Deux ans après “Fighter”, Christian Bale pourrait retrouver David O. Russell pour les besoins de “American Bullsh*t”, thriller qui revient sur l’histoire (vraie) d’un arnaqueur embauché par le FBI pendant les années 80.
Pour lui avoir permis de poser un Oscar sur sa cheminée, David O. Russell est peut-être devenu le porte-bonheur de Christian Bale, qui avait livré l’une de ses meilleures prestations dans Fighter. Apprendre que les deux hommes pourrait remettre le couvert, avec une autre histoire vraie, sonnerait donc comme une très bonne nouvelle, et ces retrouvailles ont une chance de se faire autour d’American Bullsh*t. Toujours à pied d’oeuvre sur The Silver Linings Playbook, qu’il termine actuellement, le réalisateur aurait en effet été approché pour mettre en scène ce thriller, dans lequel un arnaqueur est engagé par le FBI pour mettre à mal le système de corruption qui ronge le Congrès, mais il n’a pas encore décidé quel sera son prochain projet. Toujours est-il que Christian Bale semble en bonne place pour prêter ses traits au personnage principal, ce qui pourrait être un élément suffisamment important pour faire pencher la balance et motiver le choix d’O. Russell. Affaire à suivre…
The EU is not short of leaders, but is short of leadership.
The Lisbon treaty was supposed to have remedied some of the European Union’s leadership problems. This week, it has been hard to know how. Granted, the EU is not short of leaders in this post-Lisbon era. Herman Van Rompuy is in place as president of the European Council and Catherine Ashton as high representative for foreign policy. They lined up yesterday with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in front of the cameras at a summit meeting with Japan.
So when Joe Biden, the vice-president of the United States, comes to Brussels next week there will be no shortage of leaders for him to meet. (He will be addressing the European Parliament, where he will meet President Jerzy Buzek, then going to lunch with Van Rompuy and Barroso.)
And yet, despite this plentiful supply of leaders, the EU is looking short of leadership on the burning issue of the moment, which is the eurozone’s stability. True, Van Rompuy did – in the teeth of breathtaking falls on the foreign exchanges and stockmarkets on Tuesday – announce that a meeting of eurozone leaders would be held to approve the activation of a loan to Greece – probably on 10 May if that is not too late to save Greece and the euro.
The announcement was woefully late. The markets had already delivered their verdict on the EU’s loan plan: it is coming along too slowly and it is unconvincing.
Those of a charitable disposition will concede that a debt crisis is a tough test of any political leadership. How the markets will respond and how particular actors behave is out of the direct control of government leaders (look at the decision of credit ratings agency Standard and Poor’s to downgrade Greek debt to junk status on Tuesday). The EU’s leaders, which do not have their hands on the levers of crisis management, are even worse positioned than the leaders of national governments.
Even so, the performance over these past two weeks has been poor. It is as if the EU’s leadership – and that includes the Spanish government, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers – has not appreciated the enormity of the task and the extent of the risk if things end in tears.
The markets simply were not convinced that the eurozone’s member states were acting in concert and were committed to coming to the aid of Greece.
The conduct of Angela Merkel, the Germany chancellor, in all this is less than glorious. At the European Council of 25-26 March, she got what she wanted: tough conditionality and the involvement of the International Monetary Fund was attached to the agreement in principle to provide a loan to Greece. That conditionality was justified. The conditions sent a message to other eurozone economies (the likes of Portugal, Italy and Spain) that there will be no easy way out.
Yet, by dragging her feet since then, Merkel has undermined the message of the European Council. The dithering has, ironically, increased the likelihood that other countries – notably Portugal – will be dragged down after Greece. She has increased the probability of contagion even as she sought to close off the possibility.
The suspicion grows that the regional election in North Rhine-Westphalia is more important to Merkel than the fate of the eurozone. The calculation is a fine one: the idea of shoring up Greece is not popular in Germany, but failure to provide a loan will do damage to the eurozone (and perhaps to German banks) that will not be popular either. While Merkel hesitates, the eurozone’s reputation suffers.
It would be unrealistic to expect any one of the EU’s many leaders to dictate terms to the chancellor of Germany (which will after all be contributing a large part of the loans to Greece). But that does not in itself explain the sense of a power vacuum. The EU and the eurozone have lost the initiative. Rather than shaping events, they are being shaped by events. The euro, Greece and every other member state will suffer from this collective failure of leadership.
Sometime MEP Richard Corbett (pictured) has not cut a happy figure since he lost his seat as a in the European Parliament elections in June. He was forced to go back to his previous employment – working in the secretariat of the Parliament. He was an official there for many years, later becoming deputy secretary-general of the Socialist group, before being elected to the Parliament in 1996.
But after 13 years as an MEP, working for other MEPs cannot be much fun. So no surprise that he has found himself a new job and one which gives him scope to indulge his obsession with the EU’s constitutional arrangements: he is joining the private office of Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The two have known one another for years – personally, not professionally.
Other members of the ten-strong team include Odile Renaud-Basso, a French national who was director responsible for the economic and finance committee in the European Commission. She will be deputy head of his private office. Luuk Van Middelaar, a former journalist with Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad and a member of the Dutch liberal VVD party, is to be Van Rompuy’s speechwriter.
Presiding over the private office is Frans van Daele, a long-time adviser to leading Flemish Christian Democrat politicians, including Wilfried Martens and Jean-Luc Dehaene. He was successively Belgium’s ambassador to the EU, to the US and to NATO. This loyal service to the Belgium state was rewarded by his being made a baron, which should ensure that Van Rompuy’s office is never outranked by Catherine Ashton.
It is time to take the European Union’s stability and growth pact more seriously.
In the six years since France and Germany contemptuously thumbed their noses at its budgetary disciplines, the stability and growth pact has been something of a laughing-stock. It has been ignored even more since the global economic disaster, which has shredded even the best-laid budget plans drawn up by national governments.
Paradoxically, however, this might be the time to restore the pact’s standing.
Why now? Because a new ingredient has been thrown into the fiscal pot, a disciplinary force that could underpin the pact’s influence – the power of frightened financial markets.
The European Commission has forecast that 26 of the 27 EU member states, including all 16 members of the single currency, will next year breach the pact’s deficit ceiling of 3% of gross domestic product (GDP). The pact’s target for the ratio of public debt to GDP is 60% and below, but in 2010, the Commission says, the eurozone debt ratio will be 88%. Greece’s debt is predicted to be upward of 135% of GDP in 2011.
Financial markets were awakened on 25 November to the dangers of such debt by Dubai’s effective of default on more than $26 billion (€17.6bn) of debt issued by a state-controlled investment company. Investors are now taking the risks attached to government and government-related debt much more seriously. Hence the financial markets’ reaction to the budgetary debacle emerging in Greece. Deutsche Bank’s Thomas Mayer said that Greece is “side-stepping the much-needed tough [budgetary] action”. Greece now needs to pay up to two full percentage points more to borrow money, through bonds, than Germany does.
Diverging rates
Through most of the period since the launch of the single currency in 1999, interest rates on all eurozone government bonds have bunched together, giving the lie to those economists who predicted that financial market pressures would exercise a disciplinary force on countries by discriminating against those following feckless fiscal policies.
But rates are now diverging. The divergences are not limited to the eurozone. Last week, it was possible to buy credit default protection for the UK’s giant oil company BP more cheaply than for the country’s sterling bonds. The UK’s budget deficit next year is forecast by the Commission to be 12.9% – higher even than Greece’s 12.2%. The investment bank Morgan Stanley has warned that if the forthcoming UK general election results in a ‘hung’ parliament, so torpedoing early prospects for desperately needed budgetary consolidation, credit-rating agencies could remove the UK’s prized AAA credit rating and, therefore, send the cost of government borrowing soaring.
The reasons for the sudden turnaround in investors’ perceptions are various. One is mounting evidence that the era of super-cheap money is coming to an end. The meeting last week of the European Central Bank’s governing council signalled that it would be withdrawing crisis-induced liquidity infusions “at a somewhat quicker pace” than expected, as Barclays Capital’s European Central Bank-watcher Julian Callow put it.
Investors around the world are also being asked to swallow a mountain of new government debt. A year ago Brian Coulton of Fitch Ratings predicted that 2009 would see a 45% increase in gross EU government borrowing, to almost €2 trillion. The United States is also expected to borrow $3.8 trillion (€2.6 trillion) in the 2009 financial year. The prospects for 2010 are worse. Coulton says that the “sweet spot” for raising these sorts of sums is now over, not least because of fears that such unprecedented government borrowing will spark inflation.
If Coulton is right, political leaders – like those in Athens – who are judged to be ignoring investors’ fears could face their own wake-up call, a sudden lenders’ strike.
Political pressure
Meanwhile, in the EU, especially the eurozone, political pressures on miscreants are intensifying.
At the meeting of EU finance ministers on 2 December, the Greek finance minister, George Papaconstantinou, was left in no doubt that his country’s behaviour would not be tolerated. French and German co-operation in the Eurogroup underpinned this message.
Eurogroup members fear that tolerance for Greece would be read as a signal to other fiscally challenged eurozone members (such as Italy) that they too can pay mere lip-service to taking control of their debts and deficits. They are therefore taking a hard line.
The EU had already sent a strong message about economic discipline to its members when, with an eye on the future, it forced troubled eastern European member states to turn for help to the International Monetary Fund in Washington, not just to Brussels.
If Greece does not put its fiscal house in order fast, credit-rating agencies will further cut their rating on the country. On Tuesday (8 December) Fitch lowered its rating from A- to BBB+. This could have an adverse knock-on effect on the cost of borrowing for Greece’s deeply troubled banks. Nicholas Heinen of Deutsche Bank Research says that Greek banks could come under pressure through an associated worsening of their refinancing terms with the European Central Bank. That, in turn, would intensify the Greek government’s difficulties.
That is discipline. In today’s changed economic circumstances, it seems that recalcitrant governments are likely to face the punitive powers of financial markets before the uncertain sanctions of the stability and growth pact’s ‘corrective’ arm are applied. In 2005, the pact was revised; now, with financial markets queasy at the size of public debt, EU states have a chance to restore its credibility.
Stewart Fleming is a freelance journalist based in London.
If it is to respond better to disasterns within and beyond its borders, the EU needs to make some strategic decisions.
Did the EU fail the Haiti test? Yes, according to a range of French politicians. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister, too has suggested the EU’s response was not “up to the standard” of others’ and Poland’s president has criticised the EU for contributing “too little”.
These criticisms are premature and off the mark. The international relief effort may not have been up to expectations, but that is not because the EU failed to ‘show up’. The combination of a major disaster and an already dysfunctional state makes aid delivery near-impossible. The US discovered this the hard way, when it tried to co-ordinate efforts. Arguments that the EU should have been first on the scene in a faraway region suggest delusions of grandeur.
In fact, the European response was far from shabby. Governments sent personnel and equipment within hours. The EU itself assembled a team of civil protection experts, released money immediately and promised €400 million for short-term reconstruction. It has since despatched 300 gendarmes. Haiti will need millions more in aid and years of attention – and, as the world’s largest donor, the EU has the money and political will to provide both.
The EU’s response was better than in the past, in part because, in response to the 2004 Asian tsunami, member states granted the EU somewhat greater operational and co-ordinating capabilities. Looking ahead, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s decision to move the Commission’s civil protection responsibilities to a revamped ‘international co-operation, humanitarian aid and crisis response’ portfolio may bring greater coherence to responses to external disasters.
But a proper evaluation of the EU’s performance – and the prospects for better responses – must consider its constraints. To be sure, the EU has some capacity. Its civil protection mechanism helps member states pool expertise and resources, through stand-by deployment ‘modules’ (though these are controlled by member states). The Commission can send small teams to co-ordinate member states’ relief efforts in disaster zones. ECHO, the Commission’s humanitarian-aid unit, works with international organisations to provide critical resources. When disaster struck Haiti, the EU activated these capacities and protocols promptly.
The EU is, though, only as strong as its members. Effective co-ordination requires EU governments to thrash out preparatory agreements among themselves. But if critics want a truly fast, well co-ordinated, EU-led response, they should consider delegating more powers to supranational institutions. Such powers would include more than the proposed ‘European humanitarian aid corps’, which would add little to the existing modules; they would include stand-by EU teams, airlift capacity, advanced placement warehouses and new organisations. They would require governments to clarify the role of the European Council’s president, of the new high representative and of its rotating presidency. All of that, however, requires the courage of conviction – a rarity in the current climate of scepticism, even hostility, towards European integration.
EU governments face another uncomfortable truth – that disasters are occurring more frequently, with greater impact and closer to home. A severe breakdown of infrastructure, a bioterrorist attack or cyber-sabotage would cause havoc, if not mayhem, across Europe.
Of course, Europe is not Haiti. But if agreeing to common protocols for managing distant disasters is so painful for EU member states, how would they fare if a similar ‘mega-disaster’ were to hit Europe?
The EU has made steady headway in recent years, to be sure. The Commission has a set of early-warning systems to cover a variety of threats (ranging from radiation to food contamination). Its civil protection mechanism has facilitated rapid mutual assistance, at least at the technical level. And its inter-institutional emergency and crisis co-ordination arrangements facilitate political co-ordination, at least in theory.
But it remains unclear if the EU has sufficient capacity to deal with crises and disasters within the Union. How will the EU assist member states when a transboundary crisis paralyses critical infrastructures? What competencies does the Commission possess, or need, to play a meaningful role? More important than institutional concerns is political will: who will fight to ensure that the EU’s disaster-management responsibilities inside the EU match its capacities outside?
There is a risk that such internal questions will command too little of the Commission’s attention. Barroso has shifted disaster relief to an external portfolio, and the crisis co-ordination arrangements will be moved to the external action service. It will be left to the new commissioner for home affairs, Cecilia Malmström, to provide the Commission and member states with fresh thinking about internal crisis and disaster questions.
After the dust of the earthquake settles, the EU will undoubtedly play a significant role in rebuilding Haiti. It is more questionable whether it will take the strategic decisions needed to respond better to future disasters not just abroad, but also at home. There is a new class of threats and risks that pays no respect to Europe’s boundaries – a reality that most governments have avoided, rather than confronted.
Mark Rhinard is a senior research fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. Arjen Boin is an associate professor at the Public Administration Institute of Louisiana State University.
Why are member states discriminating against the anti-discrimination directive?
Eurobarometer recently published a survey that once again showed that there is a serious problem of discrimination across Europe. One in six people said they had personally experienced discrimination in the past year; 58% of Europeans considered that prejudice in relation to age was widespread in their country, while 53% mentioned disability.
For those who fail to be moved by statistics, consider this: in 2009 alone, we saw Roma communities being shot at in Hungary, stoned in Ireland and evicted by force in Italy; and we saw Lithuania’s parliament ‘protecting’ its minors by adopting a law that bans public information about homosexuality, putting homosexuality on a par with images of mutilated bodies or physical violence.
Though such episodes are disturbing, non-governmental organisations have until now felt that some progress was being made on the EU level. Fighting discrimination has been one of the few areas of social policy about which the EU could be proud: were it not for EU instruments such as the race and employment directives, there would still be no protection in most member states today.
But race and employment cover only some aspects of discrimination. That is why, in July 2008, the European Commission proposed a new anti-discrimination directive that, if passed, would give all citizens basic protection in other major areas of life, such as housing, education and healthcare.
The directive has the support of the European Parliament, but, regrettably, is stalled in the Council of Ministers, with countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Poland expressing all sorts of reservations and doubts. Surprised? So are we.
The directive is by no means revolutionary. It only seeks to ensure a very basic principle of democracies: equality before the law. What it does is to recognise what we all know – that discrimination goes beyond race and gender and affects areas of life outside the workplace. Every day, across Europe, prejudices on the grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation or religion put people in situations in which schools turn down their children, apartments are suddenly no longer for rent and medical consultations become a challenge. With the new anti-discrimination directive, these citizens would be able to complain and receive compensation.
Money, however, is a sticking-point. Member states are worried about the cost of compensation and of removing barriers for disabled people, for example. Naturally, these countries claim to be extremely committed to fighting discrimination; it’s just that the financial crisis does not permit such spending. Even if sincere, that is an argument in support of a false economy: the social and economic costs of exclusion are far greater.
Some countries, such as Germany, say that their national legislation on discrimination is enough. Even if that were the case, why should Germany prevent other Europeans from enjoying the same protection as its citizens?
The reality is that even countries usually associated with good practice do not have legislation of the standard offered by the directive. Take the Netherlands, where anti-discrimination legislation does not cover age discrimination outside the workplace. Or Denmark, which lacks legislation against discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, disability and age that affects access to social security, healthcare and education.
The Swedish presidency of the EU, once a key proponent of this directive, seems to have lost its grip on the process. The issue has not made it onto the agenda of any meeting of EU ministers and it was included in this week’s equality summit in Stockholm only after pressure from civil society.
It is not too late, though, for Sweden to stop member states from endlessly delaying the directive’s adoption and to prevent their attempts to water down its provisions. These are old tactics that, if successful, would amount to killing off the anti-discrimination directive. If that happens, another piece of Europe’s credibility will have crumbled.
Nicolas Beger is the director of Amnesty International’s EU office.
The best that can come from Europe’s new leaders is better and more coherent management of the EU’s business.
The selection of Herman Van Rompuy as president of the European Union’s Council of Ministers and of Catherine Ashton as the EU’s foreign policy chief underlines the extent to which member states are in the driver’s seat in the EU. They manage the institutions in their own interest. The EU is no super-state striding bravely into a bright new dawn.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy will not have to compete for the global limelight with any Brussels supremos. Germany will not be challenged to break out of its increasing introversion, no longer obliged to demonstrate its democratic post-war credentials by embracing the European cause at every turn. The UK can rest easy that its world role will remain that of an aspiring Jeeves, or butler, to the White House.
The best that could come from the appointment of Europe’s two new low-profile leaders is that it leads to better and more coherent management of the EU’s business. Van Rompuy will be able to offer a longer view than that of a six-month national presidency. Ashton should be able to tie together the political and resource arms of Europe’s external policies.
But it is not yet clear, whatever the Lisbon treaty says, that Ashton has full control of either the EU external budget or of appointments to the new diplomatic service. She has a difficult hand to play and can expect her elbow to be nudged regularly by José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission’s president, who was the big winner in the carve-up of jobs. But foreign ministers will be deeply suspicious if they think that the Commission is taking over foreign policy.
Experience suggests that there are five guidelines to follow if we want a more effective European presence on the world stage.
First, we should dare to believe that what most suits Europe’s interests might also be best for our relationship with our closest ally, the US.
Second, our rhetoric about our role as the US’s international partners for peace should not stray too far from reality. True, we tend to align ourselves these days more with Venus than Mars, something for which the rest of the world should be deeply grateful. But we take this a little too far. It is not just that Europe does not spend enough on hard power, but that what it does spend – about €200 billion – is spent badly. The EU needs common defence procurement and harmonisation to acquire the hardware necessary for 21st-century operations.
Third, where Europe has a serious internal policy, it is easier to establish a more serious external policy. The best example of this is energy policy and Russia. To formulate such a policy toward Russia requires us to frame a single energy policy. Ashton will need to be firm in dealing with Russia and with member states who subordinate Europe to the commercial interests of their national energy companies.
Fourth, European external policy is most effective the nearer it is to home. We are at our best in our own neighbourhood – and at our worst, too. The greatest success of Europe’s external policy has been enlargement. The job is not complete. In the western Balkans, we are starting to show (for example in Bosnia and Herzegovina) a disinclination to apply tough conditionality. This is dangerous.
We undertook more than four decades ago to negotiate Turkish membership once that country became fully democratic with an open economy and respect for human rights and the rule of law. For Europe to turn down Turkey would be tantamount to writing ourselves out of any serious script in global affairs. Unfortunately, Van Rompuy, an author and poet, has spoken out against Turkish membership in far cruder terms than one would expect from a gentle haiku writer.
My final guideline for policy is that Europe is not and will not become a superpower or super-state. We do not matter everywhere. We do not require a policy on every problem and every place. But where the problem affects much else, and where the region is close to home, we should have a policy that consists of more than waiting to agree with whatever the US decides, as, for example, in the Middle East.
So what can we do to nudge things forward in a region where the US is again engaged but not respected, and where Europe is neither? At the very least, we could set out our own policy, beginning with an effort to end the fragmentation of Palestine and Palestinians between the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Does it matter if Europe is not on the same page as the US? Frankly, no.
Two weeks ago, when US President Barack Obama had to choose between a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or the celebrations in Berlin marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, he chose to go to Asia. Will Europe do enough to change his mind the next time there is such a choice? As things stand, we are in danger of making Europe politically irrelevant, a successful customs union with a Swissified foreign policy and a group of fractious, vision-free leaders.
Two doctors had suggested on French television that testing for a potential vaccine against Covid-19 should happen in Africa
Samuel Eto’o and Didier Drogba have hit back angrily at “racist and contemptuous” comments made by two doctors on French television suggesting studies on drugs to combat coronavirus should be tested in Africa.
Former Chelsea and Senegal forward Demba Ba posted a video of the exchange on Twitter.
Ba commented: “Welcome to the West, where white people believe themselves to be so superior that racism and stupidity become commonplace. TIME TO RISE.”
The comments in question regard the potential testing of the BCG vaccine, generally used against tuberculosis, as a preventative measure against Covid-19.
“If I can be provocative, shouldn’t we do this study in Africa where there are no masks, no treatment, no resuscitation?” asked Professor Jean-Paul Mira, head of the intensive care unit at the Cochin Hospital in Paris.
“The same as for some AIDS studies where prostitutes try things because we know they’re unprotected”.
Professor Camille Locht, research director at Inserm, replied: “You are right. We are currently thinking in parallel about a study in Africa to make this same type of approach with the BCG.
“There is a tender process that has gone out or is going to go out. We will seriously think about that.
“That doesn’t prevent us from thinking in parallel about a study in Europe and Australia.”
Cameroon legend Eto’o replied to Ba’s video on Twitter: “Sons of bitches,” before adding in a post on Instagram: “You are just SH*T. Africa isn’t yours to play with.”
Drogba also called out the comments as “absurd”, with the two-time African Footballer of the Year clearly appalled by any suggestion African people should be used “as guinea pigs”.
“It is inconceivable that we continue to accept this,” Drogba wrote on Twitter. “Africa is not a laboratory.
“I strongly denounce these serious, racist and contemptuous remarks!
“Help us save lives in Africa and stop the spread of this virus which is destabilising the whole world, instead of considering us as guinea pigs. It is absurd!
“African leaders have a responsibility to protect people from these heinous plots.”
BCG is only one of numerous vaccines and antiviral drugs being considered for its potential against coronavirus.
Vaccines must go through rigorous testing and development stages before they can be approved for widespread use and enter mass production.
Common estimates from scientists suggest a viable vaccine against Covid-19 is likely to be at least 18 months away from being ready for public use.
The Belgium striker vented his frustration amid the coronavirus pandemic, stressing health should always come before football
Inter striker Romelu Lukaku hit out at officials for allowing Serie A to continue until a player tested positive for coronavirus, insisting health is paramount.
The 2019-20 Serie A season has been suspended amid the Covid-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 53,100 people worldwide.
Juventus defender Daniele Rugani was listed as the first Serie A player to contract coronavirus following the club’s 2-0 win over Inter behind closed doors on March 8.
With Italy hit hardest by the virus – more than 13,910 deaths – Belgium star Lukaku questioned why the league was not postponed sooner.
“Health comes first. Why should we play if there are people in the world who are risking their lives?” Lukaku said in an interview with Thierry Henry via Puma’s Instagram.
“Why was it only necessary for a player to test positive in order for football to stop? It’s not normal.
“I will admit that I do miss football, but now the most important thing is people’s health. Everything else comes secondary to that.”
Amid the hiatus, Lukaku told Henry: “What I miss most is competing with opponents, being in full stadiums and feeling the support from the fans.
“I am using this time to analyse my performances and indeed, more generally, everything I have done in the last six months. You can always improve in football.”
Prior to the suspension of the season, Lukaku had been in fine form for Inter, netting 17 goals in Serie A with a further six strikes in other competitions.
Before joining Antonio Conte’s side from Manchester United, the striker has recently revealed he came close to joining Juventus instead.
“I was close, really close [to joining Juve], but my mind was always set on Inter and the manager,” Lukaku said in an interview on Ian Wright’s YouTube channel.
“As a kid I looked up to Adriano, Ronaldo and [Christian] Vieri.
“Obviously when Inter came – and the manager Conte wanted me at Chelsea and Juve as well – I wanted to go there and see what it was like, keep my head down and work.”
As it stands Serie A is currently suspended until May, but many still believe any possible return to play would have to again be pushed back to June at the earliest.
The former Daily Show British correspondent now hosts his own HBO series, and he is a passionate football fan – but who does he support?
John Oliver has emerged as one of the world’s most recognisable political commentators, having hosted Last Week Tonight with John Oliver since 2014.
Oliver, who is originally from the UK but moved to the United States to work in television, and is an avid football fan.
Goal takes a look at Oliver’s net worth, how much he earns, charity work and more.
What football team does John Oliver support?
What is John Oliver’s net worth?
What does John Oliver do?
What charity work does John Oliver do?
Oliver is a Liverpool fan, despite being raised in Birmingham, owing to both of his parents originating from the greater Merseyside area.
“My family is from Liverpool – both sides,” Oliver told the Liverpool official website in 2016. “My mum’s family are from Knotty Ash and my dad’s family are from Wirral, so supporting Liverpool was very much not a choice.
“That was pointed out to me pretty strenuously at an early age.
“There were other things I could choose in my life, but a team wasn’t one of them! I grew up in Birmingham but I grew up there as a Liverpool fan.”
He added: “Istanbul was a happy memory. I was in London watching the game and my dad phoned me.
“He was choking back the tears saying, ‘Remember this day son, remember this day!’ He wasn’t wrong and it was incredible.”
According to Celebrity Net Worth, Oliver’s net worth is at an estimated £8 million ($10m).
Oliver is a U.S.-based comedian, writer, television host, political commentator and actor.
He began his career as a stand-up comedian, and gained international recognition as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s senior British correspondent. For his work with The Daily Show, Oliver won three Emmy Awards.
He now hosts his own HBO series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, covering topics such as U.S. politics and legislation, often through a quick-witted, satirical and humorous lens. He also writes human rights issues into his segments and raises awareness on global issues.
Oliver also voiced Zazu in Disney’s 2019 CGI remake of The Lion King.
Oliver has been involved with many charities, such as Amnesty International, the Bob Woodruff Foundation, Stockings With Care and the Touch Foundation.
In 2016, Oliver set up Central Asset Recovery Professionals (or CARP, for the bottom-feeding fish) and bought £12 million ($15m) worth of medical debt from over 9,000 people – and gave it all away in the biggest giveaway in television history.