Marriott cuts 2025 revenue outlook as travel demand slows
The company expects room revenue growth of 1.5% to 3.5% for the year, compared with 2% to 4% it forecast earlier.
The Reuters Tariff Watch newsletter is your daily guide to the latest global trade and tariff news. Sign up here.
Last week, rival Hilton (HLT.N), opens new tab cut its forecast for room revenue growth, while vacation rental company Airbnb (ABNB.O), opens new tab said the booking window is shortening, indicating increased consumer uncertainty and caution in travel spending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing
When Ari Emanuel – the notorious Hollywood powerbroker and CEO of TKO Holdings Group, which owns both the UFC and WWE – made a rare media appearance on the Pat McAfee Show in February 2025, he offered cryptic remarks about the state of boxing. Though typically cagey, Emanuel hinted, 'Who knows what's going to happen with the Ali Act' – a reference to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law designed to protect the rights and welfare of boxers. Since then, rumors have swirled that TKO is quietly working to amend the law to make way for its newly minted boxing venture with Saudi Arabia. Last week, those rumors were confirmed when US representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas, introduced the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act in Congress. The proposed bill is being touted by the congressional representatives as a much-needed modernization of federal regulations in professional boxing, adding new provisions to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and introducing 'alternatives' to the sanctioning bodies overseeing the sport. 'I am incredibly proud to introduce the bipartisan Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, which provides boxers with more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards,' Jack said in the press release. 'Professional boxing is the only sport regulated by Congress, and ambiguity in current law – adopted over a quarter-century ago – has stifled investment. Congressional action is needed to revive this once-great American sport, and this bipartisan legislation establishes a framework for innovation to flourish.' The 'stifled investment' that Jack is referencing in his statement is TKO's new boxing venture with Sela, an entertainment subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Turki al-Sheikh, the figure behind Saudi's General Entertainment Authority and a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The new venture, dubbed Zuffa Boxing, will debut on 13 September 2025, with an anticipated super middleweight showdown between Saul 'Canelo' Álvarez and Terence Crawford. An expanded boxing promotion will likely follow in 2026. Backed by the Saudi government's enormous resources, Emanuel's company advocated for the bill in Congress, including provisions to created alternatives to long-established sanctioning bodies like the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and World Boxing Council (WBC). The proposed alternatives in the legislation are known as Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which is what Zuffa Boxing will likely operate as. While framed as a 'framework for innovation', Zuffa Boxing empowers Saudi Arabia to establish a parallel boxing ecosystem where it has sole determination over fighter ranking and championship belts. This paves the way for Saudi to bypass established sanctioning bodies, undermine existing promoters, and ultimately, gut professional boxing. 'This is a concerning bill for professional boxers,' said Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer and founder of 'It guts the key protections from the Ali Act for promoters that choose to use the 'unified boxing organization' model. It allows a promoter to control rank and title … and achieve a stranglehold on the sport.' The bill also sets out a series of compliance requirements for UBOs, including minimum per‑round payments and safety provisions such as mandatory medical examinations and expanded health insurance. While these measures could, in theory, benefit up‑and‑coming boxers, they also create significant barriers to entry for smaller boxing organizations attempting to establish UBOs. Zuffa Boxing, backed by Saudi funding, would be well‑positioned to dominate this space, attract new fighters, and establish a new hierarchy in the sport – one in which TKO effectively determines who holds the world titles. This new model for boxing is based almost entirely on the structure of the UFC, an organization that has long been criticized for its exploitation of fighters in its pursuit of profit. Fitting since UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime friend of US president Donald Trump, is expected to lead the new Zuffa Boxing venture. 'Everybody knows the format – the best fight the best,' White said in interview with The Ring, the boxing magazine owned by Al-Sheikh and, by extension, the Saudi government. 'You work your way up the rankings, and once somebody breaks into the top five [and] there is no question [about] who the best five guys are in each weight class, they fight it out. And once somebody holds that belt, you don't need three letters in front of the belt. Whoever has that belt is the best in the world in that weight class. It's a very simple model.' Despite generating billions in revenue, the UFC pays its athletes a significantly smaller share compared to other major sports leagues. While NFL and NBA players receive close to 50% of league revenues, UFC fighters earn roughly 15% to 18%, with many on the roster making as little as $10,000 to $20,000 per fight – amounts that barely cover training costs, coaching and medical expenses. Efforts to unionize or challenge these inequities have been quashed by the UFC, which has used long-term, exclusive contracts and its market dominance to keep fighters in line. Last year, the UFC agreed to a $375m settlement with several hundred fighters to resolve an antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused the promotion of stifling economic competition and using its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. While the UFC denied any wrongdoing, the underlying claims remain central to a separate, ongoing case. When Congress passed the Ali Act in 2000, it was in response to the unfair and anti-competitive practices rampant in pro boxing at the time. The sport was dominated by influential promoters, corrupt sanctioning bodies and coercive contracts. The Ali Act provided federally-backed oversight and enforcement meant to reduce the exploitation of fighters through transparency mandates and financial disclosure requirements. The legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support and stands as the only example of Congress attempting to directly regulate a professional sport in the United States. While the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not repeal the Ali Act, it does pave the way for new organizations to emerge outside of the purview of current sanctioning bodies, effectively bringing the UFC model to boxing. It is unclear when the bill will reach the House floor, as Congress will be in recess through the entirety of August. Nevertheless, the bill has received support from Ali's widow, Lonnie Ali, who was quoted in the press release as saying that 'Muhammad would be proud to have his name associated with this bill.' Davids, who co-sponsored the bill, was also a former MMA fighter who once tried out as a contestant for The Ultimate Fighter – a reality show that places fighters in a mansion for several weeks as they work their way through a tournament for a 'six-figure UFC contract'. Their involvement in the bill is a masterstroke of lobbying tactics by TKO and Emanuel. 'The Ali Act was created to stop coercive and exploitative practices by promoters. It was designed to make a monopolization of the sport not possible. Independent rank and title are the key reasons why pro boxers can command such great purses compared to MMA athletes,' Magraken said. 'Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.' This will be remarkably beneficial to Saudi Arabia and Al-Sheikh, who have invested billions to wrest control of boxing from its traditional masters. Al-Sheikh has bankrolled some of the most high-profile heavyweight fights and broken through negotiation stalemates by offering record-breaking sums of money. His success as a promoter has made him one of the sport's most powerful figures, while fans and media affectionately refer to him as 'His Excellency' – a title that underscores his growing cult of personality. Al-Sheikh's expanding influence has stifled criticism within boxing. Fans are willing to overlook troubling behavior as long as he continues to deliver exciting matchups, while journalists, eager to maintain their critical access, often frame the narrative in his favor. The kingdom also owns its own boxing magazine and deploys a vast network of PR firms and executives to advance its political agenda through sports. It is yet another reminder of Saudi Arabia's broader strategy in sports – a blueprint built on acquiring influence, shaping narratives and establishing self-sustaining ecosystems under its control. Boxing may be the ideal asset to complete that vision. Karim Zidan writes a regular newsletter on the intersection of sports and authoritarian politics.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
My easy-breezy family holiday to Europe's wackiest theme park
I used to be fun. Before I had kids, planning for a theme park visit would have meant getting excited about rollercoasters and wondering if I would have time to ride the best ones twice. Now? It's all fretting about parking, luggage and the sheer tedium of how to get around a busy attraction in the school summer holidays with three small kids. Or is it? I was the first journalist through the doors of the new hotel at beloved Dutch theme park Efteling, just ahead of the official opening on August 1, and the first clue that things might be a bit different here came a week or so before we arrived. Check-in at Efteling Grand Hotel was completed online, our car registration was taken and valet parking confirmed. Fast forward to our stay and there we were sailing through the automatic barriers, handing our car keys to a man in a waistcoat and watching our luggage being whisked away while the children pinged around the hotel's elegant lobby like cats released from cages (or, rather, preschoolers unclipped after a day spent in their car seats). It's about a four-hour drive from the Calais end of the Channel tunnel to Efteling in the south of the Netherlands, an hour or so from Rotterdam, and it showed. In the lobby our five-year-old banged on the keys of the grand piano, her younger sister sprinted up the spiral staircase and their two-year-old brother clambered over an artfully arranged pile of vintage suitcases. Fortunately, there were indulgent smiles from the hotel staff as we corralled them all into the lift and up to our suite. Thanks to the Efteling app, I had our room key already to hand: no in-person check-in required. Rooms at the hotel are vast. Ours had three separate bedrooms (two doubles, the other with bunks), while even the smallest I saw came with a built-in single kids bunk. All 140 of them have views of the park — across to the thatched peaks of the entrance building and the fountains of Vonderplas lake, or into the Fairytale Forest, where recreations of 31 fairytale scenes, including Rapunzel in her tower and Sleeping Beauty in her castle, are dotted throughout a pleasant woodland. The kids pressed their palms against the floor-to-ceiling windows and fizzed with excitement. There's a nod to the grand 19th-century hotels of Europe throughout the hotel, with squishy carpets in bold monochrome print, wood-panelled walls painted rich magenta and plenty of brushed gold, but what really sets Efteling Grand Hotel apart is its location. This isn't one of those theme park hotels that requires shuttle buses and lengthy walks to reach the park gates; it is literally inside the park. Plus, guests not only have their own dedicated entrance to the Fairytale Forest, but also access to the park half an hour ahead of everybody else. So we were into the park at 9.30am the next morning, standing alone outside Hansel and Gretel's house and coming face to squealing face with a dragon. There's a glorious almost-wild feeling to this part of the park, with logs to climb on and paths that wind between the trees. This zone dates back to 1952 and was the work of the Dutch artist Anton Pieck and the film-maker Peter Reijnders. It's a charming place, not least because it immediately engages all three children, who spot gnomes and a troll king, and talk to a parrot that talks right back, speaking sagely of not answering the door to the big bad wolf. The highlight? Probably the Pinocchio attraction, where the four-year-old shrieks with glee as she swings a vast fishing rod in the face of a giant monster fish and finds the wooden boy hiding inside its mouth. Because the hotel is just inside the park gates we were able to break up exploring its attractions with short rests in our room or a quick swim in the indoor pool. This immediately became my favourite spot in the hotel, with a more spa-like feel than any family pool I've seen: the water was properly warm, there were bubble jets the kids could sit among with us and a soothing dusky-blue-and-white colour scheme throughout. Even better, the shallowest pool was only 5cm deep and came with a water jet and an array of (tastefully coloured) plastic cups for little ones to play with. It kept our youngest entertained for ages, while the complimentary armbands meant our two nonswimmers could safely pootle around the deeper pools more or less unaided. I actually relaxed for a few minutes there. Unfortunately the hotel's restaurants didn't quite nail it. There are two, both overlooking Vonderplas lake: Brasserie 7 on the ground floor, which serves classic dishes such as French onion soup and steak tartare (mains from £21), and Mystique, a family fine dining affair on the first floor. I could perhaps chalk up Brasserie 7's glacially slow service to teething problems, but I can't imagine families wanting to book Mystique's 'adventurous flavour combinations' (£56 for three courses). It's not recommended for children younger than nine, but even so, we're talking ingredients such as wasabi root and kohlrabi and I'm not sure you would want to spend several hours sitting at a restaurant table, given the park stays open until 10pm. Better, I'd say, to come here for a drink, taken while perched on a stool overlooking the crowds during the nightly Aquanura fountain show that lights up Vonderplas lake. On our final afternoon I took advantage of the hotel's superb location, sending my husband on the easy stroll back to the room with the kids while I grabbed the opportunity to indulge my love of rollercoasters. Thanks to Efteling's separate lines for solo riders, which slot you into otherwise empty seats, I was able to walk straight on to Joris en de Draak and was speeding along its wooden track, whooping, arms raised, before the kids would even have found the TV remote. Within the hour I had also ridden the speedy steel coaster Python, the indoor coaster Vogel Rok, which swoops like an eagle through utter darkness, and my instant favourite, Baron 1898. All my pretrip fretting over practicalities hadn't allowed any time for reading about Efteling's rides, which left me totally unprepared for Baron 1898's whopping 37.5m freefall. And so, surprised and delighted, I let out an involuntary giggle/gasp as we hung motionless above the drop — and sparked a booming belly laugh from the man seated next to me. Perhaps I can still be quite fun after all. Helen Ochyra was a guest of Efteling Grand Hotel, which has B&B family rooms for four from £508, including valet parking and park entry ( Drive from the UK, or take the train or fly to Eindhoven
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University claiming merchandise is too similar and causes confusion
Columbia Sportswear is suing Columbia University, accusing the university of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The retailer claims the university's clothing and merchandise are too similar to its own offerings and that those similarities may confuse shoppers. The lawsuit was filed on July 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Columbia Sportswear has been using the name "Columbia" since 1938. The university and the retailer reportedly signed a deal in 2023 dictating the ways in which the university can use the word "Columbia" on its own apparel and merchandise. The pact stipulated that the university could use the name "Columbia" on merchandise so long as a school logo or mascot, the word "university", or an academic department of the founding year of the school — which dates back to 1754 — were present alongside the word. Columbia Sportswear claims in its lawsuit that the university breached those terms in 2024 when it allegedly began offering merchandise that used the name "Columbia" without any of the school signifiers established in the pact. The retailer also noted in the filing that the university was offering garments with bright blue colors that were "confusingly similar" to the blue used by Columbia Sportswear. 'The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,' the lawsuit argues. Columbia Sportswear wants to stop all sales of the university's clothing that allegedly violate the 2023 agreement. It further wants a recall of all previously sold items and all the remaining stock to be donated to charity. The retailer is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury if its litigation is successful. $220 million to the Trump administration in order to restore its federal research money that the president cancelled earlier this year. Under the settlement, the college will pay $200 million to the federal government over the next three years.
