Jared Bahir Browsh, University of Colorado Boulder

Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl show is part of long play drawn up by NFL to score with Latin America

Donald Trump, it is fair to assume, will be switching channels during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show.

The U.S. president has already said that he won’t be attending Super Bowl LX in person, suggesting that the venue, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, was “just too far away.” But the choice of celebrity entertainment planned for the main break – Puerto Rican reggaeton star Bad Bunny and recently announced pregame addition Green Day – didn’t appeal. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible,” Trump told the New York Post.

National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell likely didn’t have the sensibilities of the U.S. president in mind when the choice of Bad Bunny was made.

One of the top artists in the world, Bad Bunny performs primarily in Spanish and has been critical of immigration enforcement, which factored into the backlash in some conservative circles to the choice. Bad Bunny’s anti-ICE comments at this year’s Grammy Awards will have only stoked the ire of some conservatives.

But for the NFL hierarchy, this was likely a business decision, not a political one. The league has its eyes on expansion into Latin America; Bad Bunny, they hope, will be a ratings-winning means to an end. It has made such bets in the past. In 2020, Shakira and Jennifer Lopez were chosen to perform, with Bad Bunny making an appearance. The choice then, too, was seen as controversial.

Raising the flag overseas

As a teacher and scholar of critical sports studies, I study the global growth of U.S.-based sports leagues overseas.

Some, like the National Basketball Association, are at an advantage. The sport is played around the globe and has large support bases in Asia – notably in the Philippines and China – as well as in Europe, Australia and Canada.

The NFL, by contrast, is largely entering markets that have comparatively little knowledge and experience with football and its players.

The league has opted for a multiprong approach to attracting international fans, including lobbying to get flag football into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Playing the field

When it comes to the traditional tackle game, the NFL has held global aspirations for over three-quarters of a century. Between 1950-1961, before they merged, the NFL and American Football League played seven games against teams in Canada’s CFL to strengthen the relationship between the two nations’ leagues.

Developing a fan base south of the border has long been part of the plan.

Advertisement

The first international exhibition game between two NFL teams was supposed to take place in Mexico City in 1968. But Mexican protest over the economy and cost of staging the Olympics that year led the game, between the Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles, to be canceled.

Instead, it was Montreal that staged the first international exhibition match the following year.

In 1986, the NFL added an annual international preseason game, the “American Bowl,” to reach international fans, including several games in Mexico City and one in Monterrey.

But the more concerted effort was to grow football in the potentially lucrative, and familiar, European market.

After several attempts by the NFL and other entities in the 1970s and ’80s to establish an international football league, the NFL-backed World League of Football launched in 1991. Featuring six teams from the United States, one from Canada and three from Europe, the spring league lost money but provided evidence that there was a market for American football in Europe, leading to the establishment of NFL Europe.

But NFL bosses have long had wider ambitions. The league staged 13 games in Tokyo, beginning in 1976, and planned exhibitions for 2007 and 2009 in China that were ultimately canceled. These attempts did not have the same success as in Europe.

Beyond exhibitions

The NFL’s outreach in Latin America has been decades in the making. After six exhibition matches in Mexico between 1978 and 2001, the NFL chose Mexico City as the venue of its first regular season game outside the United States.

In 2005, it pitted the Arizona Cardinals against the San Francisco 49ers at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Marketed as “Fútbol Americano,” it drew the largest attendance in NFL history, with over 103,000 spectators.

The following year, Goodell was named commissioner and announced that the NFL would focus future international efforts on regular-season games.

The U.K. was a safe bet due to the established stadium infrastructure and the country’s small but passionate fan base. The NFL International Series was played exclusively in London between 2007 and 2016.

Advertisement

But in 2016, the NFL finally returned to Mexico City, staging a regular-season game between the Oakland – now Las Vegas – Raiders and Houston Texans.

And after the completion of upgrades to Latin America’s largest stadium, Estadio Azteca, the NFL will return to Mexico City in 2026, along with games in Munich, Berlin and London. Future plans include expanding the series to include Sydney, Australia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2026.

The International Player Pathway program also offers players from outside the United States an opportunity to train and earn a roster spot on an NFL team. The hope is that future Latin American players could help expand the sport in their home countries, similar to how Yao Ming expanded the NBA fan base in China after joining the Houston Rockets, and Shohei Ohtani did the same for baseball in Japan while playing in Los Angeles.

Heading south of the border

The NFL’s strategy has gained the league a foothold in Latin America.

Mexico and Brazil have become the two largest international markets for the NFL, with nearly 40 million fans in each of the nations.

Although this represents a fraction of the overall sports fans in each nation, the raw numbers match the overall Latino fan base in the United States. In recent years the NFL has celebrated Latino Heritage Month through its Por La Cultura campaign, highlighting Latino players past and present.

Latin America also offers practical advantages. Mexico has long had access to NFL games as the southern neighbor to the United States, with the Dallas Cowboys among the most popular teams in Mexico.

For broadcasters, Central and South America offer less disruption in regards to time zones. Games in Europe start as early as 6:30 a.m. for West Coast fans, whereas Mexico City follows Central time, and Brasilia time is only one to two hours ahead of Eastern time.

The NFL’s expansion plans are not without criticism. Domestically, fans have complained that teams playing outside the U.S. borders means one less home game for season-ticket holders. And some teams have embraced international games more than others.

Another criticism is the league, which has reported revenues of over US$23 billion during the 2024-25 season – nearly double any other U.S.-based league – is using its resources to displace local sports. There are also those who see expansion of the league as a form of cultural imperialism. These criticisms often intersect with long-held ideas around the league promoting militarism, nationalism and American exceptionalism.

Bad Bunny: No Hail Mary attempt

For sure, the choice of Bad Bunny as the halftime pick is controversial, given the current political climate around immigration. The artist removed tour dates on the U.S. mainland in 2025 due to concerns about ICE targeting fans at his concerts, a concern reinforced by threats from the Department of Homeland Security that they would do just that at the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

But in sticking with Bad Bunny, the NFL is showing it is willing to face down a section of its traditional support and bet instead on Latin American fans not just tuning in for the halftime show but for the whole game – and falling in love with football, too.

Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jordan Miller, Arizona State University

US exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the US, and world, will lose

The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.

Why is the US leaving the WHO?

The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.

The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.

The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.

The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.

However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain. https://www.youtube.com/embed/uacD-03S28E?wmode=transparent&start=0 The U.S. has been a dominant force in the WHO, and its absence will have direct and lasting impacts on health systems in the U.S. and other countries.

What does US withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?

In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. So public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.

The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.

Advertisement

As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.

In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”

What are the longer-term impacts of US withdrawal?

By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.

Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.

While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza. Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.

This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.

Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.

I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.

Advertisement

As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.

Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.

Could the US return under a new president?

In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.

In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.

Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world. 

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/

Allegiant and Sun Country Airlines are planning to merge in a deal that would create one of the most significant leisure-focused airline platforms in the United States—one built around flexible capacity, underserved markets, and price-sensitive travelers.

Announced January 11, 2026, the definitive merger agreement calls for Allegiant (NASDAQ: ALGT) to acquire Sun Country (NASDAQ: SNCY) in a cash-and-stock transaction valued at an implied $18.89 per Sun Country share. If approved by regulators and shareholders, the combined company would serve roughly 22 million annual customers, fly to nearly 175 cities, operate 650+ routes, and manage a fleet of about 195 aircraft.

For travelers, the headline is simple: more leisure routes, more destination options, and a larger loyalty ecosystem. For the economy—especially in regions that rely on affordable air access—the bigger story is how consolidation among niche carriers could reshape competition, connectivity, and regional tourism.

Deal snapshot: how the merger is structured

Under the agreement, Sun Country shareholders would receive 0.1557 shares of Allegiant common stock plus $4.10 in cash for each Sun Country share. The offer represents a 19.8% premium over Sun Country’s closing price on January 9, 2026, according to the companies.

The transaction values Sun Country at approximately $1.5 billion, including $0.4 billion of net debt. After closing, Allegiant shareholders would own about 67% of the combined company, with Sun Country shareholders owning about 33% on a fully diluted basis.

The companies expect the deal to close in the second half of 2026, pending federal antitrust clearance, other regulatory approvals, and shareholder votes.

Why this combination matters in the leisure travel market

Allegiant and Sun Country are both known for leisure-first strategies, but they’ve historically approached the market from different angles:

• Allegiant has built its brand around connecting small and mid-sized cities to vacation destinations—often with nonstop, limited-frequency routes designed to match demand.
• Sun Country has operated more like a hybrid low-cost carrier, balancing scheduled passenger service with charter flying and a major cargo business.

In the press release, Allegiant CEO Gregory C. Anderson framed the merger as a natural fit between two “flexible” models designed to adjust quickly to demand. Sun Country CEO Jude Bricker emphasized the airline’s Minnesota roots and its diversified approach across passenger, charter, and cargo.

In a travel economy where consumer demand can swing quickly—fuel prices, inflation, seasonal travel surges, and shifting vacation trends all matter—flexibility is a competitive advantage. This merger is essentially a bet that scale plus adaptability can outperform traditional network strategies in the leisure segment.

What travelers could see: routes, destinations, and loyalty upgrades

The companies are pitching the merger as a way to expand choice without changing how customers book in the short term.

More routes and more nonstop options

The combined network would include 650+ routes, including 551 Allegiant routes and 105 Sun Country routes. The idea is that the two networks complement each other: Allegiant’s smaller-market footprint plus Sun Country’s strength in larger cities.

One specific promise: the merger would connect Minneapolis–St. Paul (MSP) more directly to Allegiant’s mid-sized markets, while also expanding service to popular vacation destinations.

Advertisement

Expanded international reach

Sun Country’s existing international network would give Allegiant customers access to 18 international destinationsacross Mexico, Central America, Canada, and the Caribbean.

For leisure travelers, that’s a meaningful shift—especially for customers in smaller cities who may currently need multiple connections (or higher fares) to reach international vacation spots.

A bigger loyalty program

The companies say the combined loyalty program would be larger and more flexible, adding Sun Country’s 2+ million members to Allegiant’s 21 million member base.

In practical terms, travelers should expect more ways to earn and redeem rewards—though the real value will depend on how the programs are integrated and what benefits survive the merger.

The economic angle: competition, regional access, and tourism dollars

This announcement lands in a broader conversation about airline consolidation and what it means for consumers and communities.

On one hand, a larger leisure-focused airline could:

• Increase air service options in underserved markets
• Improve seasonal connectivity to tourism hubs
• Support local economies that depend on visitor spending

On the other hand, consolidation can also raise concerns about:

• Reduced competition on certain routes
• Pricing power in smaller markets
• Fewer independent carriers fighting for leisure travelers

The companies argue the merger will create a “more competitive” leisure airline, not less. That claim will likely be tested during antitrust review—especially on routes where Allegiant and Sun Country overlap or where one carrier’s presence is a key source of low fares.

Cargo and charter: the less flashy, more stabilizing part of the deal

One of the most important (and most overlooked) parts of this merger is the emphasis on diversified operations.

Sun Country brings a major cargo business, including a multi-year agreement with Amazon Prime Air, plus charter contracts with casinos, Major League Soccer, collegiate sports teams, and the Department of Defense. Allegiant also has an existing charter business.

From an economic standpoint, these contract-driven revenue streams matter because they can:

• Smooth out seasonal swings in leisure demand
• Improve aircraft and crew utilization year-round
• Reduce exposure to consumer travel slowdowns

If the combined company can balance leisure flying with cargo and charter commitments, it may be better positioned to maintain service levels—even when discretionary travel dips.

Financial expectations: synergies, EPS, and fleet scale

Allegiant expects the merger to generate $140 million in annual synergies by year three after closing. The deal is also expected to be accretive to earnings per share (EPS) in year one post-closing.

Advertisement

The combined airline would operate about 195 aircraft, with 30 on order and 80 additional options. The companies also highlight the benefit of operating both Airbus and Boeing aircraft, and the ability to better utilize Allegiant’s 737 MAX fleet and order book.

For investors, the message is scale plus efficiency. For travelers and local economies, the question is whether those efficiencies translate into more routes, better reliability, and sustained low fares.

What happens next: timeline and what won’t change immediately

Even if the deal closes, Allegiant says both airlines will operate separately until they receive a single operating certificate from the FAA.

That means:

• No immediate changes to ticketing or schedules
• No immediate changes to the Sun Country brand
• Customers can continue booking and flying as they do today

The combined company would remain headquartered in Las Vegas, while maintaining a “significant presence” in Minneapolis–St. Paul.

Bottom line

If approved, the Allegiant–Sun Country merger would create a scaled leisure airline with a broader route map, expanded international access, and a loyalty program that reaches tens of millions of travelers.

For the U.S. travel economy, the deal is also a signal: the leisure segment—once treated like a niche—is becoming a battleground where scale, flexibility, and diversified revenue (cargo and charter) could define the next era of competition.

As regulators review the merger and the companies move toward a second-half 2026 closing, travelers and communities will be watching for the real-world impact: more service, more destinations, and whether “affordable leisure travel” stays affordable.

Quick facts (from the announcement)

• Deal announced: January 11, 2026
• Structure: cash + stock
• Implied value per Sun Country share: $18.89
• Premium: 19.8% over Jan. 9, 2026 close
• Combined scale: 22M annual customers, ~175 cities, 650+ routes, ~195 aircraft
• Expected synergies: $140M annually by year 3 post-close
• Expected close: second half of 2026 (subject to approvals)

For readers tracking the business side: Allegiant and Sun Country scheduled an investor conference call for Monday, January 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time, with a webcast posted via Allegiant’s investor relations site.

Related Links

• Allegiant Investor Relations (conference call/webcast info)
• SoaringForLeisure.com (transaction website)
• Allegiant SEC Filings
• Sun Country SEC Filings

SOURCE Allegiant Travel Company

Stay with STM Daily News: We’ll keep tracking this story as it develops—regulatory approvals, route updates, loyalty program changes, and what it could mean for travelers and the broader U.S. travel economy. For the latest coverage, visit https://stmdailynews.com.

Advertisement