Turkey's new Wall Street-trained finance chief will kick off a global investment roadshow at the G20 summit in New Delhi on Friday to drum up support for his rescue...

'Love Island USA' fans accuse producers of 'sabotaging connections' on dating show

Today's MLS rumors include Lionel Messi being linked with a move back to Barcelona. Wayne Rooney could be the next Birmingham City manager and Phil Neville is in contention to be the next head coach of the New England Revolution.

'Mrs Doubtfire' star Robin Williams improvised enough for "almost two million feet" of footage for the classic comedy, with plenty of unseen film from the shoot.

By Rae Wee SINGAPORE The dollar wobbled near an over one-year low against its major peers on Tuesday,

Donald Trump notched a win in the fight over a protective order in the 2020 election case as the judge ruled that some of the evidence that will be provided to him in the pre-trial discovery process won’t be restricted from dissemination if it’s not deemed “sensitive” by the government. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday that the protective order will only apply to sensitive materials such as grand jury transcripts, witness interview records, and other documents that could identify witnesses or be used to poison the pool of potential jurors who will be responsible for deciding the ex-president’s fate when he goes on trial next year. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office had asked her to impose a more restrictive order which would have applied to any and all materials provided to Mr Trump’s defence team in discovery, while Mr Trump’s attorneys had asked for her to allow the former president leave to talk about non-sensitive materials, citing his ongoing campaign for the Republican nomination in next year’s presidential election. Prosecutors had made the request for a broad protective order with the aim of preventing Mr Trump from poisoning the jury pool ahead of his expected trial next year, citing statements by the ex-president’s legal team which they said indicated a desire to try the case “in the press”. But Judge Chutkan, a former defence attorney and a nine-year veteran of the federal bench who was nominated by then-president Barack Obama and confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote in 2014, rejected the prosecution’s preferred language on the grounds that Mr Trump’s conduct with regard to the non-sensitive discovery is still governed by his release conditions and the rules of the court. More follows...

Corbin Burnes struck out the side in the sixth inning after nearly collapsing in the fifth in oppressive humidity, Victor Caratini singled in a run in the seventh and the Milwaukee Brewers beat the Cincinnati Reds 1-0 on Friday night

By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that the U.S. central bank

The U.S. Open semifinal between Coco Gauff and Karolina Muchova has been delayed early in the second set because of a disruption by climate protesters in the Arthur Ashe Stadium stands

Inflation-fatigued shoppers are heading to Walmart for groceries and essentials.

Manchester United were drawing 0-0 with West Ham in January 2022 when, with the minutes ticking down, Ralf Rangnick brought on Edinson Cavani and Anthony Martial. It proved a fine double change, with each involved in Marcus Rashford’s injury-time winner. Its significance now, however, is rather different. Mason Greenwood was one of those removed: now his 129th United appearance will prove his last. What should have been a glittering career at Old Trafford in effect ended a few months after his 20th birthday. For now, he is still under contract, but in limbo. A six-month investigation has brought the conclusion that Greenwood will not play for United again. He may be sold or loaned out. His contract could be paid up. He has not been sacked, which United say they would have done had they determined he was guilty of attempted rape, assault or coercive and controlling behaviour, the charges first levelled and then dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. But in January 2022, a week after Greenwood’s last game, pictures emerged of a bruised, bleeding woman, audio of a man seemingly threatening to rape her. That remains impossible to forget; to forgive, for many. Greenwood will not play for United again and nor should he. And so it is possible they reached the right decision, perhaps in the wrong way, possibly for the wrong reasons. There were plans to bring Greenwood back – though United insist they simply considered a variety of scenarios – and perhaps the most telling phrase in chief executive Richard Arnold’s statement was: “Further, this case has provoked strong opinions, and it is my responsibility to minimise any distraction to the unity we are seeking within the club.” Had Greenwood played again, it would have been Manchester Divided, not United. There were protests before Monday’s game against Wolves; there would have been far more were he to return to the team. The television presenter Rachel Riley said she would have stopped supporting United had Greenwood represented them again. She would not have been alone in that, either. The Manchester United Supporters Trust backed the decision not to bring him back, though not the lack of consultation for fans. There were staff at Old Trafford who felt it would be wrong to recall him, some of whom would not have wanted to encounter Greenwood in their line of work, maybe some who would have considered quitting their jobs. Perhaps United originally underestimated the strength of feeling. Perhaps, too, there were commercial considerations; the club’s image would have suffered considerable damage if he played, and has already been tainted. Because there is a tendency – often a wish – to celebrate footballers. But could United fans have cheered if Greenwood scored for them again? Would they have been in the awkward position of loving the shirt, hating the man wearing it? Footballers are imperfect people, as we all are, and some more than most, but there is a matter of character. The word is often used in football – when a team gets a late equaliser, when a player makes a comeback from injury – but there is a deeper meaning. If there is a moral test, Greenwood has failed it. Those who have been convicted of criminal offences have a right to work, let alone those who have not, but playing for Manchester United is not merely a job: it is a privilege. And if that invites questions as to at which level of football, if any, that stops being true and there is no definitive answer as to where Greenwood should be allowed to play, there could be a similar reaction at other clubs in England, should they try and sign him; it is still harder to imagine a scenario where he adds to his one cap for England. None of which makes him the victim. United argue they conducted a thorough investigation, showing concern for the woman in question, who has lifelong anonymity for legal reasons, speaking to her mother, showing her their findings, as well as a duty of care to Greenwood. Arnold said he was “satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”. None of which necessarily makes Greenwood innocent in the court of public opinion; as he accepted himself, his behaviour was wrong. “I fully accept I made mistakes, and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post,” he said. Yet if time is required to see if he does, as he has pledged to do, lead a better life and if there are reasons to keep some of the detail confidential, it would help to know if he has, for instance, spoken to a counsellor, or to victims of rape and domestic abuse, or donated to suitable charities. And if not, why not; these would not be automatically be admissions of guilt, but they would be a recognition he took the issues seriously. His other concern may seem trivial in comparison, though football can be a juxtaposition of the relevant and the irrelevant. But he has to find a club, with United pledging their help to do so. If his prime responsibility is to be a better partner and a good father, as he vowed, he may have a duty to himself to try and rescue his career and realise some of his potential. The teenage prodigy – the man Ole Gunnar Solskjaer deemed the best finisher at Old Trafford – had the talent to be a United great; he has not been found guilty of a crime or sacked by United, but it is still his fault he never will be. Read More Mason Greenwood will not play for Manchester United again, club announce Mason Greenwood speaks out on Manchester United exit: ‘I made mistakes’ Mason Greenwood timeline: How the Manchester United star fell from grace

For two years, it was the coronavirus pandemic