Category World News

Who: Bayern Munich (Germany) vs Boca Juniors (Argentina)
What: FIFA Club World Cup, Group C, Matchday 2
Where: Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, Florida, United States
When: Kickoff is at 9pm on Friday (01:00 GMT on Saturday)

How to follow our coverage: We’ll have all the build-up from 5pm local (21:00 GMT on Friday) on Al Jazeera Sport.

Group C leaders Bayern Munich clash with Argentina mega club Boca Juniors in the second matchday for each side at the FIFA Club World Cup (CWC) in the United States.

Victory for Bayern would ensure they qualify for the knockout stages, beginning on June 28.

After a draw in their opening match, Boca Juniors have it all to play for if they also want to progress to the last 16 of the tournament and will need to defeat Bayern to draw level on points at the top of Group C.

How did Bayern Munich and Boca Juniors fare in their opening Group C fixtures?

Bayern Munich began their campaign in record-breaking fashion, becoming the first team to score double digits in a single CWC game when they thumped Auckland City 10-0 on Sunday.

German international Jamal Musiala marked his return from injury with a brilliant second-half hat-trick in a commanding team display.

Boca Juniors played out a 2-2 draw with Benfica on Monday in a feisty encounter that resulted in three red cards.

The Buenos Aires side were ahead 2-0 just before half-time but let the three points slip after squandering the lead to the Portuguese side.

Why were Boca’s Ander Herrera and Nicolas Figal given harsh suspensions?

Boca Juniors players Ander Herrera and Nicolas Figal were handed four-match bans by FIFA after being sent off in their CWC opener, a spokesperson for the Argentinian club said on Wednesday.

Boca disagreed with the sanctions imposed on their players after Benfica’s Andrea Belotti received a two-match ban for catching Ayrton Costa in the head with a high boot in the 72nd minute.

“We have already contacted FIFA to submit an appeal,” a club spokesperson said.

Spanish midfielder Herrera, who was subbed off due to a muscle injury, was shown a red card in the 45th minute after protesting to Mexican referee Cesar Ramos from the bench over a penalty awarded to the Portuguese side.

Defender Figal was sent off in the 88th minute with a straight red card for a foul on Florentino Luis when the match was tied at 2-2.

Have Bayern and Boca ever played before?

The teams last met on November 27, 2001, in the knockout stage of the FIFA Intercontinental Cup in Tokyo, Japan.

The contest was billed as a clash of the super clubs between the then-two-time Copa Libertadores champion Boca Juniors taking on the might of the newly crowned UEFA Champions League winners, Bayern Munich.

Bayern beat Boca 1-0 in extra time courtesy of a 109th minute strike by Samuel Kuffour.

Friday’s match will be only the fourth time they’ve played in 100 years.

Team News: Bayern Munich

Out: Hiroki Ito (metatarsal fracture), Alphonso Davies (cruciate ligament tear), Kim Min-jae (foot injury)
Doubtful: none

Manager Vincent Kompany has a full squad available to him and is expected to field a similar starting XI to the side that thrashed Auckland.

Star forward Harry Kane, who failed to score in the goal fest against Auckland City, is again expected to lead the line.

Team News: Boca Juniors

Out: Sergio Romero (knee injury)
Doubtful: none
Suspended: Herrera, Figal

Boca Juniors manager Miguel Russo has two large holes to fill with former Manchester United star Herrera and Figal both suspended until the semifinal stage of the tournament.

Tomas Belmonte replaced Herrera in the midfield against Benfica and is a near-certainty to get the start in the key central midfield role. Figal’s role in the back four will likely be occupied by Marcos Rojo.

Russo is expected to deploy the same 4-2-3-1 set-up, just as he did against Benfica.

Possible lineups:

Bayern Munich: Neuer; Laimer, Tah, Upamecano, Guerreiro; Kimmich, Pavlovic; Olise, Musiala, Coman; Kane

Boca Juniors: Marchesin; Advincula, Rojo, Costa, Blanco; Belmonte, Battaglia; Zenon, Velasco, Palacios; Zeballos

Form guide

Bayern Munich (all competitions, most recent first):

W-W-D-W-W

Boca Juniors (all competitions, most recent first):

W-L-D-W-L

Where will the match be played?

The match will be played at the 65,000-capacity Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, Florida.

The venue is home to the legendary Miami Dolphins NFL franchise and stages the Miami Tennis Open annually.

What the teams had to say

Manuela Neuer, Bayern Munich goalkeeper:

“We’re definitely expecting a good atmosphere. We saw how the match against Benfica went,” Neuer told fcbayern.com.

“We’re getting more and more focused as the game approaches. In terms of analysis of the opposition too, we know exactly what we’ll need in the match. We keep increasing the intensity before reducing it a little on the day before the match because the temperatures too play a role.”

Miguel Russo, Boca Juniors manager:

“We have to be up to the task. It will be a physical match like [against Benfica].

“They’re [Bayern Munich are] a big opponent. Historically, they’ve won a lot. But Argentine football is big too. … We welcome these challenges. But we have to know that Friday’s game will be tougher than today’s [vs Benfica].”

How much is the prize money for the Club World Cup?

The total prize pot is $1bn with the champions earning up to $125m.

About half of the $1bn will be divided between the 32 clubs with the amount per club based on sporting and commercial criteria. It means that clubs such as Manchester City and Real Madrid will receive a greater percentage than smaller clubs in a model FIFA developed with the European Club Association.

A further $475m will be awarded on a performance-related basis. Hence, the team with the most wins over a potential seven matches will bank more cash with a maximum pot of $125m available.

The Israeli government has issued new directives restricting how its media covers its current war with Iran.

On Wednesday, a circular from Israel’s military censor, Brigadier General Kobi Mandelblit, announced new rules on what Israeli media organisations and journalists within the country can – and cannot – publish about the effect of Iranian strikes.

The legal underpinnings of censorship in Israel are older than the country itself.

Restrictions on media freedom in the territory were first established by the British during their Mandate for Palestine in 1945, before being incorporated into Israeli law after the state was created three years later.

However, restrictions on press freedom in Israel go further than just outlawing aspects of journalists’ reporting.

According to figures from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Israel has killed at least 164 journalists in Gaza since October 7, 2023. More have been killed in Lebanon, the occupied West Bank and, now, Iran.

Since May 2024, the Israeli government has banned Al Jazeera from its territory and, since November, has sanctioned the Israeli liberal daily, Haaretz, over coverage considered critical of its actions.

So, what are the new restrictions on journalists and how does media freedom in Israel stack up against that in other countries?

Here’s what we know.

What do the new restrictions involve?

The new regulations relate specifically to the conflict with Iran. They place special restrictions on the way journalists and editors can report the impact of Iranian strikes on Israel.

In a circular, published on Wednesday, titled Rising Lion – IDF Censor Guidelines for Media Coverage of Attack on the Israeli Home Front, the office of Israel’s chief military censor ordered editors to take “strict measures” when reporting on missile and drone attacks.

The censor is also warning against reporting anything that could indicate attack positions or air defence operations, or damage assessments that could “assist the enemy” and pose “a tangible threat to state security”.

Specifically, journalists and editors are prohibited from:

• Filming or broadcasting images from impact sites, particularly near military installations.
• Using drones or wide-angle cameras to show impact areas.
• Detailing the precise location of affected areas near security installations.
• Broadcasting images of Israeli missiles being launched or of Iranian missiles being intercepted.
• The directive also bans the sharing of videos from social media without prior review by the censor, cautioning – as a side note – that some may be “enemy-generated fake news”.

The new restrictions have taken immediate effect. Photographers in the port city of Haifa were arrested in the early hours of Tuesday morning while setting up cameras to capture images of potential strikes on the port.

What restrictions were already in place before this?

Journalists and editors were already required to submit any article that could touch upon Israel’s security to the military censor for approval ahead of publication.

Under the existing regulations, the censor has the power to halt publication of any article if “there is a “near certainty that real damage will be caused to the security of the state” by its publication.

It may not, however, restrict articles or reports on the grounds that they might damage the reputation of either the Israeli army or the country’s politicians.

In 2023, Israel’s already tight restrictions were increased via an amendment to the country’s anti-terrorism law which punishes those who “systematically and continuously consume terrorist publications” or who broadcast  “a direct call to commit an act of terrorism”.

According to media freedom organisations, such as the Index on Censorship, even before the new restrictions on reporting the Iran conflict were introduced, the censor’s definition of “security issues” was very broad, covering topics as diverse as the army, intelligence agencies, arms deals, administrative detainees, aspects of Israel’s foreign affairs, and more.

Any journalist, publication or media group can appeal a decision by the censor to the Supreme Court, which has the power to overturn its decisions.

How often does the censor take action?

Frequently.

In May, the Israeli-Palestinian magazine, + 972, described what it called an “unprecedented spike in media censorship” since the start of the war on Gaza.

According to the magazine, throughout 2024, Israel’s military censor fully blocked 1,635 articles from being published and imposed partial restrictions on another 6,265.

This amounted to an average of roughly 21 interventions in news stories every day; more than twice the highest previous daily tally of about 10 interventions during the 2014 Gaza conflict (Operation Protective Edge), and more than three times that typically recorded during peacetime of 6.2 per day.

Complicating matters are regulations banning outlets from stating whether parts of an article have been censored, so readers cannot be certain what information has been censored and what has not.

None of the countries that Israeli leaders typically compare themselves with has any institution comparable to Israel’s military censor.

According to the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, Israel currently stands at 112th place out of 180 countries for freedom of the press – below Haiti, Guinea Bissau, South Sudan and Chad.

According to the RSF: “Press freedom, media plurality and editorial independence have been increasingly restricted in Israel since the start of the war in Gaza, launched by Israel on 7 October 2023 following the deadly Hamas attack.”

Service members are concerned about orders as President Trump deploys troops to protect against protesters in Los Angeles.

An unpopular Iranian government must woo a panicked populace facing a full-fledged war as Tehran evacuates.

President Donald Trump made fun of Israel’s nuclear war when he asked if he would join the country in the White House’s lawn for a press conference.

“I may do it. He said on Wednesday, “I may not.”

Trump is responsible for making the decision to engage in the war, according to US officials and the president’s allies, who have also stressed that they can trust his instincts.

“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward”, Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.

However, antiwar advocates have been making the case that Congress must decide whether or not war or peace is best for Trump over all other options.

Some lawmakers are reaffirming their congressional authority under the War Powers Act as Trump more and more publicly makes hints about the possibility of US involvement in the conflict.

But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?

What information is necessary about US law that governs war decisions.

What is stated in the US Constitution?

Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some opponents claim that the president has the authority to appoint lawmakers over US military actions.

When did the US last declare war in writing?

In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has launched strikes and interventions in numerous nations, including Serbia, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, while also going to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

What authority does the president have in a war?

According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.

Presidents are able to direct the military to react to threats and attacks. Beyond that, Congress restates some of their authority to declare war. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. Under the direction of lawmakers, they are in charge of mobilizing the military.

Despite this, previous presidents have used their military’s ability to launch attacks on an emergency basis to defend themselves or repel threats.

How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?

Through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress may grant the president the authority to use the military for specific purposes without declaring war.

For instance, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W. Bush broad authority to start what would become the “war on terror” at the world level in 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

Presidents can still rely on the two authorizations to carry out strikes without first obtaining congressional approval. For instance, Trump authorized the murder of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020 under the 2003 AUMF.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

The War Powers Act was passed when?

Presidents have discovered ways to avoid Congress in war issues despite the articles in the constitution. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.

The president’s war-making authority is limited by the law, at least in its intended form.

Following President Richard Nixon’s covert bombing of Cambodia, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and sparked widespread protests in the US, it was passed.

What are the Act’s key tenets?

The US president’s authority to start an armed conflict was imposed by the federal law.

Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.

Congress must be consulted “in every way possible” before US troops are sent abroad, it says.

The War Powers Act: Why Does It Matter Right Now? &nbsp ,

Legislators have been considering the five-decade law and pushing for their own version as the possibility of US intervention in Iran grows.

Republican Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill on Monday that would require that Trump, a Republican, obtain authorization before launching military operations against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.

The Vermont senator’s No War Against Iran Act seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes.”

However, it’s still unlikely that such legislation will pass in the Republican-controlled legislature despite the fact that some polls indicate Trump supporters are opposed to a war with Iran.

Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution? &nbsp ,

The executive and legislative branches have fought over those positions throughout US history despite the separation of the executive and legislative branches’ constitutional separation of war powers.

The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The executive “may repel sudden attacks,” the court eventually decided that the president’s actions were constitutional.

Official congressional declarations of war have been a rarity throughout history. There have been just 11.

Instead, Congress has typically authorized a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the War Powers Act have any substance?

Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (A subcommittee led by then-Senator Joe Biden in the 1980s determined that the law had failed to fulfill its purpose.)

A presidential veto of a congressional resolution that calls for the end of military activities that are not authorized by Congress can only be overturned by a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate.

Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. A semblance of transparency can be found in the more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973.

What are presidents’ opinions of the act?

While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Contemporary presidents frequently veer away from the law and make up their own legal arguments.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the executive branch has steadily expanded its role in waging war.

The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

In a briefing, Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote that the executive branch has expanded this authorization to include organizations that were unrelated to the attacks, including those like ISIS [ISIL], which were unexistent at the time.

And while successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so, despite organizations like the International Crisis Group’s demand for a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.

Although the Senate voted in 2023 to end the AUMF of 2001, the decision was largely seen as symbolic. In 2021, the House voted similarly to revoke the AUMF from 2002. But both laws still remain in effect.

Can Trump’s war with Iran be prevented by the War Powers Act?

That is still to be seen, but it doesn’t seem likely.

During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.

Trump quickly vetoed a bill that would end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen in 2019.

After Trump’s drone strike that killed Soleimani, a similar situation emerged a year later.

In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.

Trump overrode that bill, and once more, the two-thirds majority needed to override it was lost to Republicans.