TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029363

TRUMP WORLD CUP SOCCER 2026 ... Tariff Point JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS World Cup Control — FIFA Says NO, Canada & Mexico Rise \|Jimmy Kimmel PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up9vhUDVM3M
JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS World Cup Control — FIFA Says NO, Canada & Mexico Rise \|Jimmy Kimmel Tariff Point Dec 23, 2025 3.22K subscribers ... 18,734 views ... 843 likes #jimmykimmel #jimmykimmellive #presidenttrump JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS World Cup Control — FIFA Says NO, Canada & Mexico Rise \| Jimmy Kimmel JUST IN: Trump demands control over World Cup decisions — and FIFA says no. In this episode, Jimmy Kimmel breaks down how power, sport, and politics collide as Canada and Mexico quietly rise on the global stage. With calm analysis, Jimmy Kimmel explains why FIFA’s refusal matters, how sovereignty is tested, and what this moment reveals about shifting influence. This is not just about football. Jimmy Kimmel connects the dots between diplomacy, trade pressure, and public trust. Watch as Jimmy Kimmel guides you beyond headlines, and see why Jimmy Kimmel believes this story reshapes how nations negotiate power. 00:00 – When Power Makes a Demand 03:30 – Was This Really About Safety? 07:00 – FIFA Draws the Line 10:30 – Risk, Uncertainty, and Quiet Calculations 14:00 – When the Spotlight Quietly Moves #jimmykimmel#jimmykimmellive#presidenttrump #donaldtrump #economy More video: • JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS Control of Canada’s... Popular videos: • JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS Control of Canada’s... Contact Email:soljad123@gmail.com Youtube JUST IN: Trump DEMANDS Control of Canada’s Water — Carney REFUSES, America STUNNED! \| Jimmy Kimmel ... by Tariff Point 1 MIN AGO: Trump COLLAPSES When Canada CANCELS The $12 Billion F-35 Fighter Jet Deal \| Jimmy Kimmel ... by Tariff Point hr> Peter Burgess COMMENTARY The reputational damage that the US is going through thanks to President Trump is difficult to comprehend. FIFA is becoming exhibit one for what I refer to as another marquis 'Trump fail'. The USA is lucky to get any FIFA world cup matches. When it comes to football ... that is soccer ... the USA is an afterthought. Many countries in Europe, Latin America and Africa are ahead of the USA by most metrics related to soccer! FIFA has come to North America much more because of Mexico and Canada than the USA ... but neither Trump nor the USA as a whole seem to understand this fact! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:15 When Power Makes a Demand The United States along with Mexico and Canada are slated to host the soccer matches, but President Donald Trump suggested he might ask FIFA to move matches from certain Democratic le cities. it would be if he feels crime there is too high or a city's leadership is not cooperating with the federal government. So we have a great Washington DC. We, as you probably know, we're going into Memphis and we're going into some other cities and very soon we're going to go into Chicago. With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them and football will survive their regime, their government, their slogans. Hello everyone, I'm Jimmy Kimmel. I hope you're having a good day and if you're celebrating, I want to wish you a very merry Christmas. Before we begin, if this channel helps you slow down, think 1:00 clearly, and look beyond the headlines. I'd appreciate your support. Please like the video, share it with someone who values calm analysis, and subscribe so you don't miss what's coming next. Today's story may sound like it's about football, but it's really about power, trust, and how quickly the spotlight can shift. Let's begin. Let's reflect on this for a moment. This story doesn't begin with a match or a stadium. It begins with a demand. Donald Trump declared that he could decide where the World Cup matches would be held and that he could move matches out of American cities he deemed unsafe. That wasn't presented as a request. It was presented as power. So, we have a great Washington DC. We, as you probably know, we're going into Memphis and we're going into some other cities and very soon we're going to go into Chicago. If we think there's going to be the sign of any trouble, I would ask Johnny to move that to a different city. We have a lot of cities that are will love to have it number one and will do it very safely. This wasn't just a challenge to FIFA. It was also an implicit rejection of the United States role as co-host. Canada 2:02 and Mexico were not treated as equal partners at the time. They were sidelined as if their cities security plans and commitments did not carry the same weight. As if hosting the World Cup were a privilege granted by Washington rather than a shared responsibility agreed upon years earlier. FIFA responded quickly and without drama. The answer was simple. No. The World Cup is not controlled by presidents or political pressure. It belongs to global football. That refusal changed everything. With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them and football will survive their regime, their government, their slogans. While Trump was loudly asserting control, something quieter was unfolding. Trust was being tested. Reliability was being weighed. And in that moment, Canada and Mexico began to stand out, not through headlines, but through preparation and stability. This video is about that shift when power was asserted and the spotlight moved elsewhere quietly and without apology. If you want to keep following moments 3:01 like these, where power is tested and the real story unfolds beneath the noise, subscribe to the channel and follow me. When Donald Trump spoke about moving World Cup matches out of US cities he considered unsafe, he framed it as a question of security. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But safety was never the real issue. I want you to remember this. World Cup 2026 was once seen as America's stage. A global showcase meant to highlight US leadership, stability, and openness to the world. And that is why this moment 3:30 Was This Really About Safety? matters. If safety were truly the concern, those discussions would have taken place quietly through established channels with FIFA. Instead, Trump chose to speak publicly and unilaterally as if the tournament were his to rearrange. That shift changed everything. In that instant, the conversation moved away from logistics and toward power, away from cooperation and toward control. And when a host nation begins treating a global event as personal leverage, trust doesn't collapse loudly. It begins to slip quietly and decisively. I want you 4:01 to answer this with a simple word. Do you believe this was really about safety? Comment yes if you think safety was the true concern. Comment no if you believe this was about control. After Trump's statement, many people expected a fight. Loud words, public arguments. That did not happen. Within just a few hours, FIFA issued its own response. Rather than escalating the situation, the organization chose to speak through Victor Montalani, FIFA's vice president and head of Kanka. His statement was carefully crafted, firm in authority, measured in tone, and quietly warning that there are limits no political leader can cross. He simply explained a basic truth. The World Cup does not belong to any president, any government, or any political system. Countries may host the matches, but FIFA controls the tournament. With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them, and football will survive their regime, their government, their slogan. For people watching around the world, 5:01 especially those who value order and stability, the message was easy to understand. There are rules. Those rules were agreed to years ago and no single leader can change them with a statement. By letting Montalani speak, FIFA was doing more than responding. It was protecting the system calmly, clearly, and without emotion. And in that moment, the world was reminded of something important. Power can speak loudly, but structure always speaks last. If you believe these quieter moments matter, please share this video with someone who would appreciate it. No matter how confident Donald Trump sounded, he did not have the authority to move World Cup matches. That power does not belong to any president. The 2026 World Cup was planned years in advance. 16 host cities were officially approved across North America, 11 in the United States, two in Canada, and three in Mexico. Each city signed binding agreements with FIFA long before any political statement was made. By the time Trump spoke, stadium renovations were already underway. 6:00 Transportation plans were in place. Security arrangements, insurance policies, and global broadcasting schedules had been finalized. Billions of dollars had already been committed across governments, sponsors, and media partners. I want you to imagine what it would take to change even one match. It would mean reopening hundreds of contracts involving dozens of countries and organizations. That simply cannot be done by a single leader or a public remark. This is why FIFA responded so firmly. Trump spoke as if control were immediate. But the World Cup operates on structure, rules, and long-term commitments. And while nothing changed on paper that day, something important changed in perception. The world began to quietly ask whether the United States truly understood the responsibility of hosting the world. And that question does not disappear easily. If this helped you understand how the World Cup actually works beyond headlines and statements, please take a moment to like the video. It helps this kind of calm fact-based analysis reach more people. After Donald Trump's 7:01 FIFA Draws the Line remarks, the issue was no longer about tone or politics. It became about real conditions on the ground. Conditions that international organizers could measure, document, and compare. Reports cited by global media pointed to a troubling reality. In a single year, the United States recorded more than 500 mass shootings. This was not an isolated spike. It reflected a pattern of gun violence that had become familiar, frequent, and unpredictable. For an organization responsible for protecting millions of visiting fans, players, and officials, that number carried serious weight. At the same time, large protests and political unrest continued across several major American cities, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York. These were not abstract names on a map. They were official host cities preparing to welcome the world. For older fans, families, and international visitors, unpredictability itself became a source of fear. Not knowing when a protest might turn violent, not knowing how quickly authorities could respond, not knowing whether local and federal agencies were aligned. Safety at this 8:00 point was no longer a theoretical promise. It was a risk calculation. Then there was the matter of access. Previous World Cup hosts understood that welcoming the world required simplicity. In Russia and Qatar, fans were allowed to enter with a ticket and basic identification. The process was fast, clear, and predictable. The United States was different. The American visa system remained slow and complex. Many fans faced long waiting periods, high costs, and the constant possibility of denial without explanation. For people traveling with families or on fixed incomes, that uncertainty felt unsafe before the journey even began. One journalist captured the contrast plainly. In Russia, you need a ticket. In the US, you need time, money, and a miracle. Taken together, these factors created a dangerous mix. Not because violence was guaranteed, but because confidence was steadily eroding. And for an event as large as the World Cup, the loss of confidence is itself a security threat. That is when organizations like FIFA 9:00 stop debating intentions and begin preparing alternatives quietly, carefully, and without public alarm. What do you think? When does uncertainty become a real security risk? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Quietly, senior officials began preparing what they called contingency planning. In simple terms, they were asking a difficult question. What happens if conditions in the United States become too unpredictable to manage smoothly? The response was not dramatic. It was technical. FIFA planners began reviewing the matches that matter most. quarterfinals, semi-finals, and other high-profile games that draw the largest crowds and the greatest global attention. These are the matches with the highest visibility and the highest risk if anything goes wrong. I want you to notice what this really meant. They were not discussing cancellations. They were discussing where importance should sit. That is why Canada and Mexico quietly moved to the center of the conversation. Officials examined whether more highstakes matches could be hosted there, not because those countries demanded anything, but because they 10:00 offered something FIFA values above all else, predictability. Any possible adjustments were framed carefully. Discussions focused on neutral technical factors, logistics, travel efficiency, weather, broadcast scheduling, time zones, transportation flow, and stadium readiness. Each factor made sense on its own. Taken together, they pointed in the same direction. Think about what that means. Moving a single quarterfinal may sound minor. Shifting a semi-final can seem like a practical detail, but when key matches move, the tournament center 10:30 Risk, Uncertainty, and Quiet Calculations of gravity moves with them. Media attention follows. Sponsors adjust. Global audiences attach their memories elsewhere. This was not punishment. It was risk management. FIFA's priority is protecting the integrity and credibility of the tournament. That means avoiding chaos, uncertainty, and lastminute emergencies. When stability becomes uneven across host nations, FIFA does not wait for a crisis. It prepares alternatives quietly, carefully, and without headlines. From the outside, the World Cup still appeared balanced. But 11:01 inside planning rooms, assumptions were changing. The United States was no longer treated as the automatic center. It became one option among others. Canada and Mexico, by staying calm, organized, and predictable, became the safer choice. This is how power shifts in global events. Not through speeches or confrontation, but through technical decisions that sound ordinary and change everything. By the time the public notices, the spotlight has already moved. And before we continue, take a moment to check that you're subscribed because the most important shifts rarely announce themselves, and this channel follows them step by step. FIFA planners began reviewing the allocation of major matches. quarterfinals, semi-finals, high-profile games that draw the largest crowds, the biggest television audiences, and the most international attention. These matches carry higher risk, higher visibility, and far greater consequences if anything goes wrong. I want you to notice something important here. They were not talking about cancelling games. They were talking about moving 12:00 importance. Canada and Mexico became central to those discussions. Officials examined whether additional highstakes matches could be hosted there instead. Not because those countries demanded it, but because they offered predictability. The adjustments were framed carefully. When changes were discussed, they were explained using neutral technical language. Logistics, travel efficiency, weather conditions, broadcast scheduling, time zones, transportation flow, stadium readiness. These are all legitimate considerations in a tournament of this scale. But taken together, they pointed in one direction. I want you to think about what this really meant. Moving a single quarterfinal may seem minor. Shifting a semi-final might appear technical, but when key matches move, the center of gravity moves with them. Media attention follows. Sponsors adjust. Global audiences focus their attention elsewhere. This was not punishment. It was risk management. FIFA has one priority above all others. Protecting 13:00 the integrity and credibility of the tournament. That means avoiding chaos, uncertainty, and lastminute emergencies. And when stability becomes uneven across host nations, FIFA does not wait for a crisis to act. It prepares alternatives quietly, carefully, without headlines. From the outside, the World Cup still looked balanced. But inside planning rooms, the emphasis was changing. The United States was no longer assumed to be the automatic center. It became one option among others. and Canada and Mexico by staying calm, organized, and predictable became the safe choice. This is how power shifts in global events, not with speeches, not with confrontation, but with technical decisions that sound boring and change everything. By the time the public notices, the spotlight has already moved. And before we move on, take a quick moment to check whether you're subscribed because the biggest shifts don't happen with headlines. They happen they happen quietly. And this channel is where we follow those quiet changes step 14:00 When the Spotlight Quietly Moves by step. I want you to step back and look at what this really means for the United States. On paper, nothing dramatic has changed. The United States was awarded 11 of the 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup. And that remains true. Officially, America is still the largest host in the tournament. But here is the distinction that matters. Being a host is not the same as being the center. The center of the World Cup is not decided by how many cities are listed on a document. It is decided by where the most important matches are played. The quarterfinals, the semifinals, the moments that carry the highest global attention and define how the tournament is remembered. This is where the risk quietly emerged. As FIFA reviewed contingency plans, the possibility appeared that the United States could lose some of those spotlight matches. Not through punishment, not through a public decision, but through gradual, cautious rebalancing. Think about how that happens. One major match is reassigned for logistical reasons. Another is 15:01 adjusted because of weather or broadcast timing. Each decision sounds technical. Each one seems minor, but together they reshape the tournament. When fewer defining matches take place in one country, attention shifts, media coverage follows, sponsors adapt, and the emotional memory of the World Cup begins forming elsewhere. This matters because the 20126 World Cup was once seen as America's stage, a moment to present leadership, stability, and openness to the world. That expectation did not disappear suddenly. It weakened over time as confidence slowly eroded. For FIFA, trust is practical, not symbolic. It means knowing systems will work under pressure. When that trust becomes uneven, FIFA adapts. Canada and Mexico did not need to replace the United States. They only needed to appear more predictable. And in global events of this scale, predictability is power. The United States does not need to lose the World Cup to lose status. It 16:00 only needs to lose confidence. When that happens, decisions move away quietly. No announcement, no ceremony, just fewer defining moments and a spotlight that no longer rests where it once did. Because what we've just walked through was never really about football. It was about how trust works and how easily it can be misplaced. The 2026 World Cup was once imagined as America's stage. A moment for the United States to open its doors to the world and show stability, confidence, and leadership. On paper, that opportunity still exists. The stadiums remain, the host cities remain, the contracts remain. But trust does not live on paper. Trust lives in predictability, in restraint, in the quiet confidence that systems will hold when pressure arrives. And once that trust begins to weaken, it doesn't collapse in public. It simply moves on. What happened here is a lesson larger than any tournament. When power is asserted too loudly, it often exposes its own limits. When leadership confuses control with credibility, the result is 17:01 not strength. It is doubt. FIFA did not confront. It did not punish. It adjusted calmly technically. And in doing so, it showed how global systems protect themselves. They shift weight. They reduce risk. They follow stability. Canada and Mexico did not take the spotlight by demanding it. They earned it by offering something rare in uncertain times, reliability. And the United States did not lose its place through a single decision. It risked losing it through a series of moments where confidence quietly eroded. This is how influence fades in the modern world. Not with dramatic endings, not with public defeats, but with fewer defining moments, fewer chances to lead, and fewer reasons for the world to look your way. So, when the final whistle blows in 2026, what matters won't just be who hosted the most matches. It will be where the world felt safe, welcomed, and confident. Because in the end, leadership is not claimed. It is trusted. And trust, once lost, rarely announces where it goes next. If this 18:01 analysis helped you see how power, trust, and stability really shape global events, make sure you're subscribed. Stay with the channel because the most important shifts rarely announce themselves, and we'll continue following them as they unfold.

SITE COUNT