The Brief

The first opportunity to score regular tickets for the 2026 World Cup is on Wednesday. But be warned: Tickets may not be easy to get — and they likely won't be cheap.

Demand for the popular men's tournament is expected to soar even higher once the tournament kicks off across the United States, Mexico and Canada in June.

FIFA, the organization behind the World Cup, is also upending the way it sells tickets for its flagship tournament, which could compound the challenges of scoring them.

Most prominently, FIFA is set to unveil a controversial pricing system: They say it's not the same as dynamic pricing — but prices will adjust based on demand.

Here's what to know about ticket sales for the World Cup.

There will be multiple sales dates for tickets

The first window to get tickets will open on Sept. 10 and end on Sept. 19 — but only for eligible VISA cardholders. And they must first register their interest with FIFA. And people won't be able to actually buy tickets then.

According to information provided by FIFA, those who apply will be drawn into a lottery. If successful, they will be provided with a specific date and time slot to buy tickets starting on Oct. 1.

Those who are selected have the chance to buy tickets for any of the 104 games that will held in all three countries next year — including the final. Buyers just won't know who's actually playing in them, since the draw won't be held until Dec. 5.

Venue-specific ticket packages, meaning tickets to a handful of games in a specific host city like Boston or Mexico City, will also be available. In addition, spectators can buy tickets that are specific to a national team, but only for the three group games that each team will play.

Other opportunities to buy tickets will follow, including in late October, after the group draw, and next year.

FIFA will also operate a resale platform for ticket holders who no longer want to attend a match, as it has in previous tournaments.

Tickets will start at $60 per game — with a big catch

FIFA has touted that some group-stage tickets will start at $60, saying that will offer "an accessible entry point to the tournament." Still, the association notes that the "most exclusive" tickets could reach up to $6,730 for the final.

But what they are not touting so loudly is that the organization will also implement pricing that will fluctuate based on demand, a first for the World Cup.

It's not dynamic pricing per se; they're calling it "variable pricing." But the differences between the two can be hazy.

Aerial view of Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, Mexico, which will host the opening game of the 2026 World Cup on June 11.

(

Hector Vivas

/

Getty Images South America

)

Heimo Schirgi, the FIFA World Cup 26 Chief Operating Officer, says variable pricing means that "how the prices are adjusted are not as steep and are more balanced across the different phases."

A FIFA official further told NPR that pricing won't be set by "automated algorithms," but will be guided by a team of people who will be regularly "monitoring and making adjustments in real time" to ticket prices based on supply and demand — which suggests that FIFA officials can ultimately determine how high they are willing to let prices go. (The official declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media in an official capacity.)

FIFA has justified its decision by saying it's simply adapting to the U.S. and Canadian markets, where professional teams regularly use the controversial sales practice of adjusting tickets based on demand, just as airlines or hotels do.

FIFA's "variable pricing" will apply from the actual start of the sales window in October, which means that the $60 "accessible entry point" could quickly rise, depending on how aggressive the organization will be with pricing.

Prices adjusted to demand could also be implemented on FIFA's planned resale platform in the U.S. and Canada, though FIFA has not given exact details.

However, in Mexico, the resale platform will operate as an exchange platform, meaning buyers can receive up to the amount they spent buying a ticket from FIFA — and no more. That's the way FIFA had operated its resale platforms in the past.

Demand for the 2026 World Cup is likely to be huge

Of course, adjusting pricing based on demand doesn't necessarily mean prices will rise higher. At the FIFA Club World Cup — a tournament held in the U.S. this year — pricing actually dropped for a number of games because demand was lower than anticipated.

But the World Cup is far bigger and more established than the Club World Cup. FIFA has previously said it is expecting over 5 million people to attend next year's edition.

That would shatter the previous record from 1994, the last time the U.S. hosted, attracting over 3.5 million spectators.

Brazilian players celebrate their victory over Italy in a penalty shootout at the 1994 World Cup final in Pasadena, Calif., on July 17, 1994, as then Vice President Al Gore looks on.

(

Mike Hewitt

/

Getty Images North America

)

That's in part a function of the vastly expanded tournament, which will now consist of 48 teams, more than the 32 that participated in the previous World Cup in Qatar. The 2026 World Cup will also be held in three countries and staged in venues such as MetLife Stadium, which has a capacity of over 80,000.

Nonetheless, demand will likely be higher than supply, and getting tickets may prove difficult.

During the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, FIFA said it received over 23 million requests for about 3.4 million available tickets, meaning buyers who wanted to score tickets had a success rate of only about 15%.

There are other ways to get tickets — including hospitality and a "right to buy" system

For those who do not want the uncertainty of trying to buy regular seats during a sales window, there is another way to attend — but it will cost you.

They're called "hospitality tickets," and these premium tickets are well known to American fans. They give the ticketholder access to a reserved seating area, such as a box, along with a variety of beverages and food.

But they are pricey. Hospitality tickets have already been on sale since earlier this year, including for individual games and packages that at one point reached $73,200.

Prices have also fluctuated through the year based on demand. Right now, the cheapest hospitality ticket for a single game is listed at $1,350.

FIFA has also introduced a new ticket sales method called "right to buys," or RTBs. These offer buyers a guaranteed opportunity to buy tickets for specific games, including the final. To get one, fans have to buy digital cards which FIFA releases, or "drops," periodically. They're kind of like electronic baseball cards; they typically contain a scene or video from a previous World Cup game.

Prices range from the hundreds of dollars for guaranteed opportunities to buy playoff games down to cheaper "surprise packs" that may or may not contain an RTB. That doesn't even factor in the actual price of the ticket, which buyers will need to pay when FIFA makes them available.

FIFA even runs a marketplace where RTB owners can buy and sell these opportunities.

Lionel Messi lifts the FIFA World Cup trophy after defeating France in a penalty shootout in Lusail City, Qatar, on Dec. 18, 2022.

(

Dan Mullan

/

Getty Images Europe

)

It may be the most profitable World Cup tournament ever

The combination of variable pricing and more games will likely lead to the most profitable World Cup tournament ever.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates FIFA could rake in a record $4.4 billion, not only from general sales tickets but also by leaning heavily on hospitality seats. Such a haul would also mark a 378% surge from the last men's tournament in Qatar, according to equity research analyst Kevin Near, reflecting in part the expanded tournament with 104 matches and 48 national teams.

"These stadiums are massive, they have huge occupancy," Near says. "And because there has been such a focus now for a little while on building out premium and luxury spaces, that's where you're going to see a lot of those dollars come from."

FIFA, however, is particularly sensitive to criticism that it's just seeking profits, saying the vast majority of the money it raises from its tournaments is intended to be distributed across its 211 member associations to help support the growth of soccer worldwide.

"As part of that mission, which we take very seriously, we're looking at optimizing the revenue, but also optimizing attendance in the stadia, so it's always a balance between different factors," Schirgi from FIFA World Cup 26 said in an emailed statement.

Of course, achieving that balance doesn't necessarily mean ticket prices will be low. So when that first ticket sales window opens on Wednesday, one thing's for sure: Buying a World Cup ticket may turn into quite a game.
Copyright 2025 NPR

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Football — or soccer as it's known in the U.S. — is more than a game, and the World Cup is more than a tournament.

This truism rings clear in the semifinal match between the reigning World Cup champions Argentina and England, a storied rivalry that comes to life today in Atlanta.

Despite Argentine coach Lionel Scaloni's message to fans that it is "a football game, period," the South American nation is vibrating with anticipation of the faceoff that is steeped in geopolitics and historical reckoning.

"I'm very anxious and nervous, but more than anything, I have a lot of faith," said Pablo Medina, 29, Tuesday night in Buenos Aires, on his way into the screening of a new documentary about the other famous World Cup match-up between the two nations, in 1986.

Moviegoers and football fans have been flocking to cinemas in Argentina to see El Partido ("The Game"), a documentary about the 1986 World Cup quarter-final against England, where Diego Maradona's infamous "Hand of God" goal helped secure victory and cemented his place as a football legend.

Four minutes later, Maradona dazzled the crowd with what is known as the goal of the century, dribbling past five English players to help Argentina clinch victory.

Argentina's Diego Maradona scores his infamous "Hand of God" goal over England goalkeeper Peter Shilton during the 1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final at Mexico City's Azteca Stadium on June 22, 1986, as England defenders Kenny Sansom (top), Gary Stevens (center), and Terry Fenwick look on.

(

Getty Images/Getty Images

/

Getty/Hulton Archive

)

While the match is celebrated in Argentina, it continues to evoke the trauma of one of England's most agonizing World Cup defeats.

For Argentines, it was much more than a game, coming just a few years after a 74-day war over a disputed archipelago off the southern tip of Argentina known in Britain as the Falklands Islands and in Argentina as las Islas Malvinas.

"In that match we weren't just playing football, we were playing for everything that had happened with the Malvinas war," Maradona said years later.

It's a sentiment that persists today.

"More than anything, it's about the resentment we have towards the English — not the majority of the English, but they stole our land, and it's a huge lack of respect for us," said Franco Guido, 14, in the movie theater.

Argentine media reported that U.S. officials have deemed today's game in Atlanta to be "high risk" and have banned fans inside the Mercedes-Benz Stadium from displaying signs or shirts that mention the Malvinas.

The Falkland Islands are officially a British Overseas Territory, since a British naval force expelled an Argentine garrison in 1833, an act Argentina considers illegal.

In 1982, Argentina's deeply unpopular military dictatorship sent thousands of soldiers to assume control of the Falklands. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded by dispatching a fleet of warships to the South Atlantic Ocean. Some 649 Argentines, 255 Britons and three Falkland islanders died in the war that ended with Argentina's surrender.

The Argentine government continues to lay a constitutional, historical and diplomatic claim to the Falklands. It is also central to the Argentine identity. It is taught at school, is the subject of countless memorials and signs that say "the Malvinas are Argentine" are hung in shops or pasted to city buses.

In the hours before Argentina's quarterfinal victory over Switzerland, Argentine foreign minister Pablo Quirno wrote on X: "Malvinas: the strength of a just cause. By history, right and conviction, the Malvinas are Argentine."

Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, responded in the same medium: "This matter was decisively settled in 1982 with your emphatic defeat. Don't try it again."

England have won three of the five previous World Cup meetings, Argentina have won two. The Argentine squad, led by superstar Lionel Messi, will be wearing its dark blue "away" jersey in Atlanta — an homage to the dark blue jersey worn by Diego Maradona's side in its famous 1986 World Cup victory over England.

As she waited to see the documentary about that game, Florencia Wolf, 26, a political scientist, reflected on the symbolic meaning of Wednesday's semifinals. But she said it's important to separate the game from the conflict.

"There are a lot of people who died there. There is so much to discuss and grieve from that war for me; we shouldn't mix both things," she said. "In theory," she added. "In practice, of course, everything is mixed."
Copyright 2026 NPR

The University of California will still evaluate the role of the SAT in undergraduate admissions, despite media reports indicating that the revered public university system suspended those deliberations.

The confusion comes at a time when a growing chorus of professors and media commentators are pushing the UC to reinstate the SAT for undergraduate admissions, which the UC Board of Regents removed from the admissions process in 2020. That board decision overruled the UC Academic Senate’s recommendation that the UC keep its then-policy of relying on the SAT and the ACT. The regents’ vote was unanimous.

The latest whiplash began last month, when the academic senate said it would launch a review of standardized tests in admissions and the high school classes that students must take to be minimally eligible for UC admissions. Monday afternoon, several news stories reported that an academic senate committee that oversees admissions decided to scrap that review.

However, two key officials at the UC said a new evaluation of the role of standardized testing in admissions is still on the table. One of those officials is the chair of the academic senate, Ahmet Palazoglu.

“The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions,” he wrote in a statement Monday night on the UC Office of the President website. He said the senate is merely revising its original timeline for a full review of the admissions process.

At a Tuesday meeting of the UC Board of Regents, the new board chair, Maria Anguiano, said the academic senate will finish its review by “no later than the end of this academic year,” which means around June 2027.

That speeds up the original timeline. An academic senate document issued last month said its final report and recommendation to the regents would come sometime in fall 2027.

Palazoglu clarified in an email Tuesday that the June timeline pertains only to the question of standardized tests in admissions. The academic senate will meet July 22 to decide on a separate approach to reviewing the high school courses students must take for UC eligibility.

While the academic senate has considerable power at the UC, it cannot unilaterally return the SAT to undergraduate admissions. Only the board of regents can. Procedurally, the board must first hear least one informational item that's on the agenda and then vote on any proposed policy at a subsequent meeting.

Students again oppose SAT use

The UC Student Association sent a letter to the regents this week opposing a return to the SAT. The association, which represents 237,000 undergraduate students at the UC, “does not believe SAT/ACT will result in better prepared students.” The letter notes that racial and ethnic diversity at the UC increased after 2020 while the system posted no decline in graduation rates.

“The role of public education is to ensure all students can access their right to a robust, quality learning experience, and the UC must not limit the number of students able to enter its halls,” the students wrote.

Students in 2020 urged the regents to remove standardized tests from admissions. The regents reaffirmed their ban on exams for admissions in 2021.

At the meeting, Anguiano hinted at her discomfort with the current discourse over the role of tests in admissions. “Recent public conversations have focused on admissions and standardized testing, too narrowly, in my opinion,” she said Tuesday.

Why faculty want the SAT back

More than 2,000 UC professors in science, technology, engineering and math have signed a petition urging the UC to reinstate the SAT or ACT as requirements for undergraduate admissions for STEM majors by fall 2027. Nearly 1,000 additional professors in other disciplines signed a similar letter to fully reinstate the SAT or ACT in the admissions process.

The petition from STEM professors said high school grades alone are not a sufficient measure of college readiness, pointing to increasing grade inflation and the growing number of students relying on artificial intelligence to complete assignments. That means some students aren't prepared for the rigors of a UC education, they say.

Mina Aganagic, a physics and math professor at UC Berkeley, spoke Tuesday in favor of returning the SAT. “Without the SAT, our introductory courses are forced to reteach elementary and middle school material. This wastes opportunities, misallocating resources rather than increasing access,” she said.

But the leader of an influential nonprofit that advocates for increased access to the UC said focusing on the SAT is the wrong move.

“This is absolutely the wrong solution to an undefined problem,” said Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity. “What we know, based on the UC Office of the President's own research, is that since going to test-free (admissions), our retention rates have remained stable and graduation rates have also increased.”

She continued: “If, in fact, we want to address college preparation, we should be looking not at becoming more selective, but being more supportive to students across the state. Working with our K-12 partners to improve preparation, not slamming the door on thousands of students.”

Critics of the SAT maintain that the test is unfair to low-income students, who are less likely to be able to afford test preparation services to boost their scores.

Standardized tests were just one factor in how campuses decided whom to admit. Other considerations included the quality of courses students take, how that courseload compares to students from the same high school, an applicant’s special talents or achievements and the location of their high school.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The black-tie event, hosted by President Donald Trump, prioritized tickets to people who donated more than $75,000 to the center. This year, it feted Hollywood icon Sylvester Stallone, the legendary glam rock band Kiss and the Grammy Award-winning disco pioneer Gloria Gaynor.

Among the attendees that evening were two lower-profile government officials whose regulatory decisions had been crucial to the future of the gala’s broadcast sponsor, CBS, and its parent company, Paramount.

Five months earlier, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty cast a decisive vote approving Paramount’s historic $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Now, the commissioner and a guest enjoyed the star-studded celebration thanks to tickets gifted to her by Paramount worth more than $12,000, according to ethics disclosure records obtained by ProPublica.

The other commissioner who approved the merger watched from a prized perch. FCC Chair Brendan Carr and his wife sat in a private skybox with Paramount CEO David Ellison and other executives from Paramount and CBS. Such seats sold for $125,000 a ticket, according to Kennedy Center guidelines.

It’s unclear if Paramount gifted Carr the premium seats because the FCC has yet to make public his financial disclosure for last year.

However, past disclosures show Carr and Trusty are among seven FCC commissioners who have accepted Kennedy gala tickets from CBS or its parent company over the last decade. Ethics experts told ProPublica this poses a blatant conflict of interest since the commission regulates the network. Carr’s previous financial statements show he has accepted tickets at least seven times since his 2017 appointment, totaling over $63,000 in gifts.

Last December’s ceremony attended by Trusty and Carr took place as Paramount was launching a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, a move that would later result in a merger agreement that requires FCC approval.

Federal ethics rules ban employees from taking gifts from any entity that does business with, is regulated by or seeks official action from their agency.

Four ethics experts told ProPublica that by accepting the premium tickets Trusty and Carr compromised the FCC’s impartiality and should not take part in any upcoming decision on the merger.

“There’s no way that any top federal regulator should ever, ever accept a gift from a regulated company with interests their work will foreseeably affect,” said Walter Shaub, who led the federal Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017. “The appearance of taking gifts like that is terrible. What’s at stake is nothing less than the public’s trust in government.”

Virginia Canter, who served as an ethics lawyer at the White House, Treasury Department, and Securities and Exchange Commission during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said the commissioners who accepted tickets cannot participate in this matter without damaging the integrity of the government’s decision-making process.

“This is shocking. Pretty disturbing, that’s what I would say. I just don’t understand what they were thinking,” said Canter, who now works as chief counsel for ethics and corruption at the nonpartisan government watchdog group Democracy Defenders Fund.

The FCC’s review of the merger is one of the final hurdles facing a historic $110 billion consolidation of two of the five largest film studios in Hollywood. The deal would unite Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros., bringing under the control of one company Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services; CBS and CNN; and scores of other major broadcast channels, cable networks, and digital platforms.

The new megacorporation, which could reshape how millions will access news, movies, sports and video games, faces fierce opposition from inside and outside Hollywood. More than 5,000 actors, producers and entertainment workers — including stars such as Robert De Niro, Javier Bardem, Joaquin Phoenix and Glenn Close — signed an open letter decrying how the consolidation would eliminate jobs and compromise “the integrity, independence, and diversity of our industry.”

On Monday, California, New York and 10 other Democratic states filed a lawsuit seeking to block the merger under federal and state anti-monopoly laws.

American and international regulators are evaluating the deal for its potential national security implications and impacts to consumers worldwide. Last week, the British government signaled it planned to investigate whether the new entertainment titan that would emerge from the union would unfairly stifle competition. The FCC’s ongoing review includes examining the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds backing the deal, including from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The FCC usually has five commissioners — all appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve five-year terms — but the agency currently has only three. Any vote by the full commission would likely be decided by Republicans Carr and Trusty over Democrat Anna Gomez. Gomez was not at the December 2025 show but has accepted tickets from Paramount in the past. Because the FCC requires a three-commissioner quorum for a vote, any recusal could leave the panel unable to decide on the merger. Carr could decide to ask staff to approve the deal rather than bring it to a commission vote, but the ethics experts said he should recuse himself from any decisions affecting the Paramount merger.

The experts warned the commissioners’ gifts might become central in legal challenges and said the Justice Department should investigate potential violations of federal rules or laws.

Neither Carr nor Trusty responded to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gomez said in a statement that she followed agency advice when she attended the event in 2023 and 2024. Her statement did not elaborate or otherwise address why taking gifts from Paramount did not pose a conflict of interest.

An FCC spokesperson said agency ethics officers have for years cleared commissioner appearances, finding it consistent with ethics law.

“FCC Chairs and officials have attended the same event, in the same ways, consistently from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration to the Obama Administration,” the FCC said in a statement. “There has been no change in recent years.”

Shaub called the justification outrageous.

“It’s no excuse to say that you took the gift because everyone else was doing it or that your agency has had a bad habit of indulging in gift taking for a long time,” Shaub said. “That kind of explanation doesn’t work for school children, and it sure as hell doesn’t work for government officials who are supposed to have better judgment than a fifth grader.”

The three members of the Federal Communications Commission at a meeting this year. From the left, Anna Gomez; Brendan Carr, the panel’s chair; and Olivia Trusty.

(

Kevin Dietsch

/

Getty Images

)

Despite their oversight role, FCC members have long enjoyed a night out at the Kennedy Center courtesy of CBS or its parent company. Seven of the 10 commissioners who served since 2016 accepted tickets worth more than $260,000, according to a ProPublica analysis of ethics disclosures.

Carr’s predecessor, Jessica Rosenworcel, who was appointed FCC chair by President Joe Biden and stepped down in January 2025, attended regularly.

Rosenworcel and several other former commissioners who accepted the tickets did not respond to requests for comment. The one commissioner who didn’t accept a single gift, Nathan Simington, said he received the Kennedy Center invites from CBS and Paramount but turned them down because it “wasn’t my cup of tea.”

A review of 10 years of disclosures shows commissioners accepted paid trips from various sponsors to appear at banquets and speak at conferences. Some of those gifts came from other media companies regulated by the FCC. NBCUniversal, ABC-Disney and Fox News, for instance, paid for commissioners to attend White House Correspondents’ Association dinners, records show. The total value of the combined gifts topped $308,000. But the vast majority came from CBS and its parent company.

Melissa Zukerman, Paramount’s chief communications officer, said it was a decades-long “CBS practice to invite government officials from both parties” to the Kennedy Center show. She didn’t address why the practice continued after new ownership took over last year, the purpose of the gifts or whether the tickets posed a conflict of interest.

Carr, who joined the FCC as a staffer in 2012 and rose to become the agency’s general counsel, was appointed to serve as a commissioner by Trump during his first term. Since then, Carr has accepted tickets annually, except when the 2020 event was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to his public disclosures.

Carr did not respond to an email request from ProPublica for his latest ethics report, which would indicate whether Paramount also paid for him to attend last December’s gala. The FCC referred us to the Office of Government Ethics, which told us that the FCC had not yet provided the disclosure. The FCC did not respond to our subsequent requests for the record.

A 2009 Office of Government Ethics memo gave federal employees the right to attend Kennedy Center events but explicitly said officials cannot accept free attendance “offered by persons other than the Kennedy Center and its trustees, officers and employees.” In 2016, the ethics office tightened its gift requirements, warning officials to avoid any appearance “of loss of impartiality.”

There is an exemption to the gift rules that allows free entry to gatherings that are widely attended and paid for by third parties, but only if certain conditions are met.

The event must “further agency programs or operations,” and the agency’s interest in an official attending must outweigh “concern that the employee may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of official duties,” according to the federal rules.

As an example, the Office of Government Ethics said an industry-wide seminar attended by more than 100 people could be allowed if the employee’s participation would be in the agency’s interest. But those attending should “represent a range of persons interested in a given matter” and the event must provide a “structured opportunity” to exchange ideas and views among invitees.

The office clarified in a 2007 memo that performing arts presentations would not count even if they, like the honors gala, have a reception before or afterward at which officials can mingle with other attendees.

Canter, the former White House ethics lawyer, said it would be a “stretch” for the FCC to argue the exemptions apply to the Kennedy Center’s annual show, where famous musicians perform and celebrities laud those who are being honored. “It’s not what we would consider a widely attended gathering,” she said.

Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, noted that federal rules also require agencies to weigh the market value of the attendance, its relevance to the agency, any sensitive pending matters involving the donor and whether accepting free tickets creates an appearance of preferential treatment.

“The ethics rules are designed to prevent this exact situation,” he said, adding that it is an “obvious conflict of interest” for an official to “accept expensive gifts from anyone with decisions pending before the agency. This matters because it makes the public question whether official decisions are free from the improper influence of wealthy special interests.”

An FCC official familiar with the legal guidance given to the commissioners said they were told the event met the criteria for the “widely attended gathering” exception. (The source was not authorized to talk publicly about agency legal discussions.)

Shaub, the former Office of Government Ethics head, disagreed, saying it would be “hard to understand what compelling interest the FCC could think it had in letting its commissioners” attend the gala.

“What possible reason could have outweighed the obvious ethics concerns?” he asked.

Federal rules require written authorization for an official to accept free entry to a widely attended gathering. The FCC did not respond to our requests to provide the authorizations for the Paramount tickets or say who authorized them. Two senior ethics officials at the agency, Kathleen Fulp and Lauren Northrop, did not respond to requests for comment.

While December’s event came at a particularly sensitive time for Paramount and the FCC, it wasn’t the first.

More than a year earlier, in September 2024, Paramount had filed paperwork seeking the commission’s approval for its merger with Skydance Media. A month later, the FCC launched an investigation of CBS after a conservative group complained about a “60 Minutes” interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Trump later filed a lawsuit alleging the network deceptively edited the interview — an accusation CBS denied.

Then in November, less than two weeks after his election victory, Trump declared he would appoint Carr as FCC chair. Almost immediately, Carr accused CBS of biased election coverage and said it would be an obstacle to approving the Paramount-Skydance merger.

That December, Carr and three other commissioners — Rosenworcel, Gomez and Geoffrey Starks — accepted Kennedy Center gala tickets from Paramount worth a combined $48,156.

On Jan. 16, 2025, just days before Rosenworcel stepped down from the commission, she announced the agency was dismissing the election complaint against CBS. She and Gomez called the outcome a victory for the First Amendment.

But days later, Carr, the incoming FCC chair, reopened the investigation.

To resolve Trump’s lawsuit, CBS agreed to pay the president $16 million, a decision criticized by legal experts who decried Trump’s claims as baseless.

Two days after Trump posted on social media that he had received the settlement money, the FCC took up the Paramount-Skydance merger. To meet Carr’s demands, Paramount agreed to appoint an independent ombudsperson who would evaluate claims of bias. The company also pledged to eliminate its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

By then, Starks and Simington had unexpectedly stepped down from the commission. Trusty, a Trump appointee, had been confirmed by the Senate the previous month.

Trusty and Carr voted in favor of the merger. Gomez voted against, blasting the approval for requiring “never-before-seen forms of government control over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment.”

Experts said that while Trusty had no conflict yet, Carr and Gomez did. The fact that Gomez voted against Paramount did not mean she didn’t face a conflict under the rules, Shaub said.

Federal rules only require those who accept improper gifts to make a prompt reimbursement, but Shaub and the other experts said Carr and Gomez should have abstained from the vote.

“If you repay the face value of the ticket, the gift rules don’t require you to recuse — though common sense and any kind of conscience might lead you to recuse voluntarily for the good of the country,” Shaub said. “But if you refuse to repay the donor, I don’t see how anything short of recusal could remotely remediate the problem.”

With the Paramount-Skydance merger greenlit by the FCC, Ellison, the new company’s CEO, then set his sights on acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery.

Warner at first rebuffed Paramount’s overtures and on Dec. 5 — two days before the Kennedy Center gala — accepted a bid from Netflix to buy its studio and streaming assets. Ellison responded by making numerous calls to administration officials and had a long talk with Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal.

On the night of the gala, Trump told reporters the Netflix deal “could be a problem” and that he planned to get directly involved with the regulatory approval. Inside the Kennedy Center, Carr and his wife sat with Ellison in an exclusive skybox, Bloomberg reported. (Gomez said in her statement to ProPublica that she declined Paramount’s “invitation because of serious concerns about press independence connected to conditions Paramount agreed to as part of its merger transaction before the FCC.”)

The main gate to Paramount Studios on Melrose Avenue in L.A.

(

Nick Ut

/

AP

)

Hours after the gala ended, Paramount announced it was launching its hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. Discovery.

About three months later, Carr publicly endorsed Paramount over Netflix on CNBC, promising swift approval.

If one or more commissioners choose to abstain from a merger vote because of ethical concerns, what would happen next is unclear. Under federal conflict of interest rules, an agency designee could theoretically permit commissioners to vote after considering several factors, including “the difficulty of reassigning the matter,” the nature of the relationship between the commissioners and Paramount, and the “effect that resolution of the matter would have upon the financial interests” of the firm.

Carr could bypass a full commission vote entirely, as he did with the recent acquisition of Tegna by Nexstar Media Group. In that case, Carr delegated authority to FCC staff to approve the takeover.

But any decision on the Paramount deal — whether by the full commission or by staff at the direction of the chair — is likely to be challenged.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics attorney in the administration of George W. Bush, said while courts often defer to the government’s judgment, they also can become skeptical if a regulatory agency is shown to have violated ethics rules.

“A judge may very well say that the merger decision of the FCC isn’t worth jack because the process was corrupted,” he said.

Yes, we did just wrap up the primary election, but believe us — November will be here before you know it.

There will be new ballot measures to vote on in L.A. County, and now is the time they're being finalized.

Local jurisdictions (county, city, school and district) have until Aug. 7 to get them completed, according to Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson at the L.A. County Registrar's Office.

Here’s what we know so far about what’s coming.

LA County ballot measures

Enshrining LA County’s ethics commission

Two years ago, voters approved Measure G — a batch of historic county government reforms that included establishing an independent ethics commission and compliance office by 2026.

That's now happening — the Board of Supervisors recently approved an ordinance to create it, and officials are getting into the nuts and bolts of how it would work.

The seven-member commission’s job will be enforcing ethics laws, conducting investigations and levying penalties for violations. Three of the members will be appointed by elected officials, with the rest coming from a public application process.

There are concerns about the body's independence, however, and a Governance Reform Task Force set up to guide Measure G’s implementation has recommended permanently safeguarding its autonomy by enshrining it into the county charter.

That needs voter approval — hence, the new measure on the books in November, which would add the ethics commission, compliance office and governing procedures to the charter.

While the official ballot language hasn’t been made public yet, it’s expected to mirror the ordinance that directed its creation.

The board is also using this opportunity to correct a mistake. Back in 2025, after voters approved Measure G, county officials discovered an “administrative error.” The structure inadvertently put a different measure, Measure J, on the chopping block, which mandates funding for community investment and alternatives to incarceration. So the board is adding additional language that would lock the county into spending money on those issues.

This ballot measure is still pending approval from the Board of Supervisors. That’s expected to come later this month.

The Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in Los Angeles.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Binding arbitration in LA County labor disputes

This is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration in certain labor disputes between the county and public safety organizations, if passed.

It would cover unions representing firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and lifeguards, among other employees.

Currently, when disputes can’t be resolved, the county can implement its best and final offer, even if the union disagrees with it. This creates a “challenging dynamic,” according to Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s motion for the measure, because public safety employees have important roles and can’t strike under California law.

That power imbalance is what this measure aims to equalize.

Under the terms, a three-member arbiter panel would decide disputes about working conditions — such as wages and working hours — that the county and union haven’t been able to settle. Each party would be able to appoint one arbitrator, and the third would be picked by both parties. The county and union would be required to share the costs.

This measure would need a simple majority to pass.

City of LA ballot measures

Funding the city of LA’s fire department

The L.A. Fire Department’s labor union, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, sponsored this initiative, which was approved by the L.A. City Council last month. It proposes a half-cent sales tax to fund the LAFD.

This would raise the city’s sales tax to 10.25%. If approved by voters, it’s expected to raise $345 million in its first year. That money would be spent on things like hiring new firefighters, building stations and brush clearance.

United Firefighters says it’s needed because the department is too small to appropriately serve 4 million residents.

“Due to decades of underinvestment, the LAFD currently operates with the same number of firefighters as in the 1960s, six fewer stations and five times the call load,” the union previously said in a statement.

The measure would require a simple majority to pass. If approved, the tax would be in effect until repealed.

A Los Angeles City Council meeting April 2, 2025.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Reforming the LA city charter

Charter reform has been a big talking point in L.A. ever since the 2022 leaked-tapes scandal at City Hall — and now, we’re seeing the outcomes.

While the City Council controversially opted to forgo a slate of major changes on this year’s ballot, including ones on LAPD oversight and expanding the City Council, we still have six ballot measures proposing reforms.

The language of these measures is still being finalized, according to Josué Marcus, a spokesperson at the City Clerk’s Office. Here’s a peek at what they include:

• Modifying ethics and campaign finance rules
• Doubling the Recreation and Parks Department’s budget percentage over time
• Moving the city of L.A. to a two-year budget cycle instead of one-year
• Removing a restriction that prohibits the city from taking part in commercial activities
• Changing contracting rules about accepting the lowest bidders
• Requiring a capital infrastructure plan

We should know more about these measures soon. In the meantime, you can keep an eye out for the specifics on the city’s elections website here.