Who works the hardest in Europe? The countries with the longest and shortest working weeks

By Servet Yanatma

Published on 10/06/2026 -  EURONEWS

People in some European countries work nearly eight hours more a week than those in others, according to Eurostat. Experts point to collective bargaining, part-time work and economic structure as key drivers of the gap.

New Eurostat figures reveal stark differences in working hours across Europe.

People in the EU work an average of 35.9 hours per week, according to the latest data on actual working hours from the bloc's statistical office. The figure covers full-time and part-time workers aged 20 to 64 in their main job.

The data also highlights significant differences between countries, raising questions about why some Europeans work much longer hours than others.

Balkan countries record the longest working hours

Within the EU, actual weekly working hours range from 31.9 hours in the Netherlands to 39.6 hours in Greece. When EU candidate countries and EFTA members are included, the figure rises to 42.4 hours in Turkey. Two other candidate countries closely follow: Bosnia and Herzegovina (40.9 hours) and Serbia (40.6 hours).

These are the only countries where average working hours exceed 40 hours per week, equivalent to more than eight hours a day across a five-day working week.

Greece (39.6 hours), North Macedonia (39.5 hours) and Bulgaria (38.7 hours) come next. Balkan countries dominate the rankings for the longest working weeks, with Greece and Turkey often considered part of the broader Balkan region.

“In no country do workers 'choose' the hours they work: rather, they work a 'normal' set of hours (the latter being influenced by employers). Lower productivity may explain the longer hours in the above countries plus the lack of worker power,” Professor David Spencer of the University of Leeds told Euronews Business.

Jorge Cabrita, senior research manager at Eurofound, said differences in working-time setting regimes may also help explain why some countries record longer working hours than others.

Related

• Public holidays: How much does a day off cost in Europe?
• Portugal among EU countries with the most people working close to 50 hours a week

The Netherlands has the shortest working hours

The Netherlands stands out as the country with the shortest average working week in Europe, with people working just 31.9 hours per week.

Cabrita noted that part-time workers account for nearly 43% of total employment in the Netherlands, a significantly higher share than in any other EU member state. The country also has one of the shortest average collectively agreed working weeks in the bloc.

“The Netherlands has shifted to more part-time working that has helped to reduce the average working week; however, the working week for full-time workers is still closer to 40 hours,” Spencer told Euronews Business.

Germany, Norway and Denmark follow at 33.9 hours, meaning workers in the Netherlands work around two hours less per week than those in the next closest countries.

Average working hours are also below 35 hours per week in Austria (34.0), Belgium (34.3) and Finland (34.7). In these seven countries, the average working day amounts to less than seven hours across a five-day working week.

Germany works fewer hours than France, Italy and Spain

Germany records the shortest working week among the EU's four largest economies, at 33.9 hours. Workers in Germany put in 1.7 fewer hours per week than those in France (35.6 hours).

Spain (36.3 hours) records the longest working week among the four largest EU economies, while Italy (36.1 hours) also sits above the EU average of 35.9 hours. The gap between Germany and both countries exceeds two hours per week.

“Shorter working hours in Germany, for example, partly reflect the strength of unions and the positive effect of collective bargaining,” Spencer said.

Elsewhere, average weekly working hours stand at 38.7 in Poland, 38.2 in Romania, 37.5 in Czechia, 37.4 in Hungary, 35.9 in Switzerland, 35.4 in Sweden and 35.1 in Ireland.

Why do working hours vary so widely?

In general, Northern and Western European countries tend to have shorter working weeks than their Eastern and Central European counterparts.

Cabrita pointed to working-time setting regimes, employment structures and broader economic structures as key drivers of cross-country differences.

The role of trade unions and collective bargaining

Cabrita said countries where trade unions and collective bargaining play a larger role in setting working-time limits tend to have shorter actual working hours.

He added that stronger collective bargaining is also associated with less overtime and greater compliance with labour regulations.

The impact of part-time and self-employment

Employment structure — including how workers are distributed across occupations, sectors, employment statuses and contract types — also plays an important role.

Cabrita noted that the larger the share of part-time employment, the shorter the average working hours tend to be.

Self-employed workers, who generally have greater autonomy over their schedules, tend to work longer hours than employees, especially if they employ others.

Economic structure also matters. The relative weight of different sectors within an economy can influence average working hours, as some industries typically require longer working schedules than others.

Working hours vary significantly by sector

Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers record the longest working week in the EU, at 42 hours, followed by managers (40.6 hours) and armed forces occupations (39.4 hours).

At the other end of the scale, workers in elementary occupations record the shortest average working week, at 31.8 hours, followed by clerical support workers (34.0 hours) and service and sales workers (34.5 hours).

1933

Albania suspends Kushner luxury island resort after EU warning

The Albanian government has reportedly announced it has suspend the $4bn luxury island project while environmental and corruption investigations are carried out. / bne IntelliNews

Facebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin June 9, 2026

The Albanian government reportedly announced it would suspend a real estate project led by the son-in-law of the US president Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka Trump to develop a luxury island resource as the EU warned the project could threaten Albania’s EU accession bid.

Albania’s Environment Minister Sofjan Jaupaj told the European Commission in Brussels that construction on the project has been suspended while an environmental impact assessment is conducted, Politico reports.

“We have already expressed our concerns to the minister of the environment about the potential shortcomings of this project,” an Environment Minister spokesperson said. Construction permits have not yet been issued, according to the Ministry. The project is also being investigated by the SPAK anti-corruption organ.

Despite the reports of the suspension, the status of the project remains uncertain. Large crowds have filled the streets of Tirana for a week in protest of the $4.7bn project and have refused to go home until the project is fully cancelled.

What has been dubbed the Flamingo Revolution, is now threatening Albania’s bid to join the EU, after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that the project was incompatible with EU accession criteria.

The Commission warned that the project could put Albania on a collision course with the EU’s environmental rules, jeopardizing its ability to close the green Chapter 27 in its accession talks.

“Albania should refrain from actions that could undermine the fulfillment of the closing benchmarks and [we] expect the Albanian authorities to act without delay,” a European Commission spokesperson told Politico in response to a question about the controversial proposed development.

“In the EU accession process, as part of the closing benchmarks for negotiating Chapter 27 on environment and climate change, Albania is expected to align fully with EU legislation in this area, including the Birds and the Habitats Directives,” said the spokesperson, urging that Albania repeal the changes to the Law on Protected Areas and “terminate” the law on strategic investments, Politico reports.

A similar project to build a Trump Tower in Serbia was cancelled in December, due to similar protests in that country.

The flamingo has become the mascot of intensifying protests as the development encroaches on the birds’ breeding ground on the island.

Ivanka claimed the couple had chosen the island after walking barefoot to the island's summit during a cruise of the region. In 2024 Kushner announced his private equity firm, Affinity Partners would develop a major luxury resort on Albania’s Sazan Island and the Zvernec coastline near Vlora, with the potential for up to 10,000 hotel rooms.

Rama long serving Prime Minister

Prime Minister Edi Rama has promoted the project which is part of his drive to boost Albania’s tourism industry that contributes a quarter of GDP and has been growing rapidly in recent years. Rama said last week that the ownership of the Sazan Island has already been transferred to Kushner and it is “no longer part of Albania’s territory.”

Rama has defied the protests saying that he will not backdown, but he increasingly runs the danger of the protests metamorphosing from a single issue into a general protest against his rule in a similar way to the Euromaidan protests that brought Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych down.

Rama said last week that he is ready to talk to protestors who have environmental concerns, but not to those who want to “promote anti-development stances.” He has repeatedly stated that the proposed investment will go ahead.

Rama has been Prime Minister since September 11, 2013, when he succeeded Sali Berisha. He was re-elected for a fourth term in 2025 and as of June 2026, he has been in office for 12 years and 9 months, making him one of Europe's longest-serving current heads of government.

The most recent parliamentary election was held on May 11, 2025. Rama's Socialist Party of Albania won approximately 53% of the vote and secured 83 of the 140 seats in parliament, giving him a comfortable majority. The next general election is due by June 3, 2029, although the exact date has not yet been set.

Supporters argue that he has overseen the most serious anti-corruption reforms in Albania's modern history, particularly the judicial reforms demanded by the EU and the creation of the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK), which has investigated and prosecuted senior politicians, ministers, mayors and business figures. Albania's anti-corruption institutions are considerably stronger today than when Rama came to power in 2013.

Last week, the country’s anti-corruption prosecutor announced it was investigating the ownership and legal status of the earmarked land, and seized assets of people linked to the project.

Critics argue that corruption remains deeply embedded in the Albanian state and that power has become increasingly concentrated around Rama and the Socialist Party. Transparency International continues to describe corruption as a major problem. Among other problems, Albania continues to be a major producer of marijuana, grown in the southern half of the country and exported all over Europe.

Some have claimed in online posts that the land had been sold to Israel, invoking Kushner’s Jewish background as evidence of a hidden political agenda. However, there is little evidence to support those claims.

Albania is a frontrunner to join the EU together with Montenegro. Rama has set a target of joining the bloc by 2030, with technical negotiations to close at the end of 2027.

Albania's Rama hits back at Iran as he suspends Kushner island resort

Albania's Rama. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bnm Gulf bureau June 9, 2026

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has launched a defiant attack on what he cast as the Iranian government, accusing it of cyberterrorism against Albania, as his administration suspended a $4.7bn luxury resort led by US presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner pending environmental and corruption investigations, bne IntelliNews learned on June 9.

The clash links a domestic protest crisis to Albania's long-running feud with Tehran over its sheltering of Iranian dissidents, with the resort suspension now threatening the country's EU accession bid.

In a post on X, Rama said Albania would not abandon Iranians who had sought protection from intimidation, persecution or assassination, nor yield to cyberattacks he said had been traced to actors linked to the Iranian government.

"Regimes built on fear, censorship, repression and the crushing of dissent may endure for a time, but history is merciless," Rama said.

He said Albania had built a state-of-the-art cyber shield after a major assault, making it better prepared to confront continued attacks.

Environment Minister Sofjan Jaupaj told the European Commission that construction had been suspended while an environmental impact assessment was conducted, Politico reported. Construction permits had not been issued, and the anti-corruption body SPAK is investigating the project.

Large crowds have filled Tirana for a week in what has been dubbed the Flamingo Revolution, after the bird whose breeding ground on Sazan Island the development would encroach upon.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned the project was incompatible with EU accession criteria, putting Albania at risk of failing to close Chapter 27 on environment and climate.

Kushner's private equity firm Affinity Partners announced in 2024 it would develop a resort on Sazan Island and the Zvernec coastline near Vlora, with potential for up to 10,000 hotel rooms.

Rama, prime minister since 2013 and one of Europe's longest-serving heads of government, has said the investment will go ahead.

Trump Is Trying to Shoot His Way Out of US Decline—It Won’t Work

The president wants a 50% increase over last year’s Pentagon budget, to $1.5 trillion; a wiser policy would be to rethink how the US is to co-exist with other nations in what is emerging as a multipolar world.


US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on March 3, 2026.
(Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/ AFP via Getty Images)

Robert Freeman
Jun 08, 2026

Common Dreams

The US empire is in decline. Compare it today to where it was only 30 years ago, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a “hyperpower,” then, almost inconceivably dominant with no challengers on Earth.

Since then, China has surpassed the US economically. Russia is rated No.1 militarily. The US has to borrow close to $2+ trillion per year (the annual federal budget deficit) just to keep the lights on. Its government based on checks and balances is under assault by a sleazy felon who wants to be king. It is wracked by social divisions that presage civil war.

President Donald Trump’s proposed solution to these problems is to shoot our way out. He wants a 50% increase over last year’s Pentagon budget, to $1.5 trillion. It is stupid in the measure to which it is excessive. It is suicidal to the extent it will degrade our security and our chances of improving national prosperity.

A wiser policy would be to rethink how the US is to co-exist with other nations in what is emerging as a multipolar world. That’s a big rethink. There’s another rethink coming as well: how we run the economy and what it is that actually accounts for national well-being.

The era when the US could dominate, intimidate, and expropriate the rest of the world is over. If it continues to push military power as its primary path forward it will continue to produce catastrophe.

Neither of these “rethinkings”—neither security nor the economy—will be easy. Both will go against existing failed doctrines and the powerful interests that back them. But, without doing this, we face the certainty of continuing national decline.

The highest-level rationale for rejecting a 50% increase in the Pentagon’s budget is that the military simply doesn’t win wars. Sure, it can knock off defenseless, pipsqueak principalities like Grenada, or Serbia, or Libya. But whenever it goes up against a committed adversary, especially one that fights back, it loses.

It lost in Vietnam to a nation of rice farmers that hadn’t even entered the industrial age. It killed more than 3 million Vietnamese, 4 million Southeast Asians when you count Laos and Cambodia. Yet, it lost.

It lost in Iraq, despite Iraq having been bombed for the prior decade, since the first Gulf War in 1991. Even in losing, the US killed more than a million Iraqis and spawned ISIS, one of the most virulent terrorist organizations ever let loose on the world.

It lost in Afghanistan, despite 20 years of trying to win. Afghanistan was a fourth-world country, with the Taliban literally living in caves. The Taliban had only hand-held firearms. No air force. No artillery. No satellite intelligence. The US still managed to lose.

Ukraine isn’t over, yet, but it is lost. Russia has crushed every one of the fabled “wonder weapons” the US has thrown at it. Remember when Trump was going to end the Ukraine war “on Day One”? We’re now past Day 500. It hasn’t ended because Trump is too weak to take the Loss on his watch. But it is lost.

Iran is the most recent—and damaging—case of catastrophic US military failure. It has a military budget one-one hundredth that of the US. Yet, Iran has “humiliated” the US, at least in the words of German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. Neocon heavyweight Robert Kagan recently wrote, “It’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored.”

None of these outcomes are equivocal. None are ambiguous. Is that the kind of outfit we want to give a 50% raise to when it can never come close to accomplishing its essential mission? And when it never learns from its repeated failures?

This is one of the major rethinks that will have to be conducted before any thought can be given to giving even one extra dollar to the Pentagon. We need to hear from the leadership what, exactly, is going to change. And we don’t mean fiddling at the margins. We mean at the core of the institution. For example…

US weapons systems are not made to be able to win in battle. They are made to deliver maximum profits to the weapons makers. Consider…

The Patriot missile system is easily baited with low-cost drones into giving away its location and radar signature. “Here I am! Here I am!” It is then a sitting duck for cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, even swarms of the same low-cost drones.

The HIMARS rocket launcher uses common GPS as part of its guidance system. This is easily jammed resulting in missiles sometimes landing kilometers away from their intended targets. Its greatest value might be that every battery reliably drains $20 million from US taxpayers.

The M-1 Abrams tank wears a gigantic “shoot me” sign as soon as it’s spotted by one of the Russian drones that saturate the skies over Ukraine. The phrase “Fish in a barrel” comes to mind.

The bigger problem—bigger than weapons that don’t work—is that the US economy is not set up to support sustained, high intensity warfare. It gave up that capability decades ago, when it decided to de-industrialize so its companies could make more money building their stuff in China.

This is one of the reasons the US, via its proxy, Ukraine, has not been able to defeat Russia: it simply cannot supply the amount of ammunition Ukraine would need to prevail. Russia is firing 5-10 times the amount of artillery Ukraine is, and there’s literally nothing the US can do about it.

It would take decades to rebuild the weapons-focused industrial capacity the US possessed in the 1960s. Given the failure of the larger military enterprise in the US, there is no certainty that, once delivered, it would not be ill-conceived, misdirected, or already obsolete. In fact, given the Pentagon’s track record, the likelihood is that it would be all three.

The deepest problem for the US in grappling with increased Pentagon funding is rooted in its world view.

That was formed in the aftermath of World War II and reinforced following the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991. After both events, the US stood astride the world like a colossus, unchallenged in its ability to destroy any other country. Heady stuff but the world doesn’t sit still.

Countries do not acquiesce in their own destruction. They organize themselves to fight back; they collaborate with other countries for collective self-defense; and they employ asymmetric strategies to defeat predators, as Vietnam and Afghanistan did, and as Iran has just done. The US military hasn’t gotten the memo.

The unprovoked Iran debacle has boosted the fortunes of Russia and China, the US’ principal rivals. It has elevated Iran to being the hegemon in the Persian Gulf. That rise is abetted by a quartet of Islamic powers that are tired of US and Israeli bullying: Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. They are forming an “Islamic NATO” to keep the US and Israel out of the Gulf. This is super important.

Since World War II, the Middle East has been one of the most important regions in the world because of its vast oil wealth. A 1945 US State Department memo stated that “Arab oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”

It is the Trump Pentagon, the Pete Hegseth Pentagon, that has destroyed the US’ control of that “greatest material prize in world history.” Actually, it’s even worse than that. By forcing 50% higher oil prices on the rest of the world, the US is draining wealth from every country on Earth. Many of those countries were already economically tenuous. There’s not a one that doesn’t despise the US for the extortion.

Is that an organization to which we want to grant an additional half a trillion dollars a year? Every year? So it can wreak more destruction on US fortunes? Before it rethinks itself and how it can contribute responsibly to US well-being in the world? It’s not even fatuous. It’s insane.

So, if a $1.5 trillion budget for the military is not the solution to the US woes, what is?

The US could more plausibly revive its fortunes in the world by investing the would-be increase in Pentagon spending into the civilian economy, instead.

It should invest in the nation’s people—education—so as to improve the economy’s productivity. It should invest in the nation’s infrastructure to increase the economy’s efficiency. It should invest in scientific research and development to boost innovation. And, it should re-invest in alternative energy to build resilience.

Productivity. Efficiency. Innovation. Resilience. Those are what built the US in the 20th century. They are the real foundations of national well-being. None of them are mysteries as far as how they lead to a better economy and a stronger state. None are conceptually hard to carry out.

Donald Trump is doing exactly the opposite.

He is gutting education, rescinding major infrastructure projects, savaging scientific research, and in all ways possible dismantling alternative energy. Those avenues all go against the essence of Trumpism, which is looting, shifting national resources and wealth to the already wealthy—Trump’s base.

Looting is what Trump’s proposed increase in the Pentagon budget is really all about. It is the Mother of All Trump Grifts. It is 277 times larger than his laughable $1.8 billion Slush Fund. It wants to hide the grift under the quasi-sacrosanct cover of military spending.

But it doesn’t begin to even acknowledge, to say nothing of fix, the deep failings in the military. It actively damages the economy by diverting scarce resources to parasitic looting that inflicts more harm than it heals.

Trump’s proposal improves the fortunes of the already very wealthy, as all things from Trump do. It lards them with $500 billion of unaccountable giveaways every year. It is a payoff to his rich backers and to the military Trump thinks he’s going to need to finish his overthrow of the government when the time comes, in 2028.

The era when the US could dominate, intimidate, and expropriate the rest of the world is over. If it continues to push military power as its primary path forward it will continue to produce catastrophes like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Iran, all of which have degraded US power, influence, and standing in the world.

Alternatively, it can invest in the economy, in the American people, to create higher growth, income, equality, resilience, and prosperity. Instead of trying to shoot our way out of our self-inflicted decline, we can try to think our way out, earn our way out, work our way out. It’s not certain. Nothing ever is. But it has so much more dignity and likelihood of success about it.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Robert Freeman

Robert Freeman is the Founder and Executive Director of The Global Uplift Project, a leading provider of educational infrastructure for the developing world. He is the author of The Best One Hour History series whose titles include World War I, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, and many others.
Full Bio >

Scholar Says Trump Disaster in Iran Helps Prove That Era of ‘American Empire Is Over’

Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said US military retrenchment is needed on a global scale.

Brad Reed
Jun 08, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump’s illegal war with Iran has gone so poorly that it portends the end of the American-led global order, foreign policy scholar Jennifer Kavanagh wrote in an analysis published Monday by The American Conservative.

Despite Trump’s repeated declarations of a total US victory over Iran, Kavanagh wrote that the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz has revealed the limits of the American military, which in 2025 had a budget of nearly $1 trillion.

Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, argued that the Iran war has been particularly damaging to US power because it has drained US munitions supplies and has still achieved none of the major objectives Trump outlined at the start of the conflict.

“Some estimates suggest the United States has burned through 1,000 Tomahawk missiles, nearly 50% of its Patriot and THAAD stockpiles, and significant portions of advanced stand-off weapons like PRSM and JASSM missiles,” Kavanagh wrote. “The constraints on US military power created by these shortages will be consequential and enduring.”

In practical terms, Kavanagh said, this means the US simply cannot meet key commitments for the foreseeable future, such as supporting the defense of Taiwan in the case of an attack by China.

Kavanagh emphasized that American policymakers should reduce US military commitments around the world and not cling to a global order that is no longer sustainable.

“The period of US military dominance—and of American empire—is over,” Kavanagh wrote. “The resulting future will be less comfortable for the United States, but its changes are overdue and its challenges manageable. With the right moves today, American retrenchment can leave the United States, and the world, better off.”

This retrenchment, wrote Kavanagh, would refocus American defense strategy solely on defending US territory and “ensuring access to key economic markets.” In practice, this would mean closing military bases and ending deployments in Europe and the Middle East, a “narrowing” of security guarantees to NATO allies, and explicitly stating that it would not defend Taiwan in the face of an attack from China, which Kavanagh said would “reduce the risk of a war with China that at this point the United States is unprepared to fight.”

“These changes in posture and alliance commitments would amount to a massive transformation of American foreign policy,” Kavanagh acknowledged, “but the result would be a sustainable military position, consistent with US capabilities and resources and tailored to protecting US interests.”

There Is No Military Solution to the Middle East’s Political Issues

As difficult as it may be to imagine it now, what will be required is to work toward a regional security framework built on non-aggression, non-interference, and respect for the sovereignty of all states, and an end to the Israeli occupation and denial of Palestinian rights.


A flag of Iran hangs from a damaged residential building that, according to Iranian authorities, was hit by a strike on March 4 during the US-Israeli military campaign on April 14, 2026 in southeastern Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

James Zogby
Jun 08, 2026

Common Dreams


Back when the Obama administration was negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran, I asked National Security Council officials, “Why are you expending all of your economic leverage, and political and diplomatic resources on stopping Iran from developing a bomb they don’t have (and even if they did, could never use), while these same resources could be mobilized to pressure Iran to end its meddlesome behaviors that are destabilizing countries across the region?”

Despite this reservation, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was announced, I supported it for three reasons. First, “the nuclear deal” was a negotiated settlement, which is always better than conflict. And despite White House spokespeople saying otherwise, Catherine Ashton, a top British diplomat involved in the negotiations, offered assurances that the deal was only a first step and that Iran’s behaviors would be next on the agenda. My hope was that sane minds would prevail and the initiated process might lead to a regional security compact and framework for peace.

The second reason was the way Republicans were working overtime to sabotage the agreement. It was unconscionable that they invited a foreign leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress to urge members of Congress to vote against their own president. That was unacceptable interference in US politics.

The third (and maybe most unexpected) reason was the reaction to the JCPOA inside Iran. In a poll we conducted months after the deal was announced, we found a significant change in Iranian public opinion. Our earlier polls had demonstrated Iranians largely in favor of the regime’s spending money on allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. With the hint of peace, Iranians turned their priorities inward, with declining support for the regime’s foreign involvements. Instead of resources going abroad, Iranians wanted them to be used at home to create employment and opportunity. They also elevated their demands for greater personal freedom and political rights.

A decade after the JCPOA, the Middle East and the Gulf region are in a more precarious place than ever.

When, after Donald Trump’s election, he cancelled the Iran deal and began threatening the regime, we repeated the poll. The results had reverted. When citizens feel their country is being threatened, they tend to be less critical or to “rally around the flag.”

In the ensuing years, amid continuing signs of hostility from all sides—US, Israel, and Iran—the situation has shown no promise of improvement. Despite promising a better agreement, Trump did nothing more than deepen the animosity. The Biden administration was handed the thankless task of bringing a dead deal back to life—a task to which they never appeared to be fully committed. For its part, Iran continued to behave as a bad regional actor, all the while making threats and building its military capabilities.

Left on their own, the Arab Gulf states sought to create stability out of the possibility of chaos with which they were forced to contend. Unlike Iran, which had decided to use its wealth to export its influence and its anti-Western ideology, the Arab Gulf states had taken a different path, focusing on development, tourism, and trade. Their continued prosperity required a stable regional environment. And so, amid the tensions between the US and Israel and Iran, these Arab states made diplomatic and economic overtures to Iran, hoping for a more secure environment in the Gulf. They even hoped that the lure of joint prosperity and security might move the Iranians to join them in pursuing a more stable and prosperous future and convince the Israelis to resolve the longstanding wound of Palestinian dispossession and occupation, fostering conditions for regional peace. There was to be no such luck!

Israel wanted the economic benefits of regional peace but was unwilling to play its part. It intensified its occupation and the repression and strangulation of Palestinians. Then came October 7, and the region exploded. In short order, as Israel was pursuing a genocidal war in Gaza, Iran’s ally in Lebanon became engaged in a fateful and costly exchange with Israel in the north, a miscalculation with devastating consequences. The Israelis launched a deadly bombing campaign killing thousands of Lebanese, including Hezbollah’s leader. Months later, Israel and the US attacked Iran and killed Iran’s spiritual leader. Iran returned fire setting off a broader confrontation.

Negotiations produced what were called “cease fires” during which Palestinian and Lebanese death tolls continued to mount. When, egged on by Israel and Republican neocons, President Trump decided to “finish the job” by defeating the Iranian regime, the conflict took on a new character. Iran intensified its attacks on neighboring Arab Gulf states that housed US bases and closed the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world’s oil and gas supplies and negatively impacting the Gulf region’s economies.

Reading some of the Israeli, Arab, and US press is enough to make one pull out one’s hair. Some Israeli commentators from the far-right (and their American neocon acolytes) remain convinced that all that’s needed is another massive bombing campaign, coupled with yet a few more “targeted assassinations”—as if those tactics, which Israel has used repeatedly, will be any more successful than they’ve been in the past.

Meanwhile, hard-line Arab opinion writers celebrate the “brilliance” of Iranian tactics. It’s hard to see how incurring the enmity of their neighbors and putting their own and the region’s economic futures at risk can be construed as anything but reckless.

The US media is even more confounding, with its apparent addiction to breathlessly and uncritically following the barrage of confusing and contradictory posts coming from the president.

And so, a decade after the JCPOA, the Middle East and the Gulf region are in a more precarious place than ever. Although the situation is far more complicated than a decade ago, and the enmity on all sides so much deeper, the way forward is recognition that piecemeal approaches to the region, playing whack-a-mole, have only made the region less secure.

As difficult as it may be to imagine it now, what will be required is to work toward a regional security framework built on non-aggression, non-interference, and respect for the sovereignty of all states, and an end to the Israeli occupation and denial of Palestinian rights. This entails the recognition that there are no military solutions to the region’s political issues. In fact, each round of violence only exacerbates existing problems. It’s a tall order requiring leadership that is smart, courageous, and visionary. That may not exist today, but it’s necessary—and it’s the goal toward which we must direct our efforts.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


James Zogby
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices (2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community. Since 1985, Dr. Zogby and AAI have led Arab American efforts to secure political empowerment in the U.S. Through voter registration, education and mobilization, AAI has moved Arab Americans into the political mainstream. Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years; in 1984 and 1988 he served as Deputy Campaign manager and Senior Advisor to the Jesse Jackson Presidential campaign. In 1988, he led the first ever debate on Palestinian statehood at that year's Democratic convention in Atlanta, GA. In 2000, 2008, and 2016 he served as an advisor to the Gore, Obama, and Sanders presidential campaigns.
Full Bio >

UK

“Have you noticed how we only win the World Cup under a Labour government?”

\ \

JUNE 5, 2026

Politicians seldom get it right when they talk about football, argues Mark Perryman.

In March 1966 Harold Wilson’s Labour Party won a landslide victory and just four months later Harold was there to celebrate when England for the first, and to date last, time lifted the World Cup at Wembley. 

Never mind the (disgraced) Peter Mandelson, England’s victory spurred Harold to the greatest piece of Labour spin-doctoring ever. Of course, Harold had been at the Final; infamously Harold sent one of his advisers to the BBC matchday studio to suggest he join commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme for some half-time punditry – an invitation that was promptly turned down. Perhaps they lacked the silky charm of (disgraced)  Peter Mandelson?!

Four years later, most unwisely Labour risked their 1970 General Election chances by choosing a date slap-bang in the middle of England’s defence of their World Cup at Mexico 1970.  The quarter-final defeat to West Germany  was widely blamed for Labour’s defeat just four days later.

Yes, really. Wilson’s Minister of Sport, and former League referee, Denis Howell, was better-placed than most to justify the impact: “The moment goalkeeper Bonetti made his third and final hash of it on the Sunday, everything simultaneously began to go wrong for Labour for the following Thursday.”

Labour and football, eh? Be careful what you wish for. Still at least 1970 General Election victor Ted Heath and his sundry Tory Prime Minister successors have proved incapable of robbing Harold’s sound-bite of it’s enduring truth.

But any kind of relationship between politics and international football in the particular context of England has a broader purpose than simply, win lose or draw supposedly being dependent on the party in government at the time. 

There is one crucial word that Harold gets spectacularly wrong: ‘we’. Great Britain is unique in international football, represented by four – and for the purposes of football at least – independent nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  It doesn’t require either pedantry or nationalism to recognise this. It’s a fact perhaps lost on Harold, or Keir, who every time a summer football tournament comes around will promptly, and very publicly, choose an England shirt for his go-to leisure wear. This tells us, or at least it should, everything we need to know about Labour Unionism.

Gordon Brown might have thought he was being helpful travelling out to  support England at World Cup 2006 as the British Prime Minister. Precious few England fans were won over while in his native Scotland it went down like a lead proverbial. Of course, not all Scotland fans are nationalists. But when in 1992 Jim Sillars lost his Govan seat that he’d won in an infamous 1988 SNP by-election defeat of Labour and angrily described the Tartan Army as “90-minute nationalists,” it was a very different era to now. The SNP are no longer a minor party, but, via the Scottish Parliament, a governing party with a formidable number of MPs at Westminster. If Harold could have got away with ‘we’ in 1966, in Scotland, Wales and the North of Ireland, he certainly couldn’t today; yet Keir wears his `England shirt regardless.

Such confusion is both muti-faceted and deep-rooted in Englishness. World Cup Quiz question: which is the only team at this summer’s tournament to line up before kick-off without a National Anthem of their own for them and their fans to belt out? England! God Save the King is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom, not England and just try asking the Scotland team to dop Flower of Scotland to join in too!

This isn’t pedantry, it gets to the core of Englishness, a contradictory mix of nationalism and unionism. The most vivid example of this is the spate of hanging flags, Union Jacks and St George Crosses, from lamp posts in a movement to ‘Unite the Kingdom’. Much of this is wrapped up in a version of English patriotism which does little to distinguish itself from bad old-fashioned racism.

Contrast this to what Harold’s ‘we’ has become. The Wembley 1966 final was full of Union Jacks, the St George scarcely present. The tournament mascot  ‘World Cup Willy’ wore a Union Jack. Yes, the only time England has not only won, but hosted too a World Cup and the FA got our flag wrong! 

Few England fans this summer will make this mistake: the St George Cross is Universal, home and away. And in sheer numbers it will absolutely dwarf those of the lamp post hangers too.  And the purpose dwarves them too. A St George Cross celebrating a multicultural team managed by a German on its own doesn’t make for an anti-racist, Europeanised nation, but given the popular-political will is a very welcome first step in both directions.

In July 2024 Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won a landslide victory and just two years later Keir was there to celebrate when England for the second time lifted the World Cup at the New York New Jersey stadium. 

Well, that’s one Labour pledge all of England can get behind. 

Mark Perryman is the co-founder of the self-styled ‘ sporting outfitters of intellectual distinction’ aka Philosophy Football.

Special Offer The Philosophy Football Harold Wilson T-shirt is available to Labour Hub readers at 25% off and postage free. Quote coupon code LHWC26 at checkout. From here. 

Borders, Ballgames and Global Players

Daniel Warner

 June 5, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Victor Wembenyama at 2025 NBA Cup. Photograph Source: Daiei Onoguchi – CC BY 4.0

The upcoming June 14 vote on limiting Switzerland’s population to 10 million is a daily reminder here in Geneva that nativist populism remains a powerful political force. In France, Marine Le Pen continues to build support on anti-immigration politics. Nigel Farage pushes similar anxieties in Britain. The AfD does the same in Germany. Donald Trump’s version is familiar: build walls, tighten borders, send ICE into cities. Across much of the West, hostility toward foreigners has become ordinary politics.

Which is why the recent announcement of the National Basketball Association’s All-NBA First Team was so striking. At the very moment politics is warning against outsiders, American sports is celebrating them. Four of the five players selected to the NBA’s top team were born outside the United States. The city game has gone global. (The phrase city game for basketball was popularized in Pete Axthelm’s The City Game, his classic account of New York basketball in the late 1960s.)

Chosen by a panel of 100 sportswriters and broadcasters covering the league, the All-NBA First Team included: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander of the Oklahoma City Thunder, from Canada; Nikola Jokić of the Denver Nuggets, from Serbia; Victor Wembanyama of the San Antonio Spurs, from France; Luka Dončić of the Los Angeles Lakers, from Slovenia. Only Cade Cunningham of the Detroit Pistons was American. Four of the league’s five best players were born abroad, representing four countries and starring in four different American cities.

That is not symbolic. It reflects a broader reality. As of the 2025–26 season, 135 NBA players were born outside the United States, the highest number in league history. They come from 43 countries across six continents. Roughly one in four players in the NBA is now international.

Now, for those who are not basketball fans, allow me to briefly explain the importance of basketball in the United States. It is one of America’s defining sports: invented in Springfield, Massachusetts, and perfected on playground courts like Rucker Park in Harlem. As Vinson Cunningham observed, “Basketball is one of New York’s great public spectacles: you can’t walk far without passing a hoop.” It is American in origin and mythology, embedded in the streets of New York, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Yet the league’s brightest stars increasingly arrive with accents, translators, and passports from elsewhere.

My beloved New York Knicks reflect the same global pattern: OG Anunoby was born in London, Pacôme Dadiet in France, Ariel Hukporti in Germany, and Karl-Anthony Towns represents the Dominican Republic in international competition.

Although New York’s Madison Square Garden (MSG) is considered the sport’s Mecca, the sport reaches far beyond cities. Even in Midwestern rural states like Indiana, basketball courts are woven into everyday life in countless driveways. “Mr. Indiana Basketball” is a major statewide honor—closer to a civic title than a routine sports award. (For anyone curious about Indiana basketball culture, Gene Hackman’s Hoosiers remains the reference point.)

Basketball is not a simple sports niche—it is a major entertainment industry. The NBA Finals regularly draw between 10 and 20 million U.S. viewers per game. The NBA generates billions in annual revenue; franchise valuations are among the highest in global sports, with a huge merchandising market (jerseys, sneakers, etc.).

Basketball is not alone in this globalization. The pattern of more and more foreign stars repeats in what has long been considered the American sport, baseball. On Major League Baseball’s opening day in 2026, 249 players—26.3 percent of the league—were born outside the United States. The Dominican Republic led with 93 players, Venezuela had 60, Cuba 20, Canada 19, and Japan 14. Others came from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Panama, Curaçao, Colombia, South Korea, Australia, Aruba, the Bahamas, Honduras, Nicaragua, Taiwan, and South Africa.

The reigning king of American baseball is a non-American. Shohei Ohtani, born in Japan, is now arguably the most extraordinary player the sport has ever seen. Both an elite pitcher and an elite hitter, Ohtani rightly challenges Babe Ruth as the sport’s greatest player. He is already a four-time Most Valuable Player winner. More and more postgame interviews now happen through translators because many of the game’s biggest stars, like Ohtani, are not native English speakers.

Politicians increasingly tell voters to fear foreigners. In Switzerland, we are told non-Swiss workers cause traffic jams and drive up housing costs. But Switzerland’s own national soccer team offers a similar picture of globalization. Several of its most prominent players have dual citizenship or family roots abroad. Yet the same anti-immigration voters will root for the entire team during the upcoming World Cup.

Like Swiss soccer fans, Americans cheer foreign-born athletes not despite where they come from but because of what they bring: talent, discipline, style, and victory. Tens of thousands of fans in Oklahoma City rise for a Canadian. Denver adores a Serbian. San Antonio chants for a Frenchman. Los Angeles embraces a Slovenian. Baseball stadiums roar for a Japanese superstar.

Sports does not erase xenophobia. It does not resolve the asylum debate or settle border politics despite the Olympic ideal. There is an important paradox. The rhetoric of exclusion collides every day with a simpler reality: people admire excellence wherever it comes from when it helps their team win. The crowds see winners before they see nationality, even as many of them vote for politicians running on xenophobia. U.S. sports crowds—many of whom voted for Trump and admire his hard line on immigration—seem perfectly happy cheering non-Americans.

The NBA’s first team may say something larger about the country. Politicians may still campaign on borders and walls. Donald Trump and Stephen Miller may continue to denigrate foreigners, but America’s sports fans keep rooting for the world.

To understand the importance of the Knicks to New York, see The New Yorker editor David Remnick’s recent description of the first time the Knicks won the NBA crown: “May 8, 1970, was the night of all sporting New York nights,” he wrote. “Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive! So proclaimed the voices of the Knicks: John F. X. Condon at the Garden, Marv Albert on the air.”

How I remember that night! “Bliss it was to be alive.” After decades of waiting to see the Knicks back in the Finals and more than half a century since we last won the title, I just want my team to win this year, no matter who hits the winning baskets, American or otherwise. Go Knicks!

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.