Barcelona honours Kobe Bryant with new jersey bearing brand logo
The five-time European champion said its new jersey will replace the usual Nike swoosh logo 'with the 'Kobe Sheath' — the sword in the sheath logo that identifies the Kobe Bryant brand.'
Barcelona said the club had a special relationship with Bryant, who died in a helicopter crash in Southern California in 2020. He made appearances alongside club members and first-team players during his visits to Barcelona and when the club visited the United States.
Better is the only choice. FC Barcelona's purest expression of footballing perfection meets the constant growth mindset of Mamba Mentality.#NikeFootball@nike@nikefootballpic.twitter.com/7ixX2vJoTf — FC Barcelona (@FCBarcelona) July 29, 2025
'The shorts are black with Persian violet details and a textured snakeskin outline, a reference to the Black Mamba alter ego of Kobe,' Barcelona said.
The change, made in collaboration with Nike, will last three seasons.
'All in all, it is part of a brand collaboration between the NBA legend and FC Barcelona that is born out of a shared culture of sporting excellence that characterised Bryant and is also part of FC Barcelona's DNA,' the club said.
'This agreement aims to keep alive that notion of brotherhood and at the same time create a link between Kobe fans and FC Barcelona to make the global impact of the American's legacy even greater amongst the sporting community and fans.'
Related Topics
Barcelona /
Kobe Bryant
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Takeaways for India from Trump moment: strategic autonomy is alive, neoliberalism is dead
Donald J. Trump can be brutally forthright and publicly so. It is partly innate and partly a strategy to throw his interlocutors off balance. In a 1989 interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Mr. Trump was asked by the host about his strategies for gaining an edge in negotiations. Mr. Trump responded not with a direct answer, but with a startling personal comment: 'Can I move my chair? Because your breath is very bad. It really is... Has this ever been told to you before?' Years later, Mr. Trump explained that it was a demonstration of his negotiation tactics. Mr. Trump's outspokenness can be unsettling, but it can also be helpful. There are a few valuable lessons that Indian strategy could learn, thanks to the manner in which Mr. Trump conducts U.S. diplomacy. Donald Trump's worldview Key elements of his worldview have largely remained consistent for decades. Even before he made an entry into politics, Mr. Trump was anti-trade, anti-war, cognizant of the economic and social challenges within the American society, and believed that all other countries were taking advantage of the U.S. He is trying to turn all those beliefs into policies with varying levels of success. However, what is remarkable is his ongoing exposition of American policy, which is too candid to be comforting for partners abroad. For his critics at home, it is what he says rather than what he does that is infuriating. All countries are scurrying to reposition themselves. It is a moment of reckoning for India. Editorial | Soured relations: On Trump's 25% tariff, 'penalty' The idea that India's hesitation to go into a complete strategic lock-in with the U.S. and to completely open its market is hindering progress in bilateral ties is commonplace because its proponents are influential. India, whether under Jawaharlal Nehru or Narendra Modi, has been reluctant to do either of these, and strategic autonomy has held the country in good stead. For one, alliances are not insulated from shifts in U.S. priorities over time, Trump or not. To cite one example, when Joe Biden was President, Australia scrapped a $90 billion deal with France to build conventional diesel-electric submarines. Instead, it entered the AUKUS pact with the U.S. and the U.K. to acquire nuclear-powered submarines using the U.S. technology. All within the family, but hanging France out to dry. Mr. Trump, who is often portrayed as hostile to U.S. allies, is saying it all too loud. India's choice Amid Mr. Trump's rhetoric, India could be further incentivised to reinforce the idea of strategic autonomy, which remains the most viable framework for sustaining a robust relationship with the U.S. The Modi government has, in practice, followed the path of strategic autonomy. Both strategic autonomy and strategic subservience carry costs. India appears increasingly prepared to bear the cost of autonomy — rather than of subservience. Turning into a frontline of any U.S. strategy for containment of another country or expansion of its own interest can be fatal — ask Ukraine. Mr. Trump has done India a favour by silencing the call for abandoning strategic autonomy. If there was any doubt about strategic autonomy, the Trump moment has clarified it. Mr. Trump wants to restore manufacturing and jobs in the U.S. and has, in the process, unsettled global trade. Access to its market has been a lever of American power for long, and Mr. Trump is just blunt about it. A trade deal may resolve some immediate issues, but India cannot ignore the reality that in a world where every country has turned protectionist, export-driven growth is a narrow and difficult path. Mr. Trump has made it amply clear that he does not want China being replaced by any country in U.S. supply chains. It will be foolhardy to assume that any future U.S. President will be fine with that either. It is as if no country wants to import anything other than plastic toys and T-shirts. India could pay more attention to leveraging its domestic market to build its economy and manufacturing. Considering the rapid automation and the consequent limits of job growth in manufacturing, 'making for the world' is not sustainable for India, economist Raghuram Rajan has pointed out. Mr. Modi on Sunday exhorted Indians to augment domestic consumption. A domestic market-driven development model needs to be articulated strongly. The priority and the emphasis need to shift. Ties with the U.S. The Trump moment tells India two things — strategic autonomy is alive; and neoliberalism is dead. India has to navigate the path ahead, and the U.S. remains a key partner in that. It is reasonable to assume that the U.S. will remain the most powerful state on the planet for several decades to come. Relations with the U.S. will continue to be a major determinant of India's capacity to realise its ambitions and make progress. Getting this one relationship right will be critical for India. Neither obsequiousness nor confrontation can advance India's relations with the U.S. India should also learn that soft power is supposed to be soft, not loud and screeching. As the yoga teacher would say, pranayama practice should not make any sound.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump tariffs jolt Malaysia, disrupting solar exports, China trade ties
By Alexandra Stevenson and Zunaira Saieed It's become a familiar strategy in Southeast Asia. Companies from China, coveting the American market but blocked by tariffs, do an end run. They pour into a country, opening factories and filling supply chains. They invest billions of dollars and create jobs and business opportunities. The local economy prospers. President Trump wants to stop that trade. On Friday he unveiled a new layer of tariffs — set at a global rate of 40 percent — on all goods that move through a third country before they get to the United States. The tariffs are aimed at stopping transshipment, a practice the administration says has allowed Chinese-made goods to skirt punitive tariffs. The policy landed with a thunderbolt in Southeast Asia, where Chinese investment has helped the economies of poorer neighbors grow more quickly. A crackdown on transshipment will be an economic blow. It also complicates the supply chain in Southeast Asia, which depends heavily on Chinese raw materials and components. From Vietnam to Cambodia to Indonesia, officials and executives are rushing to assess the consequences. The new tariffs raise hard questions for countries that have long used Chinese components to make the final products they ship to the United States. Does the Trump administration, which has yet to detail how it would enforce the new transshipment tariffs, want to tax it all? One country offers a case study others could follow for what to do next: Malaysia. Over the last decade, Malaysia rose to become one of the world's biggest makers of solar panels. Ten companies, most of them Chinese, shoveled $15 billion into factories around the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Then, under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the United States put tariffs on solar equipment coming from Malaysia of as much as 250 percent. Today, just two solar panel makers remain and one of them has ceased much of its production. The upheaval has been a wake-up call for Malaysia, a nation of over 35 million people that is rethinking how to power its future economic growth. 'We're trying to think about ourselves not just as recipients of investment, but actually creators of technology,' said Liew Chin Tong, the deputy minister of investment, trade and industry. 'We want to think of ourselves not as a production site, but also as a consumer site with a sizable middle class.' Officials in Malaysia, who had been trying to work out a trade deal, had said they were ready to work with the Trump administration to stop companies from passing off Chinese-made goods as their own. But they learned on Friday they would be hit with a base tariff of 19 percent. An additional 40 percent would be added for any goods deemed to have originated in China. Those are set to take effect this week. The country finds itself caught squarely between the United States and China. Malaysia believes that Chinese solar companies can play an important role in its attempts to increase renewable power sources. Its goal over the next five years is for half the country's energy consumption to use clean sources like solar power. Warehouses are stuffed with solar equipment that can no longer be exported to the United States, and the government wants companies to sell it to local solar farms. One challenge for Malaysia is that it still needs China's solar industry on its side. More than 75 percent of the solar panels that Malaysia uses locally are imported from China, where prices are much cheaper because of Beijing's industrial policies that encourage exports. Longer term, Malaysia wants the Chinese companies to restart their mothballed factories to make solar panels for the domestic market. More than any other region, Southeast Asia has felt the brunt of the trade war between the United States and China that began in earnest during Mr. Trump's first presidency. Southeast Asian countries profited as Chinese and global multinationals relocated their factories out of China to avoid Mr. Trump's first-term tariffs. For Malaysia, the aim now is to blunt the collateral damage from the battle between the world's two largest economies. 'I don't like to see us just having to choose between US and China,' said Mr. Liew, adding 'I want to see us strengthening ourselves.' Both superpowers have loomed large in Malaysia. The American tech companies Nvidia, Intel and Texas Instruments built huge facilities to make semiconductors, seeing the country as a good location to hedge against the risks of doing business in China. More than 600 American companies invested in Malaysia last year, said Siobhan Das, chief executive of the American Malaysian Chamber of Commerce. Chinese investment, meanwhile, has shaped Malaysia's manufacturing sector, and China has ranked as one of the top investors in the country for the last decade. Malaysia's imports from China have nearly doubled over the past decade, according to Lee Heng Guie, executive director of the Socio-Economic Research Center, a Malaysian think tank. It was also about a decade ago when Chinese solar companies began to invest in factories in Malaysia. The factories made everything for export to the United States and other major markets like Europe. 'We knew we could not compete with the Chinese companies in the long run,' said Lisa Ong, chief executive at Malaysian Solar Resources, a solar company that shut its panel production facilities in 2013. After six years, the company found it was being outperformed on price and production capacity. Today it has switched its focus to building solar farms and importing panels from China. After the Biden administration initiated an investigation into unfair practices by Chinese solar companies in Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, Chinese companies began to slow some of their operations. The investigation led to steep tariffs on a handful of Chinese solar companies operating in these countries, and prompted most of them to abandon their factories in Malaysia. The only Chinese company still making some solar panels in Malaysia is Longi, an industry giant. When it opened its third Malaysian factory on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur in 2023, it heralded the opening as a 'pivotal moment in Longi's global endeavors.' Its executives boasted of creating 900 jobs and promised to increase the openings to 2,000. Instead of expanding, Longi has shut down several production lines at the facility. Today, much of the space at Longi's plant is unused. On one weekday last month, the parking lot was less than half full. Longi declined to comment for this article. Longi has met with Malaysian officials to discuss how to support more of the local supply chain, according to Justin Sim, the president of the Malaysian Photovoltaic and Sustainable Energy Industry Association. He is pressing the government to rebuild a domestic solar panel industry by harnessing the knowledge of Chinese companies like Longi. 'All the Chinese companies came here when there was not really any capacity or interest in building the local market,' Mr. Sim said. 'And then they all went bust or left because they were hit with tariffs from the US and Europe.' Ms. Ong of Malaysian Solar Resources said she would not rule out her company going back to solar panel manufacturing, especially after the Chinese government announced plans to scale back subsidies to companies. Still, she is hesitant, citing the intense competitiveness of Chinese firms. 'I'm worried and a bit concerned about our future,' she said. 'Many Chinese nationals are migrating to Malaysia and they are a lot more industrious than many of us.'
Mint
9 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump vs Powell puts spotlight on central banks' independence: How does RBI score?
The very public friction between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has once again thrust central bank independence into the spotlight. The underlying question is both simple and consequential: should elected leaders have a say in how central banks set interest rates? This tension isn't new. Trump repeatedly criticised the Fed's rate hikes during his earlier term. European leaders were unsettled by the European Central Bank's aggressive tightening in 2022. And back in 2018, India witnessed its own showdown between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the finance ministry. Still, the consensus among economists is clear: independent central banks are critical to maintaining macroeconomic stability. To measure the independence of central banks across countries and time, researchers have created an index based on some core criteria. Each criterion is assigned a score, and then these scores (with or without weights) are used to arrive at an index value, ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the highest level of independence. Common central bank parameters assessed in these indices include rules of appointment of the governor and the monetary policy committee, freedom to formulate monetary policy, norms for conflict resolution, primary policy objective, rules for lending to government, financial independence, and reporting and disclosure norms. A recent index assigns India's RBI a score of 0.59, indicating moderate independence. RBI's report card The RBI scores high on several key parameters of central bank autonomy. It has a clear inflation-targeting mandate, operates with an independent budget, and adheres to sound reporting and disclosure standards. However, its overall independence is moderated by structural constraints, most of them stemming from its ownership and governance structure. These can be grouped into three categories. First, while the six-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) includes three external members and three RBI representatives, all are appointed by the government. The RBI governor, also a government appointee, holds the casting vote in case of a tie. Second, in the event of a policy disagreement, the government retains the final say. Both these rules are seen as a lack of independence in monetary policy. Third, under the RBI Act, the central bank is required to transfer its surplus to the government after meeting expenses and provisioning. This is viewed as a lack of financial independence. Despite these limitations, the RBI has largely delivered on its core mandate. Between August 2016 and June 2025, inflation exceeded the official upper tolerance band of 6% in just 28 of 107 months. Inflation volatility has also declined significantly since the adoption of flexible inflation targeting (FIT). Through the turbulence of the last five years, when RBI shifted from covid-era easing to post-pandemic tightening, inflation fluctuations were still lower than in the pre-FIT years. Importantly, the RBI has built credibility as a steward of price stability. Its consistent emphasis on the 4% inflation target has helped anchor public expectations, even though households tend to overestimate inflation by 3-4 percentage points, their expectations remain stable over time. Independence and co-operation If India's central bank, despite being government-owned, manages to do its job well, should it still aspire to greater independence? Perhaps. Research shows that greater central bank independence is associated with lower inflation and more effective monetary policy in the long run, especially for developing economies. However, India's situation is different for two reasons. One, the scope for conflict on monetary policy is slightly lower. Conflict is most likely when inflation is on its way down: the government would prefer lower rates to boost growth, while the RBI may want to wait until inflation is stamped out. But given that inflation is as much a political hot potato as a monetary headache—elections have been lost on the price of onions—the government is more sensitive to inflation, and less likely to demand rate cuts until inflation is under control. Two, the present government is committed to reducing its fiscal deficit and debt. Therefore, it is unlikely to push for lower rates just to reduce debt servicing costs. When governments are fiscally profligate, monetary policy has to compensate by printing money or keeping interest rates at artificially low levels. In contrast, fiscal prudence frees monetary policy from the pressure of propping up budget deficits. Central bank independence in itself does not guarantee effective policy. The US Fed has full independence in setting monetary policy, yet hasn't escaped criticism from the White House. Turkey has a high independence score of 0.8 out of 1, but President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's policy interference has led to runaway inflation. The takeaway? Independence is necessary but not sufficient. What matters most is whether fiscal and monetary policy can work in sync. Price stability is best achieved when governments and central banks act as partners, not adversaries, in managing the economy. The author is an independent writer in economics and finance.
