Updated Mar 27, 2018

May avoids taking U.K.–Russia clash to the soccer field

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich at Stamford Bridge in London. Abramovich, a Russian oligarch, is reported to have a friendly relationship with President Putin. Photo: Clive Rose via Getty Images

Prime Minister Theresa May's expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats sent a strong message to Russia after its nerve-agent attack on British soil earlier this month. She has refrained, however, from bringing the dispute to one of the largest world stages: the soccer field.

Why it matters: Boycotting the FIFA World Cup in Moscow this June is arguably the most powerful symbolic retaliation Britain could take against Russia. But there may simply be too much money and public emotion invested for May to do so.

The background: Over the past generation, England’s Premier League has become the world’s most globalized sports league, and two of the top six clubs are owned by people close to Putin: one is Alisher Usmanov, a partial owner of Arsenal; the other is Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich, who, after acquiring the team in full in 2003, spent lavishly from his Russian energy fortune to make Chelsea a world-class contender while laundering his reputation. (A Russian flag now flies over Chelsea’s stadium.)

Abramovich would be a prime target for British retaliation, but neither fans nor Premier League commercial partners would welcome government investigations into his wealth, as some are urging May to order.

And while Prince William and other high-level officials have announced they will no longer attend the World Cup, almost no one beyond a fringe few in Parliament are seriously considering pulling the English team. As important as the World Cup is to Putin, it's even more important to England's people and commercial interests.

The bottom line: During the Cold War, critics scoffed at sports-oriented diplomatic action, like Olympic boycotts, as pure symbolism. Now such moves seem off the table, deemed too controversial to consider. If the U.K. ever decides to leverage soccer against Russia, we'll know things have gotten serious.

Andres Martinez is a professor at Arizona State University's Cronkite School of Journalism and the editorial director of Future Tense at New America.

Go deeper

America's funeral homes buckle under the coronavirus

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Morgues, funeral homes and cemeteries in hot spots across America cannot keep up with the staggering death toll of the coronavirus pandemic.

Why it matters: The U.S. has seen more than 10,000 deaths from the virus, and at least tens of thousands more lives are projected to be lost. The numbers are creating unprecedented bottlenecks in the funeral industry — and social distancing is changing the way the families say goodbye to their loved ones.

Navarro memos warning of mass coronavirus death circulated in January

Image from a memo to President Trump

In late January, President Trump's economic adviser Peter Navarro warned his White House colleagues the novel coronavirus could take more than half a million American lives and cost close to $6 trillion, according to memos obtained by Axios.

The state of play: By late February, Navarro was even more alarmed, and he warned his colleagues, in another memo, that up to two million Americans could die of the virus.

Go deeperArrowUpdated 2 hours ago - Health

Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index: The virus hits home

Data: Ipsos/Axios poll; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios

The share of Americans who know someone who's tested positive has more than tripled in just a few weeks, to 14%, according to the latest installment of our Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

  • It's still highest in the Northeast, but last week alone it doubled in the South — and it's becoming most pronounced among people who still must leave home to work.
Go deeperArrow2 hours ago - Health