Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Plumley, Principal Lecturer in Sport Finance, Sheffield Hallam University

At its peak in the 1990s and 2000s, Manchester United was the reference point in professional club football around the globe. It set the commercial agenda, dominated the game domestically and projected power far beyond the pitch. That era now feels distant – not because ambition has faded, but because competence in execution has.

Manchester United’s latest chapter, the sacking of manager Ruben Amorim, has been framed as a necessary football decision. The team’s results were inconsistent and its performances uneven.

Yet focusing on Amorim alone risks missing the wider truth. Manchester United is stuck in a cycle of poor business decisions off the field. The arrival of petrochemical billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos to assist majority owners the Glazer family in 2023 has not broken it.

Ineos was brought in as a corrective force, promising modern governance, football expertise and significant investment in infrastructure. At the time, it stated that it wanted to see Manchester United back at the “very top” of English, European and world football.

Fast forward a couple of years and that aim already looks in jeopardy. Instead, the club continues to display the same damaging tendencies that have defined the era after Sir Alex Ferguson’s legendary management period between 1986 and 2013.

These tendencies include reacting to the performances on the pitch rather than prioritising the long-term vision and allowing managerial changes to disrupt wider restructuring projects. Staff redundancies, plans for a new stadium and the latest managerial sacking have all drawn criticisms from fans, analysts and journalists, who often take aim at the way Ineos has structured the hierarchy at the club.

Manchester United’s operating model has become predictable. First, the club appoints a “project” manager – someone with a clearly defined philosophy and a reputation for innovation. Expectations are set high, often publicly, with talk of culture change and long-term vision.

Next comes the structural failure. Recruitment and wage strategy are not aligned to the manager’s philosophy, creating a disconnect between the board, technical director and the manager. Players are inherited who do not fit the system, while new signings are compromises driven by availability, commercial logic or short-term pressure rather than long-term squad building. Power is split between executives, technical directors and owners, leaving the head coach as the scapegoat.

Under-performance then follows. This is not always catastrophic, but it is enough to trigger anxiety at board level and among supporters. The squad looks mismatched, results fluctuate and narratives of decline re-emerge.

Finally, the reset button is pressed. The manager is dismissed, the “culture” is blamed, and the cycle begins again. Reports since Amorim’s sacking have detailed tensions over control, recruitment and tactical direction.

Amorim publicly hinted at frustrations behind the scenes, while leadership including CEO Omar Berrada, director of football Jason Wilcox, and director of recruitment, Christopher Vivell, appeared unconvinced that his approach suited the club’s needs. What is striking is not that the relationship broke down, but how familiar the breakdown felt.

The question should not be whether Amorim was perfect – few managers are. It is whether Manchester United ever created the ecosystem required for him to succeed. The evidence suggests they did not.

Amorim was hired for his clearly defined system and his personality as a modern, progressive coach. But he walked into a squad built for very different managers and ideas. Clear lines of responsibility never fully emerged, and football decisions – or a shared footballing philosophy – struggled to filter down through the club’s corporate structure.

Amorim himself openly questioned how he had been appointed as a “manager”, only to discover that in practice he was operating more as a head coach. The club still seems unsure as to whether it wants a powerful manager, a dominant sporting director or a committee-led model running its football operation.

This ambiguity leaves every coach vulnerable. When results dip, there is no shared accountability – only a convenient exit route.

Financial consequences beyond the pitch

Sacking managers is also a costly business. Amorim left the club with 18 months remaining on his contract, a decision estimated to cost around £12 million in compensation.

Since 2014, the cumulative cost of sacking managers and senior staff at Manchester United has been estimated at close to £100 million. The club also paid £8.3 million in October 2024 to appoint Amorim early. Even for a financial powerhouse, such inefficiency risks becoming a burden.

Externally, instability weakens Manchester United’s negotiating position. Elite players increasingly view the club as a risk rather than a destination, while rivals with coherent structures exploit the indecision.

This is where the financial reality may bite, particularly if the club continues to miss out on the Uefa Champions League, the biggest club football tournament in Europe. The revamped competition can deliver close to £100 million per season for clubs that progress deep into the tournament.

Manchester United has so far maintained revenues — ranking fourth globally – but rivals such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Arsenal and Liverpool have moved ahead on and off the pitch. Missing the Champions League once or twice is manageable; missing repeatedly is not.

Ineos may still believe the club is mid-reform, but reform without coherence is merely motion. Until Manchester United decides who truly owns the football vision and protect that vision through recruitment, patience and structural alignment, no managerial appointment will succeed for long.

Sacking Amorim may feel decisive. History suggests it will change little. Manchester United’s biggest problem is not who stands on the touchline, but how the club makes decisions when the cameras are off.

Manchester United FC and Ineos were approached for comment.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Manchester United’s problems run deeper than another managerial sacking – https://theconversation.com/manchester-uniteds-problems-run-deeper-than-another-managerial-sacking-272955

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eef Hogervorst, Professor of Biological Psychology, Loughborough University

Inside the body, a 24-hour rhythm, known as the circadian rhythm, quietly coordinates when we sleep, wake, eat and recover. This internal timing system helps keep organs and hormones working in sync. When it becomes disrupted, the effects may extend well beyond poor sleep, with growing evidence suggesting consequences for long-term brain health.

A large 2025 study of more than 2,000 people with an average age of 79 found that those with a strong circadian rhythm had an almost halved risk of developing dementia. Circadian rhythms regulate daily processes including sleep timing, hormone release, heart rate and body temperature.

Over three years of follow-up, dementia developed in 7% of participants with irregular body clocks, measured using heart rate monitors, compared with 10% of those whose rhythms remained more regular.

Disrupted circadian rhythms are often associated with poor sleep. For decades, poor sleep has been suspected to contribute to both dementia and heart disease, which share several underlying risk factors. In the 2025 study, worse heart health and high blood pressure, both commonly linked to sleep disruption, were accounted for in the analysis. Sleep apnoea, however, was not.

Sleep apnoea is a common condition in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep, reducing oxygen supply to the brain and raising blood pressure. Its relationship with dementia remains debated, largely because sleep apnoea is more common in people who already have established dementia risk factors such as obesity, diabetes, smoking and alcohol misuse. This overlap makes it difficult to determine whether sleep apnoea itself increases dementia risk or whether it reflects broader metabolic and cardiovascular vulnerability.

This review suggested that addressing physical inactivity linked to fatigue from disrupted sleep may be a promising approach. Increasing activity could reduce obesity, improve sleep quality and support brain cell health, potentially lowering dementia risk through several pathways at once.

Other explanations may also help clarify the link between disrupted circadian rhythms and dementia. One involves the immune system, which is influenced by circadian rhythms as well as sleep and plays a role in both heart disease and neurodegeneration. Another is the theory that sleep supports the removal of toxic proteins from the brain, including amyloid plaques that characterise Alzheimer’s disease, through a waste clearance system that appears to be more active during sleep.

While this clearance hypothesis is widely discussed, evidence remains mixed. Some animal studies, including those in mice, have shown reduced rather than increased toxin clearance during sleep. Animal findings must be interpreted cautiously, as sleep patterns in mice differ substantially from those in humans, particularly in later life.

The Lancet commission update on dementia prevention concluded that sleeping for longer or shorter durations is unlikely to be a true independent risk factor for dementia. One reason for this conclusion is that evidence from real-world sleep disruption does not clearly point to sleep duration as the main driver of risk. Although shift work is associated with increased dementia risks, studies do not consistently show higher risk in night shift workers compared with day shift workers. If sleep disruption alone were responsible, night shifts would be expected to carry a greater risk.

This suggests that circadian disruption may matter independently of sleep duration. However, shift work is also associated with unhealthy lifestyle patterns, including poorer diet, smoking, alcohol use and variable physical activity. Chronic stress, lack of routine, hormonal disruption, raised blood pressure, reduced opportunities for leisure and social isolation also cluster around shift work. Each of these factors is independently linked to dementia, heart disease and poor sleep, complicating attempts to isolate the effects of circadian disruption alone.

The Lancet authors also argued that if amyloid clearance does occur in humans, it likely happens during the first two hours of sleep, when deep sleep is most prominent. Deep sleep tends to be preserved even when total sleep duration falls below seven hours. They therefore suggested that fragmented sleep and disrupted biological rhythms may be early consequences of dementia-related brain changes, rather than causes. The toxic plaques may accumulate in brain regions that regulate sleep and wakefulness long before memory problems become apparent.

So should sleep be deprioritised in dementia prevention? The Lancet advice was not to restrict sleep. Evidence linking long sleep, defined as more than eight hours, to dementia risk was not supported when broader data were considered.

A recent trial tested a personalised programme combining several approaches, such as light exposure, sleep scheduling, daytime activity and caregiver support, to improve sleep in people with dementia. After eight months, sleep improved in the intervention group, although sleep also improved with usual care. The overall effect was small to moderate, and there was no improvement in dementia-related behaviours or overall health. These approaches may benefit carers by supporting routines, but their impact for people with dementia appears limited.

Both acute and chronic sleep deprivation, particularly loss of deep sleep and REM sleep, can impair memory. Whether long-term disruption of restorative sleep increases dementia risk later in life, and whether treating sleep problems can prevent dementia, remains uncertain.

Because improving sleep is often seen as a potential prevention strategy, medications used to treat insomnia also deserve scrutiny. Sedative drugs such as benzodiazepines have been linked to increased dementia risk, as well as daytime drowsiness, falls and accidents. Melatonin, while used by many, has not shown consistent benefits for improving sleep in adults.

That said, there are evidence-based ways to improve sleep and support healthy circadian rhythms. Regular moderate exercise, around 30 minutes a day, particularly outdoors and before midday, is one of the most effective. As a bonus, physical activity is also one of the strongest protective factors against heart disease and dementia. So wrap up warm and get walking.

Eef Hogervorst has received funding from governmental research grants to investigate lifestyles and dementia risk. She is affiliated with Loughborough University and acted as expert for NICE and ESHRE Guidelines on whether women going through menopause should be treated with hormones to prevent dementia

– ref. Your body clock matters for brain health in later life – and could even be linked to dementia risk – https://theconversation.com/your-body-clock-matters-for-brain-health-in-later-life-and-could-even-be-linked-to-dementia-risk-272838

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sally Kyd, Professor of Law, University of Leicester

Driving is the one activity carried out by three-quarters of adults in England which has a risk of killing or being killed. But society seems to accept the risks associated with car travel.

As transport secretary Heidi Alexander notes, we would never accept four people a day dying in train or plane crashes – yet that is the daily toll on roads in Britain.

This is why the government has announced a series of reforms – including lowering the drink-driving limit in England and requiring regular eye tests for over-70s – aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries by 65% over the next decade. This is a welcome, if ambitious, target.

Any surviving driver involved in a fatal collision faces investigation and potential prosecution if found to be at fault. But the government’s proposed strategy rejects the idea that drivers alone bear responsibility for road safety. A number of proposals relate to designing roads and vehicles to reduce the chance and impact of collisions.

It also highlights that certain groups – particularly young male drivers are disproportionately involved in crashes, and proposes measures to address these risks.

As someone who researches motoring law, and how it is applied in practice, I argue this is a welcome shift to prevention, rather than punishment. Recent government policy has leaned heavily on punitive responses that attempt to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Over the past three decades, penalties for causing death on the roads have increased significantly. But while longer sentences are deserved in some cases, this approach has done little to punish the underlying offences – dangerous, careless or drink driving – that leads to fatalities.

There are now five specific criminal offences of causing death by driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The most serious – causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs – carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, equivalent to manslaughter.

Despite these tougher penalties, bereaved families report dissatisfaction with sentencing, concerned that drivers do not receive the penalty they deserve.

Punishing dangerous driving

Last year, I conducted a study analysing press reports of over 200 sentencing decisions in fatal crashes, mainly from 2024. The final report found that new sentencing guidelines, introduced in 2023, are largely being followed.

The worst cases now receive sentences exceeding the previous maximum of 14 years, aligning with manslaughter sentences. Eight cases resulted in sentences of 15 years or more, with the highest at 19 years.

Sentencing is complex, influenced by numerous factors, including the significant reduction applied when defendants plead guilty. A discount of up to one-third applies to all criminal offences. But given that 70.5% of offenders plead guilty in death-by-driving cases, this has a significant impact.

The maximum penalty under the law is life imprisonment. But the sentencing guidelines do not consider a life sentence appropriate even in the worst cases – those involving extreme speed, alcohol or drugs and multiple aggravating factors. The current guidelines allow judges to take a nuanced approach, with variability in sentencing generally reflecting the unique circumstances of each case.

While drivers who kill on the roads are now generally receiving longer sentences, victims are still being let down in several ways. Many see delays in investigation, the right charge not always being selected for prosecution, some cases being dealt with in a magistrates’ court rather than the Crown Court, and the suspect being able to continue driving up until conviction and again soon after they are released from prison.

Furthermore, harsh sentences are unlikely to deter other deaths. Psychological biases mean drivers rarely believe they will be involved in a fatal crash. Increasing the maximum penalty for such offences appears to be an easy political win without actually addressing the underlying behaviour.

Can the law improve road safety?

If the law is to succeed in deterring deaths on the road, it needs to address drivers’ behaviour before they kill.

Some of the proposals in the road safety strategy correspond with recommendations made in my report, such as the suspension of licences for serious offenders awaiting trial, and measures to support novice drivers. These, however, fall short of the recommendations previously made by the RAC Foundation, a transport policy research charity.

Measures such as lowering the drink-drive limit for all drivers, introducing safeguards for new drivers and suspending licences for those suspected of drink or drug driving are positive steps towards using the law more effectively to reduce road violence.

However, passing new laws aimed at changing driver behaviour will not, on its own, save lives. The enforcement of such legislation depends on effective policing of the roads. As recommended by my report, investment in roads policing and collision investigation is essential.

Fundamentally, we as a society need to take all driving offences seriously, given the ultimate harm they can cause. We need to take a step back and understand that what is sometimes framed as a “war on motorists” is trying to prevent the carnage on our roads.

Sally Kyd received funding from the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (PACTS). She is a member of the Policy Research Committee of PACTS.

– ref. Will new rules for drivers in England prevent deaths on the road? – https://theconversation.com/will-new-rules-for-drivers-in-england-prevent-deaths-on-the-road-272926

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Max Bowden, PhD Candidate, impact and influence of the Grateful Dead, University of Essex

Bob Weir, co-founder of the Grateful Dead, has died aged 78. His family announced the death on Instagram on Saturday, telling fans that he “transitioned peacefully, surrounded by loved ones, after courageously beating cancer as only Bobby could. Unfortunately, he succumbed to underlying lung issues”.

Weir was born in 1947 and grew up with adoptive parents, not knowing his birth parents until later in life. He found school challenging due to undiagnosed dyslexia and moved from school to school.

He met lifelong collaborator John Perry Barlow when attending a school for boys with behavioural problems, and together they wrote some of the band’s most famous lyrics.

Some of Bob Weir’s earliest musical memories came from playing traditional songs for cowboys when his family were vacationing on a cattle ranch. But his career really began on New Years Eve 1963 when he met Jerry Garcia while wandering the streets of Palo Alto looking for something to do.

The pair first formed a jug band, called Mother McRee’s Uptown Jug Champions, before transitioning to electric and calling themselves the Warlocks. This wasn’t to last as there was a New York band that were playing under the same name, who went on to change their name to the Velvet Underground.

Read more:
Grateful Dead at 60: three folklore tales that inspired the band’s music

The Grateful Dead formed in 1965 and for the next 30 years, Weir supported Jerry Garcia’s melodic lead lines with his own idiosyncratic style of rhythm guitar playing. He sought to base his approach to rhythm guitar on McCoy Tyner’s piano, who played with John Coltrane.

This, combined with 60 years of improvisational experience, gave Weir’s guitar playing an inimitable feel that was constantly in a state of flux. Weir had freedom to explore complex rhythmic arrangements and chord inversions due to the robust rhythmic foundation of the band provided by Phil Lesh’s bass and the use of two drummers (Bill Kreutzmann and Mickey Hart) for much of their existence.

John Mayer, lead guitarist in Dead & Company, described Weir’s playing as “almost too original to be fully appreciated”.

Don Was, a member of Weir’s later band, Wolf Brothers, and a storied musician and producer in his own right said: “There is not another guitarist in the world who plays like him. He never plays the same thing remotely the same way twice in a row and will alternate between being as raw as John Lee Hooker to as sophisticated as Andres Segovia from one phrase to another.”

Weir’s unique approach to playing also manifested in his compositions, many of which rely on strange time signatures or intricate playing styles. Whether it’s the 10/4 time of Playing in the Band or the finger-picked introduction to Weather Report Suite, Weir’s songwriting always sought to push the boundaries of what the band could do.

His 1972 solo album Ace featured many tracks that would go on to become Grateful Dead staples. His work with Barlow on songs like The Music Never Stopped, Hell in a Bucket and Lost Sailor helped define the band’s sound across its 30-year duration.

Following the death of Garcia in 1995, Weir has participated constantly in elaborations and continuations of the band’s legacy. His solo band Ratdog even performed on the day Garcia died, ending with a powerful rendition of Knockin’ on Heavens Door. Weir’s commitment to music carried on until his last days, performing three shows for the band’s 60th anniversary in August, just weeks after starting treatment for cancer.

One of the band’s most successful post-Jerry Garcia iterations, Dead & Company, toured from 2015 to 2023 and were one of the first in the world to play the Las Vegas Sphere. This band brought the Dead’s music to a new generation, playing huge stadium shows led by Mayer, with their final tour playing for nearly a million fans.

When he wasn’t touring with iterations of the band like Dead & Company or Furthur and The Dead, Weir was still pushing his solo projects. From 2018 he has performed under Bob Weir and the Wolf Brothers, a more minimalist outfit without a lead guitarist.

This band’s accomplishments include a number of shows with orchestras across America and more recently at the Royal Albert Hall.

Weir hoped that his musical legacy would last 300 years with the Grateful Dead’s songs becoming their own kind of standard. The band can be credited for founding the jam band genre of music, which focuses on improvisation and the live experience, and includes bands like Phish, Widespread Panic and Billy Strings.

This is before mentioning the hundreds of cover bands, some of which are hugely successful in their own right, and have at this point played more shows than the Dead ever did.

Tributes from Guns n’ Roses guitarist Slash to US secretary of health Robert F Kennedy Jr, suggest the loss of Weir is being felt across America – and the world.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Max Bowden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Bob Weir: the Grateful Dead co-founder reinvented rhythm guitar and the art of the jam – https://theconversation.com/bob-weir-the-grateful-dead-co-founder-reinvented-rhythm-guitar-and-the-art-of-the-jam-273265

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lukas Slothuus, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

The US is sabre-rattling over Greenland once again. The vast island’s natural resources are back on the agenda, a year after then-US national security advisor Michael Waltz announced: “This is about critical minerals. This is about natural resources.”

Greenland is endowed with both fossil fuels and critical raw materials. It possesses at least 25 of the 34 raw materials considered critical by the European Union.

The EU’s 2024 Critical Raw Materials Act seeks to improve European supply security of these, and both Trump and the EU want to weaken Chinese dominance in the trade. Meanwhile, vast reserves of oil are found offshore across eastern and western Greenland.

The value of these resources is hard to estimate as the prices of oil and critical raw materials fluctuate wildly. Like with Venezuela’s oil, it will take an enormous amount of money to build the infrastructure needed to mine the natural resources in Greenland. Mining and fossil fuel projects are capital-intensive, requiring large upfront investments with long lead times before projects yield profits.

Outside its capital Nuuk, there is almost no road infrastructure in Greenland and limited deep-water ports for large tankers and container ships.

Around the world, private mining and fossil fuel corporations can exploit public infrastructure such as roads, ports, power generation, housing and specialist workers to make their operations profitable. In Greenland, huge capital investment would be required to extract the first truckload of minerals and the first barrel of oil.

As such, the government faces a classic dilemma. Let private multinationals extract but lose the lion’s share of revenues? Or insist on state ownership but struggle to find the capital and state capacity to enable extraction.

Mining, past and present

Greenland’s mineral riches have been known about for some time. In April 2025, Danish state broadcaster DR aired a documentary about how Denmark had historically siphoned off profits from a cryolite mine in Greenland.

The programme led to a major political and media crisis, with some believing it challenged perceptions of Greenland being financially dependent on Denmark. Minerals are a prominent but sensitive topic in Greenland’s relationship to the rest of the world.

Foreign companies have tried to set up viable mining industries in Greenland for decades, with little to show for it. Indeed, contrary to US President Donald Trump’s assertions, American corporations have long had the opportunity to enter Greenland’s mining sector. The capital intensity twinned with extremely harsh climactic conditions mean that, so far, no firm has begun commercial mining activities.

Greenland’s natural resources minister, Naaja Nathanielsen, said in 2025 that she wanted mining to become a “very good, stable supplement” to the country’s overwhelming dependence on the fisheries industry.

Yet in 2021 Greenland’s new socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit government banned uranium mining on pollution grounds. Australian company Energy Transitions Minerals (ETM) sued Greenland and Denmark in 2023 for 76 billion kroner (£8.9 billion), equivalent to almost four times Greenland’s GDP.

The mining company claimed to have been robbed of future profits after its uranium project at Kuannersuit/Kvanefjeld was terminated.

Danish courts have struck down most of ETM’s claims as baseless and there has been a report of concerns ETM could declare bankruptcy and thereby potentially avoid paying the large legal fees. In a statement, ETM said its subsidiary GM “worked in good faith for over a decade, in close cooperation with the Greenlandic and Danish governments”. It added that both governments had used GM to promote Greenland as a safe destination for mining investors.

But research in 2025 labelled similar behaviour “feigned victimisation”. Generally, this is where corporations perceive or position themselves victims of unfair processes rather than powerful participants concerned with profits.

Read more:
Greenland is rich in natural resources – a geologist explains why

Drilling in the Greenlandic crust would reverberate in Copenhagen as Greenland has a mining profit-sharing agreement with Denmark. As part of the gradual transfer of autonomy from Denmark, Greenland now retains ownership over its natural resources.

However, Denmark provides an annual block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (around half of Greenland’s state budget) to support the domestic economy, which is overwhelmingly comprised of fisheries. Denmark will cut its block grant by 50% of mining profits, meaning essentially mining profits are shared 50-50 between the two up to the value of the block grant.

Recently, the Australian-American corporation Critical Metals received construction approval for a permanent office for its Tanbreez project to supply rare earth minerals, including heavy rare earth elements, in southern Greenland.

The following day, mining company Amaroq declared that the US is considering investing in its mining projects in southern Greenland through EXIM, the US Export-Import Bank. If the state loan is approved, it will be Trump’s first to an overseas mining project.

A recent executive order from Trump earmarked US$5 billion (£3.7 billion) to support mining projects critical for national security. This demonstrates the close relationship between the extractive industries and military activity.

Fossil fuel production is less likely to happen any time soon. In 2021, for environmental reasons Greenland’s government banned fossil fuel exploration and extraction. A parliamentary majority still favours the ban.

With volatile oil and gas prices and the same climactic and infrastructural challenges as for other natural resources, fossil fuel production in Greenland is implausible even in the event of a full US takeover.

There are many reasons why the Trump administration might want to dominate the Arctic, not least to gain relative power over Russia and China. But natural resource extraction is unlikely to feature centrally.

What’s more, the US already has military bases in Greenland, following a defence agreement with Denmark. As such, it’s more likely that recent US moves are yet another chapter in the return of the country’s imperialist ambitions.

Lukas Slothuus receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

– ref. Why Greenland’s vast natural resources won’t necessarily translate into huge profits – https://theconversation.com/why-greenlands-vast-natural-resources-wont-necessarily-translate-into-huge-profits-273137