children you don’t know. On that front, I’m fairly sure Kirk did not care about my child. My child lives in Brooklyn, in a progressive family. His mother works and does not have a marriage where she is considered inferior to her husband or required to obey him, as Kirk arrogantly told Taylor Swift she should do after learning of her engagement. (“Reject feminism,” he said. “You’re not in charge.”) We also live in a Haitian immigrant neighborhood, and if you only listened to Charlie Kirk, you might be under the impression that my neighbors eat pets. You would also be encouraged to believe that, simply by virtue of being non-white immigrants, they were “replacing” white people—and that, since they are also Black, they are dangerous. “Happening all the time in urban America,” he said, “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact.” I do not believe anyone should be murdered because of their views, but that is because I don’t believe people should be murdered generally, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. I am against the death penalty, pro–gun control, and believe war is a failure of humanity, not a necessary byproduct of it. Kirk was fine with murder as long the right people were dying. Some of the people valorizing Kirk insist that all of his toxicity was acceptable because at least he was open to debate—a bar so low, you’d have to dig into the Mariana Trench to get to it. And he certainly paid lip service to it. “We record all of it so that we put [it] on the Internet so people can see these ideas collide,” he said of his own streaming operation. “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.” But Kirk’s actions undercut that notion every day. His entire business was saying the other side was evil and dehumanizing them. The debates were simply performances, and he could not have an entertaining public fight without opposition. Turning Point did not work to bring people together; it worked to bring about a country where anyone who wasn’t a white Christian nationalist wasn’t welcome. I won’t celebrate his death, but I’m not obligated to celebrate his life, either.

No, Charlie Kirk Was Not Practicing Politics the Right Way His assassination deserves full condemnation; his full impact should not be sidestepped. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/charlie-kirk-legacy-ezra-klein-2020-election-trump-turning-point/ Tragedy is a powerful shaper of narratives. In the aftermath of the horrific assassination of MAGA champion Charlie Kirk, a husband and father of two, it was natural that his allies, including President Trump, lionized him as a patriot, free-speech advocate, and activist. And political opponents somberly denounced the terrible killing, as they should, with some hailing Kirk’s devotion to public debate. There’s a tendency in such a moment to look for the best in people or, at least, to not dwell on the negatives. That can be a good thing. Yet as Kirk is quickly canonized by Trump and his movement—on Thursday Trump announced he would bestow upon Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom—a full depiction of his impact on American politics is largely being sidestepped. In promoting a story on the murder of Kirk—headlined “Charlie Kirk killing deepens America’s violent spiral”—Axios described him as a “fierce champion of the right to free expression” whose “voice was silenced by an assassin’s bullet.” New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Klein added that he “envied” the political movement Kirk built and praised “his moxie and fearlessness.” Here’s the problem: Kirk built that movement with falsehoods. And his advocacy was laced with racist and bigoted statements. Recognizing this does not diminish the awfulness of this act of violence. Nor does it lessen our outrage or diminish our sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues. Yet if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America’s political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion. Kirk, a right-wing provocateur who founded and led Turning Point USA, an organization of young conservatives, was a promoter of Trump’s destructive and baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Two days before the January 6 riot, Kirk boasted in a tweet that Students for Trump and Turning Point Action were “Sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.” After the attack, Kirk deleted the tweet, and he claimed that the people his group transported to DC participated only in the rally that occurred before the assault on Congress—where Trump whipped up the crowd and encouraged it to march on the Capitol. The New York Times subsequently reported that Turning Point Action sent only seven buses to the event. Turning Point also paid the $60,000 speaking fee to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a MAGA personality, for the brief remarks she made at the rally. “We will not allow the liberals and the Democrats to steal our dream or steal our elections,” Guilfoyle told the crowd. (Kirk took the Fifth when he was deposed by the House January 6 committee.) Even prior to the election, Kirk helped set the stage for Trump’s attempt to subvert the republic. In September 2020, the Washington Post reported that Turning Point Action was running a “sprawling yet secretive campaign” to disseminate pro-Trump propaganda “that experts say evades the guardrails put in place by social media companies to limit online disinformation of the sort used by Russia during the 2016 campaign.” The messages Turning Point generated spread the charge that Democrats were using mail balloting to steal the election and downplayed the threat from Covid. (Kirk’s group called the story a “gross mischaracterization.”) Whatever Kirk’s group and supporters did on January 6, he was part of the MAGA crusade that largely broke US politics. Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 loss, his conniving to stay in power, and his encouragement of a lie that led to massive political violence greatly undermined American democracy and exacerbated the already deep divide in the nation. Kirk was a part of that. Yet Klein overlooks that in praising Kirk. And a New York Times piece on Kirk’s political career made no mention of this, though it did report that he had been “accused” of “antisemitism, homophobia and racism, having blamed Jewish communities for fomenting hatred against white people, criticized gay rights on religious grounds and questioned the qualifications of Black airline pilots.” Kirk’s advocacy of vigorous debate ought not be separated from what he said while jousting in the public square. He hosted white nationalists on his podcast. He posted racist comments on his X account, including this remark: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.'” He endorsed the white “replacement” conspiracy theory. After the October 7 attack on Israel, he compared Black Lives Matter to Hamas. He called for preserving “white demographics in America.” He asserted that Islam was not compatible with Western culture. He derided women who supported Kamala Harris 2024 for wanting “careerism, consumerism, and loneliness.” Or, as he also put it, “Democratic women want to die alone without children.” When Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in 2022, Kirk spread a conspiracy theory about the crime and called for an “amazing patriot” to bail out the assailant. He routinely deployed extreme rhetoric to demonize his political foes. Kirk did enjoy debating others. He visited campuses and held events in which he took on all comers, arguing over a variety of contentious issues. He was a showman, and his commitment to verbal duking was admirable. He appeared proud of the harsh opinions he robustly shared. Which means there’s no reason now to be shy about them while pondering his legacy. Moreover, as a movement strategist, he relied upon and advanced lies and bigotry—including falsehoods that fueled violence and an assault on our national foundation. That was not a side gig for Kirk. It was a core component of his organizing. He did not practice politics the right way. He used deceit to develop his movement and to weaken the United States. His assassination is heinous and frightening and warrants widespread condemnation. It should prompt reflection on what is happening within the nation and what needs to be done to prevent further political violence. It should not protect him or others who engage in such politics of extremism from critical review.

Hasan Piker on Charlie Kirk, Dangerous Rhetoric, and the Radical Power of Empathy

Kirk, like the vast majority of right wing Christian nationalists, was a purveyor of hate, the antithesis of the core message of Christ (love). He and his ilk are all about domination and power, all about eradicating anything they deem to not fit into their worldview. Christian Nationalism: The Rising Tide https://globalextremism.org/post/christian-nationalism-the-rising-tide/ America is confronting a rising tide of Christian nationalism, a political movement that imposes a narrow, exclusionary vision of Christian identity on the nation’s government, culture, and society as the term itself, Christian nationalism, has become a part of the nation’s vernacular. Christian nationalism, described in broad strokes as the belief that America is divinely ordained for Christian rule, has stormed from the fringes into the heart of American power, poised to reshape the nation. The movement is backed by a bevy of Christian nationalist advisors, appointees, and organizations who have placed Donald Trump at the helm. snip The Pentagon’s New Prayer Warriors: How Christian Nationalists Planted a Church Blocks from the Capitol The American flag hung upside down, a symbol of dire distress or danger, above Pastor Jared Longshore as he delivered his sermon on July 13. In the sweltering room just blocks from the U.S. Capitol, 120 worshippers packed into folding chairs listened intently. “We understand that worship is warfare,” the bearded pastor declared from behind the lectern. A pause. “We mean that.” Children whispered excitedly when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, walked through the door. This was Christ Kirk D.C.’s inaugural service, and the defense secretary’s presence sent a clear message. By the time he left, supporters had mobbed him. Behind this latest church plant stands Doug Wilson. The self-described Christian nationalist pastor operates from Moscow, Idaho, where he’s built something remarkable: an expanding network of institutions designed to challenge the separation of church and state. His Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches now spans more than 130 congregations worldwide. And his followers? They’re making serious inroads into American political power. Hegseth’s attendance was no accident. The defense secretary has praised Wilson’s books, one of which defends slavery as “God-ordained.” He moved his family to Tennessee specifically to enroll his children in schools associated with Wilson’s Christian education movement. He joined a local CREC church. In May, he had Wilson lead a prayer service at the Pentagon. Even the venue tells a story. The Christ Kirk DC congregation meets in a building owned by the Conservative Partnership Institute — a far-right think tank with serious connections. Former Senator Jim DeMint leads it. So does Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Partner organizations include the Center for Renewing America, created by Russell Vought, and America First Legal, co-founded by current White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Political symbols filled the worship space. Multiple American flags. Revolutionary-era banners like the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. An “Appeal to Heaven” flag — which has become associated with Christian nationalism and the January 6 Capitol attack. Old newspaper clippings praising Ronald Reagan dotted the walls. Nick Solheim sat among the worshippers. He heads American Moment, an organization founded with backing from then-Senator JD Vance. The group is listed among CPI’s partners. Wilson’s rise reflects something bigger — a movement of Christian nationalists who reject democratic pluralism entirely. They want explicitly Christian governance instead. Unlike other evangelical leaders who supported Trump reluctantly, Wilson and his allies embrace him as divinely appointed – a disrupter chosen by God. Over the years, Wilson has sparked serious controversies with anti-LGBTQ+ slurs and a book that downplayed the horrors of American slavery. These aren’t minor missteps — they reveal a worldview that many find deeply troubling. Hegseth embodies this militant strain perfectly. His military tattoos tell the story: “Deus Vult” (God Wills It), a Crusader battle cry and a Jerusalem Cross. These symbols led to his removal from President Biden’s inauguration security detail in 2021. Officials cited concerns about extremism. Pastor Longshore traveled from Wilson’s Idaho church to launch the DC congregation. He dismissed suggestions that the church was explicitly designed to influence politics. But he explained that the theology is clear. “We do believe that culture is religion externalized, always, whatever the religion. And politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from worship.” During his sermon, Longshore made bold claims. America has become a “fallen” or “lapsed” nation, he said. Why? Because it drifted from its Christian roots. He stressed that “Christendom” has “marked this land from its founding.” Not everyone appreciated the message. Outside the building, two protesters jeered worshippers as they entered. One held a sign: “Christ Church Is not Welcome.” A protester who identified himself only as Jay spoke to reporters, saying that Christ Kirk espouses values that are “fundamentally un-American” and “un-Christian.” Even inside the church, skepticism emerged. Nathan Krauss, a United Methodist member who works in the federal government, attended as part of his effort to understand Christian nationalism. Much of the service seemed inoffensive to him. But he questioned something crucial: the disconnect between Scripture and the movement’s political goals. “I just really want to know: is the creation of this church going to create more liberty for the oppressed or less liberty for the oppressed?” he wondered aloud. Longshore relished the pushback. Wilson’s Idaho church faces regular protests too, he noted. As someone preparing for “spiritual warfare,” he welcomed the challenge. “What feels like crazy to you is actually normal stuff,” he told critics. Protest represents authentic American discourse outside “the secular bubble,” he argued. The church has plans. It will evolve from a satellite service of Wilson’s Moscow congregation into an independent mission church. Local leadership will emerge. But with Christian nationalists now occupying key positions throughout the Trump administration, Christ Kirk D.C. represents something more significant than just another church plant. It’s a symbol. A movement that has successfully translated theological conviction into political power. And it’s operating just blocks from the Capitol. David Barton: The Christian Nationalist Behind America’s Ten Commandments Takeover Twenty-eight bills. Eighteen states. One source. Across America this year, nearly identical legislation requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms has surfaced with startling uniformity — the same language appearing word-for-word from Louisiana to Nebraska, a new investigation by The 74, an education news outlet, reports. The bills specify identical poster sizes, identical placement requirements, and even identical funding mechanisms. The architect of this model legislation is David Barton, a 71-year-old Christian nationalist operating from Aledo, Texas — population 5,000. For four decades, Barton has methodically constructed what critics call a “bill mill,” designed to inject his brand of Christianity into American government. The self-described historian has built a lucrative career propagating the myth that church-state separation is a lie used by nefarious forces to obscure America’s supposedly Christian origins. Barton, who considers homosexuality an “aberration,” is a frequent invited speaker at conferences hosted by Project 2025 supporter Turning Point USA, and has been an advisor to House Speaker and fellow Christian nationalist Mike Johnson. From his small-town base, he’s created an operation that cranks out model legislation with factory-like efficiency. During an April hearing before the Texas House education committee, Barton’s influence became clear. There he stood, clutching a thick Bible with a dark brown cover worn smooth from years of handling. “This is actually printed by the official printer of Congress,” he announced, launching into a well-rehearsed performance. One prop followed another. A second book, smaller but equally weathered. Then a third. A fourth. “The courts have pointed to the Ten Commandments as the reason we have all types of laws,” Barton testified, “So there’s a lot of history and tradition for that document.” What didn’t lawmakers realize? Barton had delivered nearly identical testimony in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Arkansas. His words would echo in statehouses from coast to coast where 12 bills specify that displays must hang in “conspicuous” locations. Eleven demand they measure at least 11-by-14 inches. Twenty-five require the commandments to appear as a “poster or framed” display. This isn’t a coincidence — it’s the product of Project Blitz, Barton’s Christian “bill mill” operating through his organization, WallBuilders. He founded WallBuilders in 1988, choosing a name referencing the Old Testament passage about rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls. The organization’s mission: “exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country.” After graduating from Oral Roberts University in 1976, Barton returned home to teach at a small Christian school. Basketball coach, then principal. But he discovered his true calling: rewriting America’s understanding of its own founding. His central claim flips constitutional law on its head. The First Amendment’s establishment clause, Barton argues, was never meant to separate church and state — not really. The founders only wanted to prevent “one Christian denomination” from dominating others. In his interpretation, the wall between government and religion was built to protect Christianity, not limit it. Professional historians have spent decades debunking these theories, accusing him of cherry-picking quotes and mischaracterizing documents. His 2012 book about Thomas Jefferson contained so many errors that its Christian publisher pulled it from the shelves. “Basic truths just were not there,” they explained. The academic criticism hasn’t slowed him down. Barton has turned scholarly debunking into fundraising gold, portraying himself as a persecuted truth-teller. WallBuilders reported $5.5 million in revenue in 2021. Every November, Barton hosts a conference at a four-star resort outside Dallas. State legislators arrive with scholarships and discounted hotel rates. They leave with model legislation and talking points memorized. Indiana Representative J.D. Prescott attended one gathering, then returned home to introduce a Ten Commandments bill matching Barton’s template. “I learned a lot of it at a WallBuilders conference,” Prescott acknowledged. The bills reveal sophisticated planning. Most specify that displays should be donated by private groups rather than purchased with taxpayer dollars — creating a closed loop where the same organizations that write requirements also supply the posters. Today, Barton’s influence reaches the highest levels. House Speaker and Christian nationalist Mike Johnson credits Barton as a “profound influence on me, and my work, and my life and everything I do.” One day after Johnson’s election, Barton appeared on his podcast to discuss staffing decisions. “We have some tools at our disposal now we haven’t had in a long time,” he announced. Both men envision America as an explicitly Christian nation. Johnson previously worked for Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ+ legal group that challenges church-state separation. Barton built the intellectual framework justifying such challenges. Three states have passed laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public schools: Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. All follow Barton’s template precisely. Federal courts have begun striking down the mandates, with the Fifth Circuit ruling Louisiana’s law “plainly unconstitutional.” But Barton remains confident, pointing to recent Supreme Court decisions that have weakened church-state barriers. “The hostility is gone,” Barton testified in Nebraska. The court’s new standard focuses on whether religious displays reflect “longstanding practice” — exactly his argument for four decades. The opposition has noticed. Constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel calls Barton “the granddaddy of Christian nationalist disinformation.” Parents have filed lawsuits alleging students will be “unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance.” Texas Senator Mayes Middleton, who sponsored his state’s law, praised the coordination. “We just wanted uniformity in these displays,” he explained. From a town of 5,000 people, a self-taught historian with no formal training has built something unprecedented: a factory for Christian nationalist legislation, operating with assembly-line efficiency.

utter nonsense you are quickly devolving into a pure bad faith poster like Cosmic was the article was a list of KIRK'S OWN WORDS, with links to them THAT is the context

no you do NOT I do not use AI to research, or write I search and post exactly the same as I did before the main AI wave hit and grew in size starting on November 30th, 2022 with the release of ChatGPT

What are you talking about? Are you implying I am AI?? LOLOL Pro tip.... you do not need to use AI to find information on the internet. You do not need to use AI to write an article. The Guardian certainly does not use AI to write their articles.

that is absolutely not true it's pure rubbish and it faces up like a gaslighting attempt it is just a standard article with LINKED proof of the things it states he said you are rapidly losing credibility with your continued attempts to false frame

How do you come to that conclusion? It is a simple article detailing statements made by Kirk himself. AI has nothing to do with it, come on!

3 nil Zubimendi on a hat trick

Bollocks. I do not use 'AI' for things I post, ever. That information is from The Guardian, as I clearly showed with the url link.

Kirk's 'legacy' is being whitewashed by the RW. He was a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, CT-pushing, christofascist, hateful asshole. Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’ The far-right commentator didn’t pull his punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs Charlie Kirk, the far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and often racist and sexist comments to large audiences. If it was current and controversial in US politics, chances are that Kirk was talking about it. On his podcasts, and on the podcasts of friends and adversaries, and especially on college campuses, where he would go to debate students, Kirk spent much of his adult life defending and articulating a worldview aligned with Trump and the Maga movement. Accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping. Here’s Kirk, in his own words. Many of his comments were documented by Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit that tracks conservative media. On race On debate On gender, feminism and reproductive rights On gun violence On immigration On Islam On religion

Charlie Kirk memorial chant: "White man fight back!"

“Or involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill them.” - Fox News Host during a segment about the homeless population

Guardiola, Amorim and troubling times in the state of Manchester https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6620274/2025/09/12/manchester-derby-guardiola-amorim/ On the eve of his first Manchester derby in September 2016, it was put to Pep Guardiola that his rivalry with Jose Mourinho would elevate the fixture and the Premier League to new heights. It would be English football’s answer to Ali vs Frazier, or Borg vs McEnroe, or Prost vs Senna. For a time, it felt like that. Every clash was described as “box office”. It was Guardiola vs Mourinho on the touchline. It was Kevin De Bruyne vs Paul Pogba. It was Sergio Aguero vs Zlatan Ibrahimovic. There were fireworks on the pitch and off it, one thrilling clash in 2017 followed by a flare-up in the Old Trafford tunnel — pushing, shoving, milk cartons thrown, blood shed — after Mourinho and his players were riled by a triumphant Oasis singalong in the Manchester City dressing room. But City, under Guardiola, reached such great heights and tipped the scales so far that the rivalry became one-sided, the reverse of its previous imbalance. Mourinho, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Erik ten Hag all claimed notable victories over City without coming close to landing the biggest prizes. Mourinho and Solskjaer led United to second place in the Premier League in 2018 and 2021 respectively, but neither could seriously be described as a title challenge. City have been the Premier League’s dominant force for the past decade and United frequently its most captivating discussion point, but the oft-stated notion of Manchester as the centre of the football universe — “global capital of football in the rest of the 21st century”, as proposed by the city’s mayor, Andy Burnham, earlier this year — has never truly materialised. United’s loss of direction under the Glazer family’s miserable ownership has seen to that. Guardiola spoke about the gulf in class a couple of years ago, not long after he led City to their first Champions League title and their sixth Premier League title in seven seasons. “I know what we have done,” he said. “I don’t know what Man United have done because I am not (there). But I didn’t expect it, honestly, when I arrived here with Jose Mourinho, with Ibrahimovic (up front for United), with top, top players, (Romelu) Lukaku (who joined them in 2017).” He put the difference down to a clear, unified vision that was there from the moment City came calling for him at Bayern Munich, having hired two former Barcelona executives, Ferran Soriano and Txiki Begiristain, in part because they represented a pathway to signing him. Guardiola and Mourinho in 2018 (Mike Hewitt/Getty Images) The contrast with their neighbours is so stark that one of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s first moves, upon buying an initial 27.7 per cent stake in United last year, was to raid City to hire a chief executive, Omar Berrada, in the hope that some of that clarity and vision would rub off. So far, it has not done to any appreciable degree. There have been changes, the usual talk of cultural resets and refocusing, along with another purge of perceived trouble-makers, but to date, Ratcliffe-era United has largely been indistinguishable from what was there over the previous decade, which City dominated. There have been derby-day highlights: resounding City victories, interspersed by days (not least the 2024 FA Cup final) when the old empire has briefly struck back. But the intensity of that Mourinho vs Guardiola period — and before that the Sir Alex Ferguson vs Roberto Mancini period as City, under new ownership, fought their way out of United’s long, intimidating shadow — has not been sustained. It is an unpalatable truth for United’s fans that the most tumultuous matches in Manchester over recent seasons have come when Liverpool and, more recently, Arsenal have visited City. The last Manchester derby? You would do well to remember it. It was a non-event at Old Trafford last April, a 0-0 draw so dreary that the only post-match talking point on Sky Sports was the softly-softly nature of it all. Former United captain Gary Neville complained of a “love-in” between the two groups of players at the final whistle, saying they seemed so content after 90 minutes of gentle sparring that “they’re going to go for a roast dinner now”. The Manchester derby in April ended 0-0 (Darren Staples/AFP via Getty Images) To an extent, that reflects the modern Premier League, which can be too sanitised and too convivial for many. But City’s games against Arsenal over the past few seasons have been tumultuous. Their clashes against Liverpool, while less antagonistic, have at times been of the highest quality. Even when United snatched a dramatic 2-1 win at the Etihad Stadium last December, early in Ruben Amorim’s tenure, the dust settled quickly. This season’s first Manchester derby, at the Etihad Stadium on Sunday, has arrived with what feels like indecent haste. Whereas that September 2016 clash came after Guardiola and Mourinho had won each of their first three Premier League matches since taking charge, this one finds both teams trying to shrug off an early-season malaise: an all-too-familiar sensation for United, but one that City hoped to have left behind them after a slump last term. Not since 2004-05, when Kevin Keegan was their manager and Danny Mills and Ben Thatcher their big summer signings, have City begun a campaign by losing two of their first three Premier League games. Since sweeping Wolves aside so impressively on the opening weekend, Guardiola’s team have lost at home against Tottenham Hotspur and, from 1-0 up, away at Brighton & Hove Albion. “There’s something… missing,” former City defender Micah Richards said this week at an event to promote CBS’s Champions League coverage. “I had felt that the things they were missing last season had been fixed. But against Spurs, they got caught out. Against Brighton, it was too easy. I thought they’d fixed it, but they haven’t yet. It might take more time.” It is the first time since December 2020 that City have gone into a derby trailing their neighbours in the Premier League table — and it is not as if United, with four points from three games, have set off at a frightening pace. There have been encouraging aspects to United’s performances, with new signings Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo bringing a much-needed spark to the forward line, but there are still so many questions about Amorim’s team; that humiliating Carabao Cup defeat at Grimsby Town prompted dark mutterings from the coach, saying that the players’ performance “spoke really loud about what they want and what they don’t want”. There is no doubt what Amorim wants. His tactical vision has been set in stone from the moment he arrived in Manchester last November. To the believers, it is a sign of a coach’s strength and conviction. To the doubters, it is a sign of weakness, a slavish devotion to a system that has yielded just 31 points from 30 Premier League games. In both camps, there is bemusement that United’s £200million summer revamp in the transfer market did not even begin to address longstanding deficiencies — both with and without the ball — in central midfield. There are still questions around Amorim’s United (George Wood/Getty Images) If there is one coach who has demonstrated the value of persisting with a certain playing style in the Premier League and ignoring the naysayers, it is Guardiola. His first Manchester derby featured a debut in goal for Claudio Bravo, whose deposing of England’s No 1 Joe Hart, on account of his superior ability with the ball at his feet, earned him the wrath of almost the entire punditocracy back in 2016 — as did an insistence upon intricate, possession-based football in a league where a more attritional style was still en vogue. What You Should Read Next Pep Guardiola was supposed to compromise his principles, but he conquered the Premier League by staying true to them When Guardiola first came to the Premier League, even sages such as Arsene Wenger and Jurgen Klopp thought he may struggle - he has thrived Guardiola’s faith in his philosophy has brought spectacular rewards for City in the years since. But is his vision still so clear in 2025? The coach who taught us that a goalkeeper cannot justify his position through shot-stopping alone has just signed Gianluigi Donnarumma, who had fallen out of favour at Paris Saint-Germain because, in coach Luis Enrique’s eyes, he is not adept enough with the ball at his feet. Donnarumma could make his debut against United and it says much of Guardiola’s influence on English football culture that the signing of the Italian, widely recognised as one of the outstanding goalkeepers in the world, has attracted almost as much debate as the replacement of Hart with Bravo — and, ultimately and far more successfully, Ederson — did. What You Should Read Next Manchester City and the long summer of goalkeepers The signing of Gianluigi Donnarumma completes an overhaul of City's goalkeeping department - and raises some tactical questions too In a news conference before that Brighton game, Guardiola responded sarcastically when it was put to him that something had changed in his tactical outlook. “Yeah, after winning 18 titles, I will change my plan — yeah, I’m pretty sure. After winning four Premier Leagues in a row, I’m going to change the way I believe my teams should play,” he said. “Never, ever, will I change my belief in the way we’re going to play.” But clearly something has shifted in Guardiola’s approach. In the past, a ball-playing goalkeeper and a multi-functional centre-forward were non-negotiables for the City manager, who even used to rebuke Aguero for “disappearing” during build-up play. Now he has a goalkeeper, Donnarumma, who is far removed from the Victor Valdes or Ederson archetype, and a centre-forward, Erling Haaland, who brings an extraordinary goalscoring prowess but can at times give the impression he thinks he will be penalised if he touches the ball outside the penalty area. There have been other shifts over recent seasons: playing central defenders at full-back and moving towards players who have appeared to lack certain qualities that were previously required of midfielders (Mateo Kovacic, Matheus Nunes) and wide forwards (Jack Grealish, Jeremy Doku) in a Guardiola team. Guardiola has talked of the need to adapt to new tactical trends in the Premier League — “today, modern football is not positional, you have to ride with the rhythm” — but the City team that has emerged over the past 12 months, after so many comings and goings, has struggled in that regard. In the second half on the south coast a fortnight ago, he and his team looked flummoxed once Brighton coach Fabian Hurzeler had changed the rhythm of the game. Guardiola looks on during the defeat to Brighton (Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images) No manager can remain at the highest level without evolving and adapting to new challenges, but it feels strange to reflect that PSG dominated Europe last season in a style that seemed to have more in common with Guardiola’s great Barcelona, Bayern Munich and City sides than Guardiola’s current team has. Then there is the question of energy. Guardiola extended his contract to June 2027 last year, but a degree of uncertainty surrounds his commitment beyond this season. Management at the highest level is exhausting, particularly when someone is as consumed by the job as Guardiola is. Fighting for the biggest prizes — high-intensity matches every week — can be energy-sapping, but struggling to find answers is even more so. Amorim would identify with that. Like Guardiola, he gives the impression of feeling tortured by every setback — and there have been an awful lot of those in his first 10 months in Manchester. Sunday offers both managers a welcome opportunity to build momentum. As challenging as the first few weeks of the campaign have been, victory on derby day would change the mood considerably. The other side of that equation is the threat of defeat and all the negativity that would come with it. By 6.30pm on Sunday, either City or United — or both if it ends up a draw — will be left with one win from the first four Premier League matches. And things could feasibly get worse, with stern tests to follow next weekend against Arsenal and Chelsea respectively. All of which brings a certain type of spotlight on the Manchester derby, a game where the stakes are raised precisely because the mood right now is so low. It is wearily familiar territory for United these days, but for those of a City persuasion — at least for those like Guardiola and for a young generation of supporters who have grown happily accustomed to success — these are strange, unsettling times.

A play-off shake-up would be good news for Wrexham, but bad for football https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6618958/2025/09/11/wrexham-play-off-efl/ Mention “the play-offs” to Wrexham supporters of any vintage and chances are their first response will be to shudder. Six times the club now owned by Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney have competed in the end-of-season promotion deciders and six times they’ve failed to go up, most recently in 2022 against Grimsby Town. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course. There’s an argument that the 5-4 semi-final loss, which served as the finale to series one of the Welcome to Wrexham TV show, actually did the club a favour, in that it introduced a US audience to the sense of jeopardy that exists in a sport featuring promotion and relegation. But, at the time, the devastation felt by supporters wearily used to coming up short in the play-offs — a tale of woe that stretches back to 1989 — was so deep that a straw poll at the final whistle against Grimsby would surely have voted in favour of boycotting all future attempts at going up via this route. Three or so years on, the landscape at the Racecourse Ground has changed significantly. Wrexham are a Championship club now and the Premier League is just one more promotion away. Surely, then, The Athletic’s exclusive story about plans to expand the number of teams involved in the play-offs at this level from four to six must be good news for Wrexham, even allowing for that dreadful record. Basic mathematics says lowering the qualification bar to eighth place certainly means an increased chance of getting a shot at realising their Hollywood owners’ much-stated ambition of reaching the top flight. Play-off changes could be good news for Wrexham owners Rob McElhenney (left) and Ryan Reynolds (Kya Banasko/Getty Images) And Wrexham would not be alone in welcoming such a change. The proposals — presented by Preston North End chief executive Peter Ridsdale to a meeting of Championship chief executives last week — received widespread backing, as clubs sensed the door to the Premier League’s promised land creaking open a little wider. But at what cost? The play-offs are one of English football’s greatest success stories. Introduced in 1986-87, they quickly became a highlight of the calendar by offering an intoxicating mix of drama and excitement that spread to the regular season by keeping even mid-table teams in the promotion mix until well into the spring. Thanks to the prize of reaching the Premier League being so big, the second-tier play-offs have taken on an aura all of their own, with the final long ago dubbed The Richest Game in World Football. None of this will change under this plan. There is, though, a very real danger of the quality being diluted sufficiently to damage the EFL brand. Bristol City, having finished sixth in last season’s Championship, stunk out the semi-finals, even before Rob Dickie’s red card on the stroke of half-time in their first leg defeat at home to Sheffield United. But what if Liam Manning’s side had instead hit a purple patch in May and gone on to clinch promotion? Chances are, one of the worst teams to qualify for the Championship play-offs would now be drowning in the league above. This season’s newly-promoted Premier League clubs may have made encouraging starts but Southampton’s derisory 12 points in 2024-25 and all six of the promoted teams going straight back down in the last two campaigns have raised questions over a competitive imbalance between the top two divisions. The Premier League has always been hostile to the notion of expanding the play-offs, which has been regularly touted for over 20 years, partly because of fears it would dilute the quality of its competition. How long before those at the top table start questioning the validity of three sides coming up every year? Sounds far-fetched? Perhaps. But there’s a huge gulf between the top two divisions right now that will not be bridged by promoting a team who could only finish eighth in the Championship. Be careful what you wish for, if you like. Especially as any extension to the play-offs would mean having to create space in an already congested calendar. Grimsby’s Tristan Abrahams celebrates beating Wrexham in the 2022 National League play-offs (Lewis Storey/Getty Images) This could be done by either squeezing the regular season even tighter with more midweek fixtures or putting the Wembley final back a week. The latter, though, would be a terrible option as play-off winners would have even less time to prepare for the Premier League than they do now. Those behind the shake-up have clearly looked to the National League — England’s fifth tier — for inspiration, judging by how the proposed eliminator stage looks very similar to the current format of the fourth-placed side playing seventh and fifth taking on sixth. But the decision to extend the National League play-offs from four to six teams in 2017-18 made sense, in part, thanks to the two-up, two-down agreement with the EFL. By increasing the participating teams by 50 per cent, more stayed involved in the promotion race for longer. However, if the National League ever gets the three-up, three-down set-up it craves, this argument feels more redundant. It’s also worth noting how the National League play-offs have panned out, both before and after those changes eight years ago. The lowest-placed team in the final table to win promotion is Grimsby in 2022, when, as the sixth-placed side, they followed that win over Wrexham by beating Solihull Moors. Otherwise, promotion via the play-offs has been pretty much the preserve of the teams finishing second or third, with the 2025 final the big outlier as fifth-placed Oldham Athletic defeated seventh-placed Southend United. Is it really worth not only adding to fixture congestion by extending the current Championship play-offs but also potentially risking the wrath of the Premier League for such little impact? Especially for a league so competitive already that, with just two games remaining last season, every one of the 24 teams in the second tier could either go up or down. If Wrexham, Preston or anyone else wants to go up, then do it via the current route. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

Enzo Maresca: Chelsea squad not ‘worried’ about club’s 74 FA charges https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6622773/2025/09/12/enzo-maresca-Chelsea-charges/ Enzo Maresca says neither he or the Chelsea players are worried about the club facing 74 charges for alleged rule breaches related to payments to agents between 2009 and 2022. Chelsea have until September 19 to respond to the Football Association (FA) with the potential punishments, if found guilty, ranging from a fine to a points deduction or transfer ban. The Athletic reported on Thursday that the club are expecting it to just be a fine, although an independent commission will be the ones to decide what happens. Maresca admits he is not too concerned about the situation. Speaking during Friday’s pre-match press conference, when asked if he had spoken to anyone in the hierarchy about the case, he replied: “I know from the club that they are satisfied about the situation, about the process. “Personally I don’t have anything to add, firstly because I don’t have any idea. If I say something I could be wrong or right. I just focus on the pitch side, something I can control. The rest is not in my hands.” When pressed if he will speak to the players to reassure them over the possible ramifications, he replied: “I don’t think the players are too worried about the situation.” What You Should Read Next Chelsea’s 74 FA charges explained: What are the allegations and how could they be punished? Breaking down what Chelsea are accused of by the FA and what the implications could be Chelsea face Brentford on Saturday and Maresca will make a late decision on whether to recall Cole Palmer to the squad after a groin problem. The 23-year-old has played just once this season, against Crystal Palace in the opening game. He was withdrawn from the starting XI against West Ham United the following week at the last moment having felt some discomfort during the warm-up. Maresca said: “Cole took part in the session for the first time yesterday. It was not for the whole session, we have one more session this afternoon and we will try with him. We will see if he is okay, otherwise he will be out of tomorrow’s game. “For sure the moment he is available we will probably have to think of managing him because of the amount of games.”

EXCL: What my sources are saying about Adam Wharton ahead of January interest from Liverpool, Chelsea & Man Utd Keep a close eye on this one... https://thedailybriefing.io/p/excl-what-my-sources-are-saying-about I’ve just had an interesting WhatsApp exchange with a very well-connected source who’s expecting strong interest in Crystal Palace midfielder Adam Wharton this January. As I recently reported for CaughtOffside here, Wharton had genuine and concrete chances of moving late on this summer, but Palace succeeded in frightening suitors off with a whopping £100m price tag. Needless to say, there was no appetite to let Wharton leave so late in the window when Eberechi Eze had already joined Arsenal and Marc Guehi looked set for a move to Liverpool. In the end, Eagles co-owner and chairman Steve Parish will have to view the transfer window as a relative success - Eze was the only major sale, with Wharton and Guehi staying put, while Oliver Glasner is also still in charge despite interest from Manchester United. Adam Wharton will be one to watch again in January However, this may all only be a temporary reprieve, with Guehi obviously out of contract at the end of the season. As reported yesterday, Liverpool remain confident that they’re in pole position to sign him on a free transfer despite “noise” about links with other clubs. Wharton is also going to be one to watch again in upcoming transfer windows, with my sources telling me that Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United could all push for him in January. Starting with United, we know they made a bid for Brighton’s Carlos Baleba, and he’s still on their list, but that might not be the only midfield signing they make in the next twelve months, with Wharton also highly appreciated. My source this morning told me: “United see Wharton as the ideal replacement for Casemiro, who’s expected to leave at the end of the season. His ability to dictate play from deep fits perfectly into Ruben Amorim’s tactical setup. They made an approach in the summer, but Palace rejected it outright.” This source, who was also one of the first to confirm Arsenal had made a breakthrough on the Eze deal, also informed me that Wharton’s asking price for January would likely be more like £60m than the £100m they raised it to towards the end of the summer. World Cup could come into Adam Wharton’s thinking Why the change of heart? Well, although Wharton is not expected to push hard for a move away from Selhurst Park, there is next summer’s World Cup to think about. (Photo by Richard Pelham/Getty Images) The England international is likely to be part of Thomas Tuchel’s squad, but there’s a lot of competition for a starting spot. Clearly, this is a player who knows very well that he’s good enough to be in that XI, but playing for a bigger club and in the Champions League would undoubtedly do his chances no harm. My source confirmed this to me, saying: “Wharton is keen to play European football and cement his place in the national team - these factors could influence his next move.” This could mean Liverpool and Chelsea have an advantage over United for the time being, as they’re both in Europe, but it’s also the case that there’d be more competition in those squads. Arne Slot is a big admirer of Wharton as I understand it, but football is unpredictable and all sides will know there’s some uncertainty about whether the 21-year-old would immediately be able to shift other top midfield players like Alexis Mac Allister, Ryan Gravenberch or Dominik Szoboszlai out of the Liverpool starting line up. Similarly, Chelsea already have Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez as their clear first-choice midfield pairing. Wharton very much fits the profile of player this Blues ownership likes, but it’s not a move without its risks. Wharton is open to leaving Palace and I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this in the weeks and months ahead, but a combination of regular playing time and European football will be crucial. Let’s see if anything emerges that ticks both of those boxes.

Nilson Angulo

Chelsea to sign Strasbourg striker Emanuel Emegha in 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6622905/2025/09/12/Chelsea-transfer-news-strasbourg-emegha/ Chelsea have agreed a deal to sign Emanuel Emegha from BlueCo sister club RC Strasbourg. BlueCo, the company the Todd Boehly-Clearlake Capital consortium created when buying Chelsea in 2022, owns both clubs involved in the deal, which will be formally processed in 2026. Last season, the 22-year-old scored 14 goals and provided three assists in 27 appearances in Ligue 1. Having started his career at Sparta Rotterdam, the Netherlands under-21 international went on to play for Royal Antwerp and Sturm Graz before joining Strasbourg in 2023. This summer, Chelsea completed the signings of strikers Liam Delap and Joao Pedro, while Nicolas Jackson joined Bayern Munich on a loan deal with a conditional obligation to buy. Chelsea also recalled striker Marc Guiu from a previously agreed season-long loan deal at Sunderland following an injury to Delap, which is expected to rule out the striker for several months of the campaign. Enzo Maresca’s side, who have collected seven points from their opening three league games, travel to Brentford in a west London derby on Saturday. Why have Chelsea signed Emegha? Analysis from The Athletic’s Chelsea Correspondent Simon Johnson The summer window has been closed for under a fortnight and Chelsea have already made another signing for the future. The obvious question is why? Emegha has been under consideration at Chelsea for some time — it helps that they can keep a close eye on his progress at sister club Strasbourg. The multi club model worked in Chelsea’s favour here. Champions League clubs in England and abroad were beginning to show a lot of interest in the forward earlier this year but Strasbourg were able to keep hold of him this summer. Emegha was spoken to, assured that he’d be better off staying one more year and developing at Strasbourg before moving elsewhere. A sign of the trust and value placed in him was that he was also made captain for this season. At that point a move to Chelsea was not promised or guaranteed, but clearly given the relationship between the two clubs it could not be ruled out. What You Should Read Next Liam Delap, a hamstring tear and a frustrating start to life at Chelsea The summer signing from Ipswich made an impact at the Club World Cup but will have to wait to show the home supporters what he can do Emegha has increased in Chelsea’s thinking in recent weeks. For starters he is seen as a successor to Nicolas Jackson, who was granted his wish to leave Stamford Bridge last week and has joined Bayern Munich on loan. There is a contractual obligation included which can make that permanent if certain conditions are met, but even if that does not happen, the plan is for him to be sold permanently in 2026 regardless. Emegha is regarded as one of the fastest strikers in Ligue 1 and a player who likes to run in behind defences as well as down the channels – essentially what Jackson has been doing over the past two years but Chelsea feel his potential is greater. When Chelsea were assessing what to do following Liam Delap’s hamstring injury at the end of last month, which will rule him out until November, they deliberately decided not to add another striker in the last few days of window. They did not want to block the pathway of Marc Guiu, who they decided to recall from loan at Sunderland. Significantly the same reasoning was applied to Emegha as they stepped up thoughts of buying him with 2026 in mind. Chelsea felt it was too early for him to come now and that another year at Strasbourg will make him even more polished. The fact he will also get experience playing in European competition via the UEFA Conference League is seen as another positive. The club also feel there is a strong possibility of Emegha being part of the Netherlands squad for the World Cup should they qualify. That means getting a deal agreed in advance before facing possibly even more competition for his signature is so important. Chelsea want strength in depth for their attacking positions and with Joao Pedro able to play as a No 10 as well as up front, Emegha will provide another useful option leading the line along with Delap in 2026-27. What would Emegha bring to Chelsea? Analysis by Thom Harris Standing at 6ft 5in (195cm), and Europe’s fastest centre-forward per SkillCorner’s PSV-99 metric, Emegha instantly fits the physical, line-leading mould. The 22-year-old is another forward bought and sold by Austrian side Sturm Graz, along with Rasmus Hojlund and Monaco’s Mika Biereth, a sure-fire seal of approval regarding his athletic, goal-poacher profile. At the top of an exciting Strasbourg side, Emegha is often the man to stretch in behind and keep opposition centre-backs on their toes. His opening goal away at Marseille back in January was almost comical as he recalibrated his run three times to get in behind a slack defensive line. Emegha is more about bundling home from close-range and finishing his chances with finesse, but his shot map below illustrates just how much danger the Dutchman’s darting runs can generate, with almost 97 per cent of his league shots this season falling inside the penalty area. Only five Ligue 1 players scored more than his 14 goals. His expected goal (xG) value per shot of 0.28 was also the highest of any player in Europe’s top five leagues this season, pointing to a striker who consistently gets himself into threatening positions, even if his finishing can sometimes leave a little to be desired. Despite his more slender frame, Emegha can still hold his own and create something from nothing with combative channel runs. On occasion Emegha’s height can work against him — he can sometimes look clumsy in front of goal while he sorts out his feet — but his speed, strength, and magnetism to high-value shooting opportunities makes him an intriguing profile who will continue to cause damage as he sharpens his striking instincts.

Chelsea’s 74 FA charges explained: What are the allegations and how could they be punished? https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6619592/2025/09/11/Chelsea-fa-charges-agents-explained/ A 94-word statement released by the English Football Association on Thursday has cast a cloud over Chelsea. The news that the club had been hit with 74 charges relating to alleged breaches of rules on agent payments did not come as a surprise to club executives, given the issue has been hanging over them since 2022, but it has sparked concern among supporters. Here, The Athletic explains why Chelsea have been charged and what the implications could be. What have Chelsea been charged with? The 74 charges are related to alleged breaches of FA rules regarding regulations on working with intermediaries and third-party investment in players. To be more specific, and if you have time on your hands to go through all the jargon in the FA manual, the governing body’s statement refers to “breaches of regulations J1 and C2 of the FA’s football agents regulations, regulations A2 and A3 of the FA’s regulations on working with intermediaries, and regulations A1 and B3 of the FA’s third-party investment in player regulations”. The alleged offences took place between 2009 and 2022, although the focus is on what took place from the 2010-11 to 2015-16 seasons. Chelsea say the offences are all related to the regime of the club’s previous owner, the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, although the FA declined to confirm that point when asked about it by The Athletic. Chelsea also say that they flagged the discrepancies to all the governing bodies — the FA, the Premier League and UEFA, which looks after European football — when the Todd Boehly-Clearlake consortium bought the club in May 2022. Significantly, at the time, the consortium withheld £100million ($135m) from the £2.5billion sale price of Chelsea due to concerns they could inherit “unforeseen liabilities” after examining the club’s finances. What do the charges relate to? Essentially, Chelsea are accused of making payments worth millions of pounds in relation to player signings that were not registered in the club’s accounts submitted to the FA, Premier League and UEFA. Some of the accounting that has come under scrutiny relates to Eden Hazard’s £32m move from Lille to Chelsea in 2012, plus Willian’s and Samuel Eto’o’s transfers from Anzhi Makhachkala a year later, for £32m and on a free transfer respectively. There is no suggestion that any of the players were guilty of wrongdoing. Willian’s transfer to Chelsea is one deal under scrutiny by the FA (Glyn Kirk/AFP via Getty Images) One of the reasons the accusations have to be taken so seriously is that they could be seen as Chelsea trying to get around profit and sustainability rules to secure a sporting advantage. However, in the process of looking into their figures, Chelsea say that they hired an independent accountancy firm and they found the club would have still passed the threshold even if all the payments were declared on the official books. Club sources speaking anonymously to The Athletic to protect relationships say this is more of a tax issue and that a financial settlement has already been reached with HMRC. Why did Chelsea report themselves to the authorities? The discrepancies came to light while the Todd Boehly-Clearlake consortium was doing its due diligence during the takeover process in 2022. These related to payments connected to transfers to offshore companies and players’ families and representatives, which is why the £100m deduction in the asking price was demanded. On completing the purchase, the new owners made their findings known to all the governing bodies. They wanted to be open and transparent, particularly given the strong possibility these claims would come out eventually and they would face potentially even tougher questions. Chelsea wanted to ensure there was a clean slate from the previous era. Chelsea gave the FA the files and historical data they had discovered that related to the payments. There has been regular dialogue ever since and the club say that whenever the FA has come back with more questions or requests for material, it has been provided. Chelsea co-owner Todd Boehly (Justin Setterfield/Getty Images) How long could this take? Chelsea have until September 19 to respond to the FA’s official statement, although there is a recognition that, given the number of charges to examine, the club could be given an extension. Any sanction will be decided by an independent commission, which will be held as soon as possible. If Chelsea plead guilty to all 74 charges, the commission will then just have to decide the punishment. Should the club protest against half of them, for example, the commission will have to decide to uphold or dismiss the half Chelsea have protested against. The different possibilities mean there is no fixed date for when this will all be over but Chelsea are aiming for it to be resolved quickly. However, there is also the issue of an ongoing Premier League investigation into the same financial issues. “The FA and Premier League will likely be looking at why no one picked up the irregularities and how they were shown in the many reports and documents, compiled by those both inside and outside the club,” said Yasin Patel, a leading sports barrister at Church Court Chambers. How could they be punished if the charges are upheld? There is a range of sanctions — sporting and non-sporting — that could be applied, ranging from a fine to a Premier League points deduction and/or a transfer ban. Chelsea reporting themselves and not fighting the investigation at any point should aid their cause. A precedent was set when UEFA handed Chelsea a £8.6m fine in July 2023 for ‘incomplete financial reporting’ under the Abramovich regime. Chelsea are hopeful that the independent panel will reach a similar conclusion and that it will end with another financial penalty rather than a sporting sanction. There are examples of the FA just issuing clubs with fines for breaching football agent regulations although it should be pointed out that these were isolated cases on a different scale to the claims made about Chelsea. For example, Wigan had to pay a £40,000 fine in 2014 over the signing of Marc-Antoine Fortune; Brighton & Hove Albion were fined £90,000 by the Football Association in 2015 over the transfer of Dale Stephens a year earlier; and Reading were fined £200,000 last year over breaching intermediary regulations with Michael Olise’s agent in 2019. Why are Chelsea’s owners facing possible punishment rather than the Abramovich regime? Even though the vast majority of staff and players have changed since Abramovich left, it is still Chelsea Football Club that has been seen to flout the rules, so they are the ones that have to be held accountable for what has allegedly taken place. What have Chelsea and the FA said? The FA has said nothing other than the statement announcing the charges on Thursday morning. Chelsea responded soon after with a statement published on their website. It read: “Chelsea is pleased to confirm that its engagement with the FA concerning matters that were self-reported by the club is now reaching a conclusion. “The club’s ownership group completed its purchase of the club on May 30, 2022. During a thorough due diligence process before the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions and other potential breaches of FA rules. Immediately upon the completion of the purchase, the club self-reported these matters to all relevant regulators, including the FA. “The club has demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process, including by giving comprehensive access to the club’s files and historical data. We will continue working collaboratively with the FA to conclude this matter as swiftly as possible. We wish to place on record our gratitude to the FA for their engagement with the Club on this complex case, the focus of which has been on matters that took place over a decade ago.”

Deinner Ordóñez Chelsea join Liverpool in race for Ecuadorian prodigy, 15, as Blues hold talks over £14m-rated defender https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-15088427/Chelsea-Liverpool-Ecuador-prodigy-15-14m-rated.html Chelsea have held talks over a move for Ecuador defensive prodigy Deinner Ordonez. The centre back is regarded as the next great talent to emerge from Independiente del Valle who have produced the likes of Moises Caicedo, Kendry Paez and Arsenal defender Piero Hincapie. Still only 15, Ordonez impressed playing above his age group at the South American U20 Championships earlier this year where he was the youngest player to appear there in over a decade. His performances have already caught the eye of Liverpool scouts and clubs from Spain and Germany. Already over 6ft tall, Ordonez is right-footed but is utilised as a left-sided centre back where he is fast earning plaudits for excellent use of the ball and his ability to build play from the back. He is also strong in the air though still to develop physically. Independiente are willing to strike a deal to sell the youngster, similar to the transfer structured previously for Paez who agreed to leave at 16 but was only eligible for transfer this summer in turning 18. Ordonez does not turn 18 until October 2027 but there is already talk of Independiente looking for around £14million including add on payments for the teenager. Chelsea have been determined in their pursuit of global up-and-coming talents and often ruthless in their willingness to beat the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid to their signatures.

https://cognitivedissident.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-31-shot-dead-in-utah “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” — Galatians 6:7 in the New Testament “You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. …I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” — Charlie Kirk, 2023 TPUSA Charlie Kirk has long argued that the epidemic of gun violence in America is the regrettable, but acceptable, price of liberty. In his words, the trade-off is a “prudent deal,” a “rational” sacrifice to preserve the Second Amendment and protect what he calls “God-given rights.” (He said these cruel and heartless words at a speaking event in April 2023 — I'm just the messenger.) When children are slaughtered in their classrooms, when congregants are gunned down in churches, when families are erased at grocery stores, Kirk’s response is not grief but calculus. The deaths are tragic, he says, but worth it. A necessary toll paid at freedom’s gate. “Thought and prayers.” — Conservative party after every public shooting And so, when he himself was shot at a speaking event in Utah, the hypocrisy was deafening. Here was a man who minimized other people’s agony, suddenly forced to taste the violence he once dismissed. This is what I mean by Second Amendment justice: not that the shooting should be celebrated, not that violence solves anything, but that the logic he defended has folded back on him like a tesseract. He declared that mass shootings were an unfortunate but tolerable part of liberty. Then he became a victim of the very “tolerable violence” he worked so hard to normalize. It is not justice in the sense of moral balance or divine retribution. It is justice in the way a mirror delivers justice: cold, impartial reflection. The gun culture he championed did not exempt him. The bullets he waved away in theory found their way into practice. He is not immune. None of us are. The asymmetry here is staggering. When Nashville lost six lives, when Buffalo buried grandmothers and fathers, when children in Uvalde were executed one after another, Kirk’s sympathy was withheld. He hardened his rhetoric. He doubled down. His “deal” demanded that others bear the cost, while he collected the political dividends of defiance. They are some sweet economic dividends, I tell you. Charlie Kirk gets paid for his support of the Conservative agenda. But compassion is a muscle. Fail to exercise it for others, and you cannot expect it to be exercised for you. If he offered no tears for the slain, why should the public be compelled to offer them for him? This is not schadenfreude. It is a reckoning. It is the exposure of a brutal dissonance at the core of American politics: leaders who protect the idea of rights while sacrificing the reality of lives. Leaders who worship an amendment more than they grieve for the children whose bodies become its sacrament. Leaders who declare that freedom requires blood, and then recoil when their own blood is drawn. Let me be clear: the shooting of Charlie Kirk was a crime. It was not noble resistance. It was not an answer. Political violence corrodes democracy; it breeds escalation, not resolution. This event will make an unstable nation, more unstable. More fearful. It may even help lead the nation to martial law. It shouldn’t but sometimes when you are dealing with zealots, they may decide martyrs are necessary… But understanding the irony is not the same as endorsing the act. Recognizing the karmic symmetry does not mean cheering it. What it means is this: when cruelty is normalized, when violence is rationalized, when deaths are rendered acceptable by ideology, eventually the logic boomerangs. That is the lesson here, the harsh and unsentimental truth. You cannot unleash a culture of violence, bless it as liberty, and then feign shock when it arrives at your own doorstep. The Second Amendment, as interpreted by Kirk and his allies, does not discriminate. It devours indiscriminately. That is the justice of it. Not divine, not poetic — merely inevitable. REFERENCES: 2025. “Charlie Kirk: Trump Ally Shot at Campus Event in Utah.” BBC News. 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt Mordowanec, Nick. 2023. “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Newsweek. April 6, 2023. https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113 Edwards, David. 2023. “Charlie Kirk on Mass Shooting Victims: ‘We Cannot Allow Them to Emotionally Hijack the Narrative.’” Raw Story. April 10, 2023. https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-louisville-shooting/

What does 'go for' mean? Are you advocating for the US to invade sovereign nations and militarily take out their governements via kinetic warfare?