Toronto's World Cup ambitions not as rosy as portrayed

Toronto and Vancouver were sold a bill of goods when the two Canadian cities decided to bid for hosting of some of the FIFA World Cup 2026 games.

It's happened time and time again that countries and cities get all gung ho about major sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup. It's such an alluring idea, to invite the world to your city, to help celebrate one of the biggest international sporting events. Can you feel a "but" coming?

BUT ... however much cities and countries try to convince themselves that hosting World Cup events is a good idea, a no-brainer even, history tells us that it's really not. 12 of the last 14 World Cups have proved to be financial busts for the host countries, in some cases spectacularly so, like Brazil 2014, which precipitated a national economic emergency. (The Olympics is very much the same: the last Olympics to actually pay its way was Los Angeles in 1984.) 

While Toronto and Vancouver opted in to this risky venture, It's notable that Montreal and Chicago both considered participation and decided against it.

Part of the problem is cost overruns, which are now standard in World Cup bids. When Toronto initally bid on the World Cup, back in 2018, it estimated a cost to the city's taxpayers of $30-$45 million. Just 8 years later, that cost has ballooned to well over $300 million. If a city got it that wrong for any other development project, it would be considered a national scandal and heads would roll. But, because it's the World Cup, and therefore by definition a Good Thing, such overruns are swept under a very large carpet. 

According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the country as a whole is sinking over $1 billion into just thirteen World Cup games (six omin Totonto, and seven in Vancouver). The federal government is to cover $473 million of that, with the rest coming from other levels if government. Different estimates show Toronto on the hook for $380 million, and Vancouver an eye-watering $578 million.

Another element of the problem is the way that FIFA operates. Cities are expected to pay for the privilege of hosting the event, while FIFA reaps all its money up front. FIFA also makes many very specific, and very expensive, demands on host cities, as I have kvetched about before.

And finally, there is the revenue side. The usual justification for putting on these big events is that they are "investments" in the tourism and hospitality industries. Some proponents have been claiming, with little or no justification, that Canada's participation in the World Cup will generate up to $4 billion in potential revenue and economic benefits. FIFA itself puts that figure at $940 million, but even that seems a stretch. 

Yes, the World Cup provides a showcase for host cities (although that can also have negative repercussions if not everything goes perfectly). Typically, these events may generate a short-term boost to tourism, but very little long-term benefit. Remember as well hat this year's World Cup is spread over 16 different cities thoughout the USA, Mexico and Canada, thus dissipating any tourism boist. 

And one other consideration: some visitors that might have come to Toronto for other sports events, music concerts, or just to explore the city and its culture, may actually put that visit on hold while all the World Cup craziness is underway, a corollary that usually gets conveniently forgotten.

Now, I'm not saying that Toronto and other cities were just plain wrong to bid for World Cup games (although personally I would have preferred not be involved). I'm just saying that falling onto a billion dollar hole without eyes wide open is foolhardy in the extreme. Part of having eyss wide open is acknowledging that we'll probably be paying for this boondoggle for many years to come.

Americans are fleeing Trump's USA in droves

Donald Trump may have succeeded in forcing out a lot of immigrants, something that might still come back to bite the country. But a lot of other non-immigrants are following the immigrants out of the USA.

Under Trump, the US is experiencing significant net emigration for the first time in over a century, with more citizens leaving the country than arriving. And Donald Trump himself is a big reason, although not the only one: along with disgust with Trump are the rising cost of living (arguably also Trump's fault), gun violence (which Trump has certainly done nothing to improve), and an inability to achieve economic prosperity. 

Thousands are deliberately giving up their citizenship, while many others are choosing to live abroad in pleasanter, cheaper, quieter places like Mexico, Portugal, Ireland, Bali, Colombia, Thailand or Canada, to study, work remotely, or retire. Comprehensive statistics are hard to come by, but net migration can be built up from a variety of sources. Estimates suggest that at least 400,000 Americans voluntarily left the USA in 2025.

And this shouldn't come as a surprise: a Gallup poll shows that about one-in-five Americans would prefer to leave permanently, given a chance, and two-in-five women between the ages of 15 and 44. This was six months ago; the numbers can only be higher today.

As one woman put it: "If you can't achieve in the United States what was once called 'the American Dream', then why stay here? There is a disgraceful President, health insurance that costs more than a salary, and a Supreme Court that decided my body doesn't belong to me. My husband and I are now looking at options, and by the end of the year we will leave."

Yeah, she's got a point.

These are not low-earning, fly-by-night immigrants that are choosing to leave the USA; they are typically high-earning well-educated Americans. Of course, Trump would probably just say "good riddance, they are all Democrats", which is probably true. But, in true Trumpian style, that would be short-term blinkered reasoning.

You can see why senior assassin raises hackles

If you have kids of a certain age, or if you are at least moderately well-informed in general, you will probably have heard of a popular kids' game called "senior assassin".

I don't know who came up with the name but, thankfully, it doesn't actually involve killing old people. (At least not yet.) It is, however, becoming more than a little controversial. Many kids love it, of course. Many PARENTS love it too, as it gets their kids outside and off their screens. Some parents, though, dislike it. Police and school officials typically HATE it.

Senior assassin is essentially a game of tag with over-sized Nerf-style water pistols. 12th-graders in particular are using it as a kind of rite of passage, marking the end of their schooldays/childhoods, and their passage into the big bad grown-up world (or at least college/university). 

The idea of the game is that they attempt to catch their assigned target with their neon-coloured plastic water guns, eliminating their quarry while avoiding being eliminated themselves. The twist is: no-one knows who is targeting whom, and the assignments are constantly changing as players are eliminated; dedicated apps are used to organize and track the game. There are safe zones, and, bizarrely, you can claim immunity by wearing swim goggles. At the end of the week, the last person standing is the "winner", for what that's worth.

Well, so far so good, I guess. There are some general behaviour rules: be respectful; no trespassing; no chasing people in cars; and no realistic-looking guns. But, of course, kids will be kids, and some of them like to push the rules to the logical limit, and often well beyond. 

There has been a string of unfortunate incidents around the game, including a teen in Guelph, Ontario, who was arrested at gunpoint by police last year when his water gun was mistaken for a real firearm, and a viral video of a homeless person in Kenora, Ontario, being targeted from a car. So much for the rules. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, just this week, a senior assassin player got caught up in a police chase of real gun criminals.

Some schools not only discourage senior assassin but actively ban it, arguing that it is disruptive and potentially dangerous. Some police departments have warned against it too, especially given the very real fears some people in some areas have about gun violence.

Now, I'm all for kids playing outside as the weather warms up. But does it have to involve shooting, whether pretend or not? And does it have to be so feverish, intense and viral?

How Trump's obsession with "deals" blinds him to the bigger picture

Out of the blue, the Trump administration, through some Pentagon "Under Secretary" or other, has announced that it is putting on hold, pending review, the US-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD).  

The US says it us "pausing" its participation in the PJBD because it says that Canada has "failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments" (i.e. military spending targets), even though Canada has, for the first time in decades, just increased its defence budget to meet or exceed NATO targets. It also wants to "reassess how this forum benefits shared North American defense", it says, as though that is not obvious. The announcement was made on X, so it must be official and important, right?

Now, most Americans and Canadians have probably never even heard of the PJBD, but it is a reasonably important advisory body and part of the joint North American security apparatus. Made up of senior Canadian and US defence officials, it is perhaps best known for setting up and administering the North American Air Defense command (NORAD) early warning system, although it does have other functions too. It was established in 1940, during the Second World War, and is an important symbol of the bilateral relationship between the two countries. And yes, as the name suggests, it is permanent.

Of course, the US could just as well review the Board's value and efficacy without putting it on hold. That, and the conspicuous timing of the announcement, is how you know that this actually has nothing to do with regional security and military preparedness, but has everything to do with Donald Trump's peevishness at Prime Minster Mark Carney's very public comments (particularly his Davos speech) about Canada's realignment away from an unreliable and antagonistic United States in favour of more reliable partners in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. 

It's also a pressure tactic to get Canada to buy more American military equipment (e.g. F-35 fighter jets), given Canada's recent pivot away from the US and towards more dependable, decent and welcoming providers in Europe and South Korea.

And last but not least, it is also very much about strong-arming Canada and softening us up as we start to get into the nitty-gritty phase of the scheduled renegotiation of the Canada United States Mexico Agreement on free trade. 

This, then, is all part of "the art of the deal".

Now, I have never read Trump's book The Art of the Deal, nor am I ever likely to. But it seems pretty clear to me that this kind of intimidation and duress masquerading as negotiation tactics is never going to foster long-term relationships and goodwill. All it does is piss people (and whole nations) off. This combative and transactional approach to negotiations - reliant, as it is, on an existing economic and military dominance that Trump himself was not responsible for building up - may make some short-term gains for the US, but only at the expense of its other "partners", and to the detriment of the relationship as a whole.

Trump's frenzied quest for wins of any kind and at any cost (viz. his Iran war), and his psychologically unbalanced pursuit of "deals", will not win him any friends. I don't even know what "friends" means in Trumpian terms: this is a man who calls Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping "friends", apparently blissfully unaware of just how much they despise him. Maybe Canada can be friends with the USA again one day, but that's not going to happen while Donald Trump is in power. His willful destructiveness will take decades, maybe even generations, to repair.

Kratom is not just a made-up word

It's funny how cultural innovations and fads can completely pass me by until they are no longer either modish or edgy. I guess it's just the circles I move in (or don't).

Either way, I had never heard of "kratom" until I read an article about how it has become wildly popular and even a significant source of addiction and other mental health problems in the USA (and, I'm guessing, also in Canada, to a lesser extent).

Kratom, it turns out, is a plant from southeast Asia that is widely used - in the form of powders, liquid shots, pills and teas - to treat a variety of illnesses. Recently, though, it has become extremely popular in the USA, even though about half of US states either ban or severely restrict and regulate it, and it is not approved for any medical use by the US Drug Enforcement Administration. An estimated 5 million Americans use or have used kratom, with the 21-34 year old demographic reporting the highest use.

It is used at low doses as a stimulant to boost physical energy, focus and alertness, and at higher doses as an opioid-like pain and anxiety treatment, and also for opioid withdrawal symptoms.

The DEA has flagged kratom as a drug or chemical of concern, especially given that synthetic derivatives of kratom, which can be easily bought at gas stations, smoke shops and online, may be five to fifty times more potent than regular kratom. According to studies, "most people" who currently use or have used kratom have a substance abuse disorder, report cannabis use, or exhibit some kind of psychological distress or major depression, although it is not yet clear from the studies whether the kratom use or the mental health symptoms came first. Another area of concern is the ease with which minors can obtain kratom or its analogues.

So, there you go: kratom. Never heard of it, but lots of other people clearly have.

Has America lost another war?

The United States is not used to losing. Whether we're talking sports, military conflicts, cultural exports, economic power, you name it, the US has been without doubt the most successful country in the world over the last couple of centuries.

That said, it has over-reached itself a few times, especially militarily. The War of 1812 with Canada, Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, Afghanistan in the 2000s and 2010s, arguably even Iraq in the 2000s - these were all either American losses or at least stalemates that did not achieve their objectives.

Is Iran 2026 another such failure?

There are arguments to say so. While Donald Trump has claimed overwhelming victory almost since Day 1 and at least a dozen times since, no-one really believes that guy. Although Trump has repeatedly claimed that Iran's military capabilities have been "obliterated" (his favourite word after "tariffs"), other sources suggest that Iran has retained or restored operational access to 30 of its 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, and that it retains about 70% of its mobile launchers and it's pre-war missile stockpiles. 

Trump seems to be dialling back his earlier insistence that he needs Iran's nuclear stockpiles, or that at the very least they should be destroyed. And while the US "took out" Ayatollah Ali Khomeini early on in the action, Iran has seamlessly replaced him with his son, and the regime has continued essentially unchanged. The Strait of Hormuz is still far from "open". Iran remains a key player in the Middle East.

Of course, part of the problem here is establishing what would constitute an American victory, as Trump and his whole administration seem a bit confused about what the actual goals of the engagement are or were. Success and failure are therefore pretty hard to pin down. Also, as has been argued by better men than me, military leaders rarely actually admit defeat: their whole credibility rests on success.

Either way, whether you believe the USA has won the Iran war or not, Iran certainly believes - and with some justification - that it has not lost it. Iran has, at the very least, made America look like what the Chinese like to call a "paper tiger". People are muttering, online and in the street, that the US will not soon recover from this set-back.

A plague of frogs?

I obviously missed it at the time, but back in the innocent days of June 2005, a rather bizarre event occurred in the small town of Odžaci in northern Serbia, when storm clouds gathered and thousands of frogs rained down total the ground.

Traffic ground to a standstill and the locals ran for cover as "countless" frogs fell from the air with the rain. The frogs, described as different from the frogs usually seen in the area, seemed to survive the fall, and just hopped away, to everyone's surprise.

This is an unusual, but not unique, occurrence. A downpour of frogs has been reported in Tournai, Belgium in 1625, in Lille, France in 1794, in Kansas City, USA in 1873. Pink frogs were reported to have rained on two towns in Gloucestershire, UK as recently as 1987. 

And frogs are not the only animals to fall from the sky: the small town of Yoro, Honduras celebrates an annual Festival de la Lluvia de Peces (Festival of the Fish Rain), when a rain of small silvery fish falls once or twice a year. If it's happening, I guess you may as well celebrate it!

This is not quite the Biblical plague of frogs described in Exodus 8 verses 1-15. That was actually a much less impressive event, where an unspecified number of frogs ("abundant", millions?) came out of the river (the Nile?) and "covered the land of Egypt", getting "into the houses of your servants, onto your people, into your ovens, and into your kneading bowls". No, not the kneading bowls! Deprived of water, the frogs eventually began to die off, causing a "great stench".

This must have been concerning, but the divine threat "I will smite all your territory with frogs" was perhaps not one of the Lord's most chilling. Certainly, it didn't change Pharaoh's mind on the captivity of the Israelites, because God tried eight other plagues after the frogs.

There is of course a perfectly good explanation for all these miracles, and it doesn't involve God or smiting. Regarding the rain of frogs, there is a freak meteorological event called a waterspout, where a small tornado forms over water, sucking up any lightweight objects into its extremely low-pressure centre. When the tornado loses energy and dissipates, it rains its contents to the ground wherever it happens to be. Some waterspouts can travel hundreds of kilometers, but usually they only travel a few kilometers from their source. 

The Biblical plague of frogs can have many natural explanations (as do the other plagues and miraculous events mentioned in the Bible), from a regular migration to a one-off stress reaction caused by water pollution or algae blooms or bacterial or viral agents or increased water temperatures or drying up of parts of the river due to short-term climate events or Super El Niño years.

Weird things happen in nature. You can understand that ancient religious leaders (the politicians of their day) might have been tempted to use them for their own advantage, much like even more ancient leaders used knowledge of astronomical events, extreme weather, etc, to bamboozle and control their naïve citizens.

US position on Taiwan remains unchanged, but Trump can turn on a dime

For the most part, Donald Trump's visit to China was a bit of a nothingburger, despite his usual bombastic and delusional reporting. No big deals, and very few small deals.

Of course, the subject of Taiwan had to come up at some point in the visit, and, of course, President Xi urged Trump not to support Taiwan, which China claims as part of its own territory. Trump, for his part, blathered something about "not looking for somebody to go independent", which might or might not be a veiled and confusing warning to Taiwan not to declare its independence, which is has already done for decades. He did say that "if you kept it the way it is, I think China's going to be OK with that", which is also absolutely not true.

Trump added that "nothing's changed" with respect to the USA's policy on Taiwan, which amounts to not formally supporting Taiwanese independence, while stopping short of explicitly opposing independence, a kind of sensible on-the-fence position, given the circumstances. The average Taiwanese citizen just wants to maintain the current status quo, i.e. neither formally declaring independence, but not unifying with China either, what you might call de facto independence.

Of course, the first thing Taiwan did after Trump's visit was to publicly re-declare their independence: Taiwan "is a sovereign and independent democratic nation and is not subordinate to the People's Republic of China", read an unequivocal foreign ministry statement. Taiwan's Presidential Office reminded the world of "the multiple reaffirmations from the US side, including from President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that the consistent US policy toward Taiwan remain unchanged".

This, of course, puts the US in an awkward position, especially as President Xi was at pains to remind Trump that any misstep on the issue could cause "conflict". 

But Taiwan too needs to tread carefully. The United States is legally required to provide weapons to Taiwan for its defence (stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act), and an $11.1 billion arms package was announced by Washington just this last December. But a second phase of arms sales, worth around $15 billion, has not yet been approved by the US, and Taiwan must know that Trump would be more than willing to use that as a bargaining chip in his relations with China (in fact, he admitted as much, in so many words). Taiwan might think that that deal is done, dusted and non-negotiable, but Trump almost certainly does not.