Chelsea share stage with Donald Trump after winning Club World Cup final
Cole Palmer struck twice and set up another in a scintillating first half that left PSG reeling. Yet it was the post-match scenes that ensured the night would live long in the memory.
As Chelsea captain Reece James stepped up to the podium to collect the trophy, US President Donald Trump joined the squad on stage alongside Fifa president Gianni Infantino. Trump, who had been met with a mixture of cheers and boos from the 81,000-strong crowd, handed over the trophy before awkwardly lingering next to James as the celebrations kicked off.
'They told me he was going to present the trophy and then exit the stage,' said James. 'I thought he was going to leave, but he wanted to stay.'
Palmer, who was named the tournament's best player and awarded the Golden Ball, admitted he had not expected Trump to remain on the podium.
'I knew he was going to be here, but not that he'd be standing next to us when we lifted it,' said the midfielder. 'I was a bit confused, to be honest.'
Chelsea's triumph marked the culmination of Fifa's newly expanded 32-team Club World Cup. In addition to the silverware, the Blues pocketed more than £90 million in prize money – a significant boost for the London club's coffers.
'This is a proud moment for the club,' said Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca. 'The lads were immense tonight, especially in the first half. Palmer was unbelievable.'
Trump, interviewed at half time by DAZN, called the event 'tremendous' and praised the 'energy' of the crowd. He was also asked if he could see a day when the USA, which will co-host the men's World Cup along with Canada and Mexico next summer, could dominate in football, and he replied: 'I can tell you we're doing very well on the other stage, on the political stage, on the final stage.
'We were doing very badly as a country. We had an incompetent administration and now we have a hot country. It's really hot and I think the soccer is going to be very hot here too.'
He even joked that he could sign an executive order to rename the sport from 'soccer' to 'football'.
'I think we could do that,' he said with a smile.
But the night wasn't without its flashpoints. Tempers boiled over in the closing stages and spilled into post-match tensions between players and coaching staff. A scuffle erupted after full-time involving PSG coach Luis Enrique and goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma, who appeared to shove Chelsea forward Joao Pedro following a heated exchange.
'There is a lot of tension, a lot of pressure,' said Enrique. 'I tried to separate the players and avoid something worse.'
Joao Pedro, who was pushed to the ground during the altercation, said he had stepped in to defend teammate Andrey Santos. 'They surrounded him, and like a good Brazilian, I went to protect a friend. They just don't know how to lose.'
Maresca said he wasn't aware of how the fracas started.
'I saw that something was going on, but I don't know what happened,' he said.
The match itself was largely one-sided. Palmer opened the scoring early before doubling Chelsea's lead with a smart finish. His assist for Joao Pedro capped off a first half that left PSG stunned and eventually saw Joao Neves sent off for pulling Marc Cucurella to the ground by his hair.
Despite a flurry of yellow cards and late PSG frustration, the result never looked in doubt. For Chelsea, it was a statement performance – and one that ended with their name on the trophy and the president of the United States inadvertently part of the photo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Q&A: Quarantine rules limit travellers landing in the UK Minister quits over Cummings scandal as Boris Johnson's approval rating plummets You might also like Exclusive excerpt: Peter May's pandemic novel 'Lockdown' Culture and the creative spirit have great value in these uncertain times History tells us the UAE has beaten uncertainty and threats in the past too Global Fungi Facts • Scientists estimate there could be as many as 3 million fungal species globally • Only about 160,000 have been officially described leaving around 90% undiscovered • Fungi account for roughly 90% of Earth's unknown biodiversity • Forest fungi help tackle climate change, absorbing up to 36% of global fossil fuel emissions annually and storing around 5 billion tonnes of carbon in the planet's topsoil MORE ON LOCUSTS Editorial: In the eye of the swarm Environment: Locust vs drone: how the UN is trying new weapons against the plague Taylor Heyman: Locusts on the agenda at Riyadh International Humanitarian forum Habtoor interview The UAE should temporarily scrap VAT, Khalaf Al Habtoor says The specs Engine: 3.9-litre twin-turbo V8 Power: 640hp Torque: 760nm On sale: 2026 Price: Not announced yet MATCH INFO Champions League quarter-final, first leg Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester City, Tuesday, 11pm (UAE) Matches can be watched on BeIN Sports
US interest in purchasing territory is not as outlandish as it sounds. Here's a look at some big land transactions between nations: Louisiana Purchase If Donald Trump is one who aims to broker "a deal of the century", then this was the "deal of the 19th Century". In 1803, the US nearly doubled in size when it bought 2,140,000 square kilometres from France for $15 million. Florida Purchase Treaty The US courted Spain for Florida for years. Spain eventually realised its burden in holding on to the territory and in 1819 effectively ceded it to America in a wider border treaty. Alaska purchase America's spending spree continued in 1867 when it acquired 1,518,800 km2 of Alaskan land from Russia for $7.2m. Critics panned the government for buying "useless land". The Philippines At the end of the Spanish-American War, a provision in the 1898 Treaty of Paris saw Spain surrender the Philippines for a payment of $20 million. US Virgin Islands It's not like a US president has never reached a deal with Denmark before. In 1917 the US purchased the Danish West Indies for $25m and renamed them the US Virgin Islands. Gwadar The most recent sovereign land purchase was in 1958 when Pakistan bought the southwestern port of Gwadar from Oman for 5.5bn Pakistan rupees.
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
Why Trump's push for a 1% Fed policy rate could spell trouble for US economy
U.S. President Donald Trump says the Federal Reserve should set its benchmark interest rate at 1% to lower government borrowing costs, allowing the administration to finance the high and rising deficits expected from his spending and tax-cut bill. Trump should be careful what he wishes for. A Fed policy rate that low is not typically a sign that the U.S. is the "hottest" country in the world for investment, as Trump has said. It is usually a crisis response to an economy in serious trouble. The U.S. economy isn't in that kind of trouble now. But with near-full employment, ongoing economic growth and inflation above the U.S. central bank's 2% target, the super-low interest rates Trump seeks could easily backfire if investors in the $36 trillion Treasury market saw such a move as meaning the Fed had caved to political pressure and cut rates for the wrong reasons. Congress tasked the Fed with maintaining stable prices and full employment, not making deficit spending cheap, and slashing rates in the current environment could well reignite inflation. "I am not necessarily convinced that ... if the Fed tomorrow decided we are cutting to 1%, that this would have the traditional impact on long-term interest rates. The bond market fear would be that inflation would reignite and essentially we would have a loss of Fed independence and a de-anchoring of inflation expectations," said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon. Though there is "scope to ease" from the current 4.25%-4.50% range, it is nothing like the magnitude of cuts Trump envisions, he said. Daco, noting the unemployment rate is 4.1%, the economy is growing around 2% and inflation is about 2.5%, said: "From a data perspective there is not anything to suggest the need for an immediate and substantial lowering." IS 1% NORMAL? A 1% Fed policy rate has not been uncommon in the last quarter of a century, but is no sign of good times, coinciding with joblessness of 6% or higher. Former President George W. Bush governed at a time when the rate was 1%. It occurred shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and at the end of a string of Fed rate cuts following the dot-com crash and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. Former President Barack Obama inherited a near-zero Fed policy rate when he took office in January 2009. He also inherited a global financial crisis. Trump himself got the same near-zero interest rate treatment from the Fed in the last months of his first term in the White House - when the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the economy. WHAT THE FED CONTROLS, AND DOESN'T While hugely influential, the Fed has limited tools to influence the economy in normal times. U.S. central bankers meet typically eight times a year to set what is called the federal funds rate. Only banks borrow overnight at that rate, but it is a benchmark for other credit, influencing everything from corporate debt to home mortgages, consumer credit cards, and Treasury yields. Perhaps as importantly, it shapes expectations about where rates are headed. While closely correlated with the Fed's policy rate, those other rates are not set directly by the central bank. There's always a spread, including for what's been top of mind for Trump: the interest rate on U.S. Treasuries. SUPPLY, DEMAND AND RISK Global trading across an array of markets ultimately determines those other rates. A foreign pension fund's demand for Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities, for instance, influences what Americans pay for a mortgage or the U.S. government pays to finance its operations. Supply and demand are critical. U.S. government debt supply is determined by spending and tax levels set by the president and Congress. The federal government typically spends more each year than what it receives in tax collections and other revenue, and Treasury covers that annual deficit with borrowed money, issuing securities due in as few as 30 days to as long as 30 years. All things equal, larger deficits and more accumulated debt mean higher interest rates. Deficits and debt are expected to rise following the passage in Congress earlier this month of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." On the demand side, the U.S. enjoys a privileged position that holds down government borrowing costs since it is still considered a relatively risk-free investment with plenty of supply, deep and well-functioning markets and a history of strong institutions and legal norms. Current returns above 4% are particularly attractive for large pension funds or retirees who want income while being assured their investment is safe. But, like any borrower, the U.S. government must pay a premium for the risk an investor takes on. Locking up money in a 10-year Treasury note means other opportunities are foregone. Rates of interest, inflation and economic growth may all change in that span, and investors want compensation for those risks. With the Fed policy rate as a starting point, all of those factors are piled on in the form of a "term premium." Intangibles, like trust in a country's institutions, also matter. When Trump's threats to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell intensified in April, yields rose and the president backed off - a sign that global markets have an important vote in central bank independence. IS FED POLICY OUT OF LINE? Trump recently sent Powell a handwritten note with a list of central bank rates and penciled in where he thought the Fed's policy rate should be, near the bottom. U.S. central bank policymakers say it would be risky to cut rates until it is clear that Trump's new tariffs - many already imposed and more still to come - aren't going to stoke inflation. Central bankers often refer to policy formulas or rules that relate their inflation target to incoming and forecasted economic data to point to an appropriate interest rate. None suggest a Fed policy rate as low as Trump wants. (Editing by Dan Burns and Paul Simao)
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
Crypto bills set to advance this week take industry closer to mainstream
The crypto industry will take a step closer to going mainstream this week as a series of industry-friendly bills progress through Congress, paving the way for digital assets to potentially be further integrated into traditional finance. The House of Representatives is set to pass a series of crypto-related bills in a week which the Republican majority has dubbed "crypto week." The most notable is a bill that would establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins and is likely to advance to President Donald Trump's desk. That bill -- and another the House is considering that would define when a crypto token is a commodity -- is a huge win for the crypto industry, which has been pushing for federal legislation for years and poured money into last year's elections in order to promote pro-crypto candidates. "Historically, when lawmakers advance industry-backed frameworks, institutional sentiment strengthens. We expect capital that was previously sidelined due to regulatory uncertainty to re-enter," said Jag Kooner, head of derivatives at crypto exchange Bitfinex. "Crypto week" also comes as bitcoin has scaled record highs in recent days as investors dive back into risk assets on the back of tariff-related news, as well as expectations that legislation could potentially unlock capital in the crypto space. The big ticket item the House is set to vote on this week is a bill that would create a set of federal requirements for stablecoins. Stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 dollar peg, are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens. Their use has grown rapidly in recent years, and proponents say they could be used to send payments instantly. The bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, received bipartisan support in the Senate, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to back the proposed federal rules. It is expected to pass the House and would then head to Trump, who has said he will sign it into law. The bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assets - such as U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury bills - and for issuers to disclose publicly the composition of their reserves on a monthly basis. Crypto proponents say those rules could legitimize stablecoins, making banks, retailers and consumers more comfortable with using them to transfer funds. Ahead of the bill's final passage, many companies across sectors are already considering how they might incorporate stablecoins into their business, said Julia Demidova, head of digital currencies product and strategy at FIS, a financial technology solutions provider. "I think everyone is realizing, look, this is moving forward and they need to have a stablecoin strategy," she said. "They need to think how banks themselves will position against some of these novel, new, emerging fintech-issued stablecoins as well." Still, many Democrats have argued that the GENIUS Act would not prevent big tech companies from issuing their own private stablecoins, and have called for stronger anti-money laundering protections and prohibitions on foreign stablecoin issuers. Many Democrats fiercely oppose both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act, arguing that they have too few consumer protections and would be a giveaway to Trump's own personal crypto ventures by enabling softer-touch regulation. Democratic members are expected to offer several amendments to both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act on the House floor next week, according to a source familiar with the matter, but it is unclear whether any of them will be considered. The House will also vote next week on a bill that would prohibit the U.S. from issuing a central bank digital currency, which Republicans say violate Americans' privacy. The bill has not been considered in the Senate and the Federal Reserve has not indicated a desire to develop a central bank digital currency. MARKET STRUCTURE The House this week is also expected to pass a bill that aims to develop a regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and would expand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's oversight of the digital asset industry and is backed by the industry. If signed into law, the bill would define when a cryptocurrency is a security or a commodity and clarify the Securities and Exchange Commission's jurisdiction over the sector, something crypto companies heavily disputed during the Biden administration. That could help crypto companies avoid the oversight of the SEC, which under the Biden administration sued a number of crypto exchanges for flouting its rules. Crypto companies have argued that most crypto tokens should be classified as commodities, rather than securities, which would enable platforms to more easily offer those tokens to their customers. That bill, called the CLARITY Act, has yet to be considered in the Senate, where it would need to pass before heading to Trump for final approval. Trump has sought to overhaul U.S. cryptocurrency policies after courting cash from the industry during his presidential campaign. The sector spent more than $119 million backing pro-crypto congressional candidates in last year's elections. Trump's crypto ventures include a meme coin called $TRUMP, launched in January, and a business called World Liberty Financial, a crypto company owned partly by the president. The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest and that Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. (Reporting by Hannah Lang in New York; Editing by Megan Davies and Daniel Wallis)
