SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " 14 billion " 17 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Is the EU research budget actually increasing?
Is a Horizon Europe budget of €158 billion a 10% cut or a significant increase to the EU’s support for research and innovation? What would seem like a question of fact has divided opinion in Brussels since the Irish presidency of the EU Council presented its negotiation box on October 10. The answer depends on factors such as how you adjust for inflation, whether you account for increases in overall EU wealth and if you care about absolute or proportional figures. The €158 billion budget in current prices, proposed by the Irish presidency of the EU Council, was quickly criticised by university lobbies and rejected by the high-level expert group led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor. It was also decried by the four pro-European political groups in the European Parliament. “How can Europe close its competitiveness gap while cutting the European Competitiveness Fund by 13% and Horizon Europe by nearly 10%?” asked a joint statement by the European People’s Party (EPP), Renew Europe, the Socialists and Democrats and the Greens/European Free Alliance. Together, these parties hold 63% of seats in the Parliament.In stark contrast, Irish foreign affairs minister Helen McEntee said that the proposal “significantly increases investment in competitiveness, research and innovation,” Meanwhile, a presidency press release said that, compared to the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the proposal would “double the volume of competitiveness related programmes.” So, who is right? That depends on how you make the calculation.Compared to the Commission figure or the previous budget?The first thing to notice is the difference in baselines. When the MEPs say the Irish presidency will cut Horizon Europe by “nearly 10%” they are using the European Commission proposal for the MFF from July 2025, which allocated €175 billion in current prices to Horizon Europe. However, when the Irish foreign affairs minister said the research and competitiveness budget is increasing significantly, she is comparing it to the 2021-27 MFF, which had a Horizon Europe budget of €84.9 billion in 2018 prices.Her point holds when accounting for inflation. Applying a 2% annual inflation rate, the calculation method used by the Commission, the 2021-27 Horizon Europe would have a budget of €97.5 billion in 2025 prices. In comparison, the Irish presidency’s €158 billion figure in current prices translates to €140 billion in 2025 prices. Does the ECF count?But there is more to the dispute. In its statements, the Irish presidency lumped the research budget in with the overall budget for competitiveness. The Parliament statement, however, kept the two separate. This matters because the next MFF includes plans to add a new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to fund programmes meant to boost the continent's competitiveness. The Irish negotiating box allocated €245 billion in current prices to this programme.When this is added to the €158 billion for Horizon Europe, as well as programmes such as the EU education programme Erasmus+, the total for “competitiveness, prosperity and security” in the Irish proposal becomes €514 billion in current prices. But it is still uncertain how big a share of this competitiveness budget would go to research. The Commission proposal of July 2025 for the MFF included clear links between the ECF and Horizon Europe, indicating some ECF money will go to research. At the same time, the structure of the ECF is still being negotiated, and a substantial part of its budget is expected to support non-research activities such as defence manufacturing, decarbonisation and digital infrastructure. Related articlesCouncil floats 9.6% budget cut to next Horizon EuropeResearch community to appeal to national governments over planned EU budget cutEU own resources ‘essential’ for future research budget, says leading MEPSo, it is by looking at competitiveness rather than research, or combining the two, that the Irish presidency can claim that its proposed budget will significantly increase investment in competitiveness, research and innovation.According to the Irish presidency proposal, Horizon Europe and other competitiveness-related programmes in the current multiannual budget received €221 billion in current prices. However, since this money is being distributed from 2021 to 2027, it is not directly comparable to the €514 billion in current prices which will be distributed from 2028 to 2034.Research as a proportion of the MFFBut the relative rise in competitiveness-related programmes points to another important distinction: whether you look at the research budget in absolute terms or as a share of the overall MFF. Here, too, the size of the research budget has risen, although only slightly. In the 2021-27 MFF, Horizon Europe accounted for 7% of the total budget. In the Irish presidency’s proposal, it amounts to 8.7%. The share for the total competitiveness envelope went from 17.7% in the current MFF to 28.1% in the Irish presidency proposal.This proportional share may seem irrelevant to universities looking for research funding, but it is becoming significant as budget negotiations between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council begin. On October 2, a group of 17 southern and eastern European countries sent out a statement calling for the EU agriculture and cohesion budgets to be protected. The Parliament’s co-rapporteur on the budget, Siegfried Mureșan of the EPP, has also said that the research envelope is likely to be cut disproportionately as the budget is slimmed down during negotiations.
Naples Comprehensive Health Names Danny Hogan Chief Financial Officer
Naples, Fla., Oct. 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Naples Comprehensive Health (NCH) announced today that Danny Hogan has been named its next Chief Financial Officer. Hogan joined the organization on Oct. 5. Hogan brings extensive health care finance and operational leadership experience to NCH. He previously served as Chief Financial Officer, Shared Services and Integrated Operations, at Bon Secours Mercy Health, a $14 billion nonprofit health system with 47 hospitals across the United States and
Trump Offered to Sell Arms to China, U.S. Ambassador Says
President Trump made the offer to Xi Jinping, China’s leader, said David Perdue, the U.S. ambassador to China. Trump is withholding a $14 billion arms package to Taiwan.
Defence Firm Anduril Says US Delay on Taiwan Arms Sales Affecting Its Business
By Ben Blanchard TAIPEI, Sept 19 (Reuters) - US defence tech firm Anduril's founder Palmer Luckey said on Saturday that President Donald Trump's delay in approving arms sales to Taiwan is affecting its business and that he has discussed this with Trump. The $14 billion package for Taiwan has been ...
How Jeremy Gosch is refocusing Hy-Vee
Jeremy Gosch, in his fourth year as Hy-Vee’s CEO, is steering the large, Midwest regional grocery chain through a competitive landscape unlike any faced by his predecessors. The four Hy-Vee CEOs who preceded Gosch helped transform a small Iowa grocery chain into a regional retailer with more than $14 billion in annual sales. Along the…
Inside Germany's $14 billion plan to deter Russia
Germany is planning a new long-range strike arsenal of cruise missiles, Tomahawks, and future hypersonic weapons to help deter Russia.
Meet The Highest-Ranking Black Executive In Sports
NBA Deputy Commissioner Mark Tatum runs the league’s business operations that generate more than $14 billion in revenue. These are the five business leaders who inspire him.
Sports without politics is a fantasy and the World Cup proves it
From ancient Greece to Nazi Germany, sport and politics have long been intertwined. Nevertheless, we still imagine that international sport can be kept above the fray and serve as a neutral arena where nations compete on merit alone. In this article, diplomacy scholar Geoffrey Allen Pigman argues the 2026 FIFA World Cup shows this is a dangerous illusion. When international sport is left entirely to revenue-maximizing private bodies like FIFA, it doesn't escape politics, but rather surrenders to its worst expressions. With the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics fast approaching, the IOC must decide whether to learn that lesson or repeat the same mistakes. The largest and most lucrative FIFA World Cup ever draws toward its climactic conclusion amidst a swirl of controversy. Team members, staff, fans, and spectators have been denied their right to enter the United States to participate, and US President Donald Trump intervened with FIFA boss Gianni Infantino to overturn a referee’s call that Trump believed disadvantaged the US national team. It is a moment to step back and reflect on what the purposes of international sport mega-events like the World Cup, and international sport more broadly, are, and what they should be. Does international sport serve public purposes? Is there a public interest? Or is it primarily a private endeavor organized by commercial enterprises to entertain the global public (and generate profit in the process), which is occasionally used by governments and leaders for raisons d’etat? Central to the idea of sport is the principle of fair play, which in the international context demands that games be free from political interference. However, it is impossible to separate sport from politics, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The most positive political use of international sport through the millennia has been to facilitate diplomacy. The use of international sport for diplomatic objectives has existed since at least the time of the ancient Olympic Games, around which was instituted the custom of the Ekecheiria, or Olympic Truce, between participating states to facilitate fair competition and diplomatic achievements by ensuring that participants could travel safely to the Olympiad. In his seminal work On Diplomacy (1987), diplomacy scholar James Der Derian characterized the objectives of diplomacy as overcoming alienation and mediating estrangement between governments and between peoples. One increasingly important diplomatic tool in the technology-infused media environment over the past century has been public diplomacy, under which governments and non-state diplomatic actors (e.g. transnational corporations) communicate to global publics about their international policy objectives and to shape their global brand image. Political scientist Michał Kobierecki, in his important book Sports Diplomacy (2020), views sports diplomacy as falling broadly within the ambit of public diplomacy, as international sport intimately involves the participation of global publics as spectators and consumers of global media. Diplomacy scholar Stuart Murray and this author, in a 2013 article, distinguish between international sport used for diplomatic purposes and international sport-as-diplomacy, which encompasses the range of diplomacy that occurs as teams and competitors, spectators and fans, and government officials all converge for international sporting events like the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. Diplomacy scholar H.E. Chehabi, in a 2001 article on US-Iran sports diplomacy, describes the interaction between spectators and fans at international sporting events as “people-to-people diplomacy,” in which relationships develop independently of governments and their objectives. Diplomacy by the aforementioned definitions is often unsuccessful. Moreover, all too often the tools of diplomacy may be employed by governments and other actors to thwart or oppose the objectives of diplomacy as characterized by Der Derian. Governments routinely use the tools of public diplomacy to disseminate propaganda, spreading misinformation in the attempt to deceive global publics about their objectives and to create misleading impressions about their brand identity. Within sports diplomacy, the term “sportswashing” has been coined recently to describe how governments invest in and promote international sport to create positive global public impressions of their nations and, in doing so, to distract the global public from their deficient records in areas such as human rights and democratic governance. Murray, in his 2018 book Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice, introduces the concept of sports anti-diplomacy, wherein governments intentionally use international sport to advance aggressive and nationalistic objectives. Obvious historical examples include Hitler’s use of the 1936 Berlin Olympics to glorify his Third Reich and the 1969 El Salvador-Honduras football “war.” SUGGESTED READING The beautiful game made ugly By Emily Ryall FIFA argues that it is and seeks to be apolitical in its stewardship of international Association Football (soccer). FIFA policies governing bids to host the World Cup require uninhibited and non-discriminatory access for players, team staff, and spectators of all participating countries to host nations and venues. It became clear soon after Trump returned to power in the United States in January 2025 that Trump’s political intentions and objectives to limit non-US citizens from living and working in the United States and, in numerous cases, even visiting the country, would collide with FIFA’s host nation policies. Beginning soon after the start of the second Trump administration, US federal authorities imposed restrictions on entry to the United States of citizens of between 20 and 40 countries for any purpose, with only limited exceptions. Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting non-US citizens in the United States, including persons with and without legal status, holding them in jails, concentration camps, and other detention facilities until they were deported to their home or third countries, where they faced substantive risks to their personal safety. FIFA boss Gianni Infantino, in an effort to ensure the most successful and lucrative World Cup in history, engaged diplomatically with President Trump in an attempt to facilitate entry to the US for World Cup participants. Infantino did all in his power to ingratiate himself with Trump, to the extent of creating a FIFA “Peace Prize,” which he awarded to Trump in December 2025 at a ceremony in the then Trump-controlled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, on the occasion of the World Cup draw. The prize was an ersatz consolation for someone who aspired in vain to win the rather more prestigious and well-known Nobel Peace Prize. And in the run-up to the World Cup, conditions became worse. In February 2026, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a war of aggression against Iran, illegal under international law, under the false pretence that Iran’s government was preparing to attack the United States and Israel. During the US aerial bombardment of Iran, US planes bombed Azadi Stadium, the facility where Iran’s national football team trained. As the 2026 FIFA World Cup began, it was clear that Infantino’s efforts had been for naught: the Trump administration would not adhere to FIFA policies governing access to World Cup host nations. World Cup referee Omar Artan, a citizen of Somalia, was denied a US visa to enter the United States to participate in the World Cup. Trump’s government only granted US visas to Iran’s football team ten days before they were scheduled to arrive for the tournament. Numerous members of the support staff for Iran’s team were denied US visas. Iran’s team, which had been scheduled to train in Arizona, was directed to shift its training site to Tijuana, Mexico, notwithstanding that all three of their group stage matches took place at US venues. The US Department of Homeland Security only permitted the Iranian team to enter the US on the day before each scheduled match and then to return to Mexico immediately after playing. Members of Iraq’s and Switzerland’s football teams were delayed for hours by US officials at the US border, and an Iraqi team photographer was refused entry. Spectators and fans from Haïti and Iran were denied entry to the United States altogether. A large number of fans from a range of countries had their applications for US visas rejected. There were multiple off-ramps through which participants could have avoided the negative consequences of Trump’s decisions for the 2026 World Cup. Once it was clear that the Trump government intended to violate the established expectations for World Cup hosts, FIFA could have shifted the matches scheduled to take place in the United States to Mexico and Canada. The three nations were already designated as co-hosts, and host cities and venues had been selected. Once it was clear that FIFA, governed by FIFA boss Gianni Infantino’s dependent and dysfunctional relationship with Trump, would never consider this option on its own, it fell to the national football federations to act. The national federations, particularly some combination of federations of the leading contenders (France, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, England, Germany, etc.), could have refused to participate under the US-imposed conditions or, at the least, demanded an ironclad agreement with the Trump government that FIFA policies on access would be respected. ___ International sport is inextricably entangled with diplomacy of different sorts, for good or ill, it cannot be considered to be in the purely private realm and left to revenue-maximizing private actors. ___ Why did neither FIFA nor the national football federations act to protect the interests of players, team staff, referees, fans, and spectators? In essence, the relentless engines of capitalism prevailed over norm observance, ethics, and fair play. The revenue interests of FIFA, sponsors, global media, and host cities won out. FIFA’s managers viewed hosting another World Cup principally in the United States as a veritable pot of gold for FIFA and its collaborators. FIFA has estimated its own revenue over the 2023-26 budget cycle, which includes the 2026 World Cup, at $13 billion, revised up from an initial projection of $11 billion, and 72% higher than the previous revenue cycle. Of that total, FIFA is estimated to have generated $8.9 billion from the Cup itself in revenue from TV rights ($3.92 billion), sponsorships ($2.69 billion), ticket sales ($3.1 billion), licensing rights, and other sources. A joint study by FIFA and the World Trade Organization estimates that the World Cup will contribute over $40 billion to global GDP, including nearly $14 billion in direct visitor spending in the three host countries (but principally in the United States, which hosted the lion’s share of the matches). The FIFA World Cup is now reportedly “the single most lucrative recurring commercial property in global sport.” And yet, notwithstanding the Trump government’s uses of the World Cup for sports anti-diplomacy, and the climate of anxiety that this created for participants and spectators, diplomacy that did not depend upon governments was able to thrive at the World Cup. Examples of successful people-to-people diplomacy were legion, as citizens of towns and cities across the States, as well as in Mexico and Canada, welcomed team members, their families and supporters, to training sites across North America. Fans of different teams joined together in person in stadiums for matches, at watch parties and bars, and at welcome events sponsored by host cities. The joy and camaraderie shared between the citizenry of Boston and Scotland’s “Tartan Army” of fans is but one example of how the “Beautiful Game” brings people together. Friendships forged across continents are likely to endure well beyond the Cup final. Even those achievements cannot be seen as unalloyed, however. As South African football fan Byron Pillay commented to Al Jazeera, “Football is called the Beautiful Game for a reason, for its ability to unite people. But it’s hard to believe in that magic with the politics and war rhetoric off the field of play, especially when one of the tournament hosts is central to that.” Ultimately, the experience of the 2026 FIFA World Cup illustrates that, as international sport is inextricably entangled with diplomacy of different sorts, for good or ill, it cannot be considered to be in the purely private realm and left to revenue-maximizing private actors. As long as there is the possibility of diplomatic progress in mediating estrangement between governments or between peoples, there is a broad and overarching public interest in international sport. Likewise, as it would be difficult to put on an international sport mega-event without international sporting organizations like FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), global media firms, and companies purchasing sponsorships, public and private interests in international sport must coexist, most likely somewhere on a shifting spectrum between partnership and rivalry or cross purposes. As the World Cup wraps up, the IOC needs to consider its lessons before the scheduled 2028 Los Angeles Olympics if they want to avoid a media-hyped Trump version of the 1936 Berlin Olympiad. The IOC and the National Olympic Committees need to set conditions on and make demands of Trump’s government with clearly articulated consequences for non-compliance, up to and including cancellation of the Games. Time is running out for the IOC, as unlike with the FIFA World Cup, there is no at-the-ready alternate venue for Los Angeles.
Comcast’s Sky Agrees to Acquire ITV Media and Entertainment
The £1.6 billion ($2.14 billion) deal will give the combined company more than 70% of the U.K. ad market and face extensive regulator scrutiny
Comcast’s Sky to Buy ITV’s Media and Entertainment Unit for Up to $2.14 Billion
Comcast’s Sky has agreed to buy ITV’s media and entertainment business in a deal that will see ITV spin ITV Studios off into a separate London-listed business.
Trump’s Taiwan ‘negotiating chip’ remark sparks alarm over how far he'd shift US-China policy
Trump suggests $14 billion Taiwan weapons package could be used as leverage in China negotiations, drawing swift pushback from Taiwan's president.
Inside Scale AI’s Business After Meta’s Bombshell $14 Billion Deal
How Scale AI Is Adapting Post Meta Deal And Founder’s Departure
Taiwan anxiously eyes Trump’s summit in China, with $14 billion in US arms sales up in the air
As President Donald Trump meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping this week, Taiwan will be nervously monitoring from afar to ascertain whether its political status and critical arms purchases come up in discussions between the two leaders.
Coatue Projected $1.995 Trillion Valuation for Anthropic in 2030
In a presentation to prospective investors in January, Coatue offered a rare look at how it justifies Anthropic’s heady valuations. An anonymous source sent me the slides, which give a unique look at how a top investment firm values Anthropic’s business. This is a moment in time when some of America’s most valuable, growing technology companies remain private. In the January presentation, Coatue estimated that Anthropic would lose $14 billion in EBITDA on $18 billion in revenue in 2026, ending the year with $30 billion in annualized run-rate revenue. Most recently, it’s been reported that Anthropic is at $19 billion in ARR, which could suggest Anthropic is already running ahead of Coatue’s expectations. By 2031, Coatue projected that Anthropic would be generating $48 billion in EBITDA profits on $200 billion in revenue, with $224 billion of ARR. That would give Anthropic a 41x forward EBITDA multiple at a projected $1.995 trillion valuation in 2030. Coatue told the investors it was pitching that Anthropic could be worth $2.413 trillion in 2031. In February, Coatue co-led a $30 billion Series G investment in Anthropic that valued it at $380 billion. Coatue declined to comment on this story. I first shared this slide and talked about the presentation on my new podcast, the Cerebral Valley Show, which I host with my CVAI co-hosts Max Child and James Wilsterman. I’ve got a few other slides from the Coatue presentation for Newcomer subscribers.
How Foreign-Trained Health Workers Saved the NHS £14 Billion
This blog is part of a series focused on the UK’s recruitment of foreign-trained health workers. This first blog details the amount of money the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has saved by recruiting foreign-trained health workers. The second blog examines whether this saving is offset by foreign aid contributions to health systems strengthening (HSS) and human resources for health (HRH) in countries of origin.
Pay cuts, poaching, and pivoting: Inside Scale AI after Meta
Five months after Meta's $14 billion deal, Scale AI has lost some of its gleam, with workers sniping about pay, and rivals coming for its clientele.
Magnum Ice Cream valued at $9.1 billion in Amsterdam listing
Shares in the Magnum Ice Cream Company traded at 12.8 euros per share on Monday, implying a market capitalisation of 7.84 billion euros ($9.14 billion), as the company finalised its long-awaited spinoff from Unilever to list in Amsterdam.