LONDON (AP) — The Manchester United team that won Sir Alex Ferguson’s last Premier League title in 2013 is being described by some football analysts as “built to fail,” reigniting debate over whether the legendary manager left behind a squad strong enough for the future.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The discussion began after recent comments and renewed analysis on sports programs suggested that Ferguson’s final title-winning side, though dominant at the time, lacked the long-term foundation needed for continued success. Critics argue that the squad was overly reliant on aging players and individual brilliance, rather than a sustainable team structure.

“The last team that Sir Alex Ferguson won the Premier League with in 2013 was built to fail,” one pundit said on talkSPORT this week. “It was not a team you build the future on.” The remark quickly circulated across British media, drawing reactions from former players and fans alike.

Ferguson retired in May 2013 after leading Manchester United to their 20th English league title, winning the Premier League by 11 points. The achievement capped an extraordinary 27-year reign that delivered 38 trophies, including 13 league titles, two Champions League crowns, and five FA Cups.

At the time of his retirement, Ferguson insisted he was leaving United “in the strongest possible shape.” However, some football commentators now suggest that the 2012–13 squad’s success masked deeper weaknesses. Players such as Rio Ferdinand, Nemanja Vidić, Paul Scholes, and Ryan Giggs were nearing the end of their careers, while younger players like Phil Jones, Tom Cleverley, and Danny Welbeck failed to develop into long-term leaders for the club.

Former United defender Ferdinand defended his old manager, calling the “built to fail” claim “nonsense.” Speaking on his podcast, he said, “You can’t win a league by that margin and say the team wasn’t good enough. The difference was in what happened after Sir Alex left, not what he built.”

When Ferguson stepped down, his successor David Moyes inherited the same squad but struggled to replicate its success. United finished seventh in the following Premier League season, their worst finish in two decades. Many observers saw that collapse as proof that Ferguson’s side, while experienced, was not equipped for a post-Ferguson era.

Football journalist Jason Cundy, however, argued that Ferguson’s brilliance as a manager was what held the team together. “He got the absolute maximum out of those players,” Cundy said on talkSPORT. “Once he was gone, the flaws were exposed.”

Ferguson later rejected suggestions that he left the club in decline, calling the claims “an insult.” In interviews, he emphasized that several players were still in their prime and that the club had a balanced mix of youth and experience at the time.

Since Ferguson’s departure, Manchester United have failed to win another Premier League title. The club has cycled through several managers—including Moyes, Louis van Gaal, José Mourinho, Ole Gunnar Solskjær, and Erik ten Hag—without finding the consistent dominance that defined Ferguson’s era.

Sports analysts now point to the 2013 transition as a case study in succession planning. Building a team to win in the short term, they say, is different from building one to sustain success after a legendary manager leaves. “Manchester United’s post-Ferguson struggles show what happens when a winning team is not also a future-proof team,” wrote football columnist Andy Dunn in the Daily Mirror.

For many fans, the debate over Ferguson’s final team touches on more than history—it reflects the ongoing challenge of restoring Manchester United to the top of English football. Whether that 2013 squad was truly “built to fail” or simply failed to evolve remains unresolved. What is clear is that the club is still searching for a winning formula more than a decade after the legendary Scotsman left Old Trafford.

Iran said Saturday it is no longer bound by key restrictions on its nuclear program, escalating tensions with Western powers after the reimposition of United Nations sanctions and renewed criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told foreign diplomats in Tehran that the framework for international monitoring and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities is now “obsolete.” He said Western nations, particularly Britain, France and Germany, undermined previous agreements by reactivating sanctions under a “snapback” mechanism.

“The European countries thought they had leverage by threatening to implement the snapback. Now they have used it and must face the results,” Araqchi said during a briefing broadcast on Iranian state media.

The announcement follows the European powers’ August decision to notify the U.N. Security Council of Iran’s alleged violations of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), effectively restoring U.N. sanctions that had been lifted under the deal. The JCPOA had limited Iran’s uranium enrichment and stockpile levels in exchange for economic relief.

Araqchi said Iran will now act according to domestic legislation and its own security needs. He also accused the IAEA of “double standards,” claiming it failed to condemn attacks by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The IAEA recently reported that Iran is not fully complying with its safeguards agreement, citing undeclared nuclear material and restricted inspector access. The agency’s board of governors last month adopted a resolution expressing “serious concern” over Tehran’s lack of cooperation.

Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to strict limits on enrichment purity and the number of centrifuges it could operate. The deal began to unravel after the United States withdrew in 2018 under then-President Donald Trump and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Since then, Tehran has gradually rolled back its commitments, enriching uranium to levels closer to those needed for weapons development.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy and medical purposes and that it retains the right to enrich uranium under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, Iranian lawmakers have warned the country could consider leaving the NPT altogether if sanctions continue.

Western governments condemned Iran’s latest move, saying it increases regional instability and weakens global non-proliferation efforts. Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered, said the agency’s access to Iranian sites is now likely to become more limited, complicating efforts to verify Iran’s nuclear activities.

New Zealand on Thursday announced it was re-imposing its own sanctions on Tehran over nuclear non-compliance, joining a growing list of countries that have tightened measures against Iran.

Analysts say Iran’s decision could close the door on renewed diplomatic talks aimed at reviving the JCPOA, which European nations and the Biden administration have tried to salvage. With both sides taking harder positions, prospects for negotiation appear dim.

“This marks a significant turning point,” said an independent Middle East analyst based in London. “Without inspections or limits, Iran could quickly expand its nuclear capabilities, leaving the world with fewer tools to contain the situation.”

The move adds to growing uncertainty in the Middle East, already strained by conflicts involving Israel, Lebanon, and Yemen. Western intelligence agencies have warned that a breakdown in nuclear oversight could trigger an arms race in the region.

The IAEA said it remains open to dialogue and called on Iran to “re-establish full transparency.” For now, Tehran’s declaration signals a new phase in its standoff with the West — one that could redefine the future of nuclear diplomacy in the region.

(600 words)

Progressive groups, including Indivisible, are organizing nationwide “No Kings” protests on Saturday, October 18, 2025, to oppose what they describe as authoritarian policies of the Trump administration. The protests come amid a 17-day government shutdown and widespread public frustration over issues such as military actions in Democratic-led cities, increased ICE activity, and changes in federal spending.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

Over 2,500 events are planned across all 50 U.S. states, with major demonstrations in cities like Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, and Houston. In Washington, D.C., the main rally is scheduled from 12:00 to 2:00 PM at Pennsylvania Avenue and 3rd Street NW. In Pittsburgh, three separate protests are planned at the City-County Building, Allegheny Commons Park, and Shadyside. Minneapolis will host a rally and march through downtown, while Houston’s main event begins with a march from City Hall at 2:00 PM.

Organizers expect millions to participate, aiming to surpass the turnout of the first “No Kings” protests in June, which drew over five million people nationwide. The movement is supported by various advocacy organizations, including the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, and MoveOn. Participants are encouraged to wear yellow and bring symbols like white flags, bubbles, and kazoos to emphasize nonviolent resistance.

The “No Kings” protests are part of the broader 50501 movement, which aims to organize one protest in each of the 50 states. The movement criticizes the Trump administration’s policies on healthcare, immigration, and civil rights, and advocates for a return to democratic norms.

While supporters view the protests as expressions of democratic dissent, Republican lawmakers have criticized the movement, labeling it a “hate America rally.” In response, Democratic leaders have defended the protests as a legitimate exercise of free speech.

As the protests unfold, organizers hope to send a clear message that the power belongs to the people, not to a single individual or administration. The “No Kings” movement continues to rise stronger, united in its commitment to defending democracy and opposing authoritarianism.