YouTuber KSI will fight boxer Tommy Fury in Manchester later this year.
The 30-year-old internet star, founder of Prime energy drinks, has fought in the ring before – but this will be his first bout since taking a break from the limelight after using a racist slur in an online video.
Fury, the brother of WBC heavyweight champion Tyson Fury, has already fought a YouTube celebrity this year, beating Jake Paul in Saudi Arabia in February.
The Manchester fight will take place at the AO Arena on 14 October.
KSI, real name Olajide Olatunji, has admitted it will be “the toughest fight in the influencer boxing scene”.
He has previously fought Jake Paul’s brother Logan, another YouTuber, who will fight at the same event against an unannounced opponent set to be revealed in the coming days.
Read more: KSI falls foul of advertising rules US regulator asked to investigate Prime drinks
Fury dismisses ‘joke’ YouTube fighters
Fury has described the upcoming bout as “easy money” and said he will knock KSI out “inside four rounds”.
The 24-year-old, who starred in Love Island in 2019, has won all nine of his professional fights – four by knockout.
He told Sky Sports earlier this year that YouTubers-turned-fighters like KSI and the Pauls “are a bit of a joke”.
“All these guys are the same to me,” he said.
“I’m used to growing up fighting against proper boxers.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
February: Scuffles at Fury and Paul weigh-in
Fight won’t be professionally sanctioned
KSI, who first rose to fame playing the FIFA video game for an online audience, is a regular on the popular Sidemen YouTube channel, which has nearly 19 million subscribers.
October’s fight is being organised by his Misfits Boxing label and will be broadcast by DAZN.
However, the fight has not been sanctioned by the British boxing regulator as a professional match – and KSI lacks a professional licence in the UK.
Only one of his previous fights has been professionally sanctioned, with the others all exhibitions.
His bout with Fury has instead been sanctioned by the Professional Boxing Association, but it won’t count towards either fighter’s professional record.
British boxer Anthony Joshua has won his heavyweight fight against American Jermaine Franklin by unanimous decision at London’s O2 Arena.
The former two-time world champion was fighting without a belt on the line for the first time since 2015.
Joshua, 33, went into the ring having lost three of his previous five contests, which included consecutive losses to Ukrainian Oleksandr Usyk.
The judges scored the London bout 118-111, 117-111 and 117-111 in favour of the home favourite after a laboured display.
Joshua regularly landed with his left jab and caught Franklin, 29, on a number of occasions with his powerful right but the American stood firm – and on occasion cheekily poked his tongue out at his far bigger and taller opponent.
There was a bizarre moment in the final 12th round when Joshua pushed his head into Franklin sparking an angry reaction from Lorenzo Adams, the strength and conditioning coach of the US boxer, who pushed the Finchley fighter.
But the matter was quickly settled and Joshua’s hand was lifted to earn him a 25th professional win.
Speaking after his victory, Joshua told the 22,000-strong crowd: “Last time I grabbed the mic, it was a bit chaotic. I’m calm; I appreciate everyone coming out this evening.”
Joshua was referencing the second Usyk clash where he had a post-fight meltdown.
He added: “I should have knocked him out but it is done. On to the next. He is here to prove himself, not roll over. I wish I could have knocked him out.”
Read more: Ukraine’s Oleksandr Usyk beats Anthony Joshua in heavyweight rematch Anthony Joshua: ‘I let myself down’ after Oleksandr Usyk defeat Anthony Joshua knocks out Kubrat Pulev to retain heavyweight titles
Joshua invited WBC heavyweight champion Tyson Fury to think about a future fight.
“I would be honoured to fight for the WBC Heavyweight championship of the world. If he’s listening, he knows my promoter; we’ve had dialogue before, so let’s continue this. We ain’t getting any younger,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Joshua speaking to Sky News ahead of his fight
Without a knockout to have sealed the deal, questions remain about a fight with Fury.
“Tonight was a step down from Oleksandr Usyk, but there was huge pressure,” said promoter Eddie Hearn, who added that Joshua “ended the fight well”.
The Tyson Fury versus Oleksandr Usyk fight is now off.
Talks to make the undisputed heavyweight title fight happen have failed to reach a conclusion, Usyk’s promoter Alexander Krassyuk confirmed to Sky Sports News.
Usyk will now look to make a defence of his heavyweight titles against WBA mandatory challenger Daniel Dubois.
“I will try to express how disappointed I am, not just for Usyk, not just for this fight not happening but for all boxing fans around the world. Because this is probably the most anticipated fight, the most awaited fight, the most wanted one, not just from the fans but from our side as well,” Krassyuk told Sky Sports.
“I would love to see this fight. I would love to make it happen as the promoter. Usyk would love to be part of such a huge fight, we all are willing, we are thirsty to make it happen. Of course we are going to use each and every effort, if there is any. But from my perspective I don’t believe it’s possible.”
Egis Klimas, Usyk’s manager, has questioned whether Fury and his team genuinely wanted the fight in April.
“The Usyk side pulled out of further negotiations as the Fury side never had enough [and wanted] to pull everything and all rights to their side,” Klimas told Sky Sports.
“I don’t want to go into details as all negotiations were confidential but I will tell you one thing, when a fighter doesn’t want to fight he overprices himself knowing that the fight won’t happen.
“They most likely forgot that Usyk is holding the majority of belts in the heavyweight division and Tyson just has one.
“They claimed Tyson is a face and must have all the rights, but look at statistics on pay-per-view with Tyson v Chisora and Usyk v Chisora and then tell me who is who?”
Sky Sports has approached Fury’s UK and US promoters for comment.
Frank Warren, Fury’s UK promoter, has told TalkSportsradio that he believes the negotiations can be salvaged.
But Krassyuk responded that the issue around a rematch clause was just the final straw for those talks to collapse.
“They did as much as we did. They tried hard. We all tried to make it happen,” Krassyuk told Sky Sports “[The] rematch clause was just the point where it all exploded.
“The discussion about the rematch split was just the point where Usyk was fed up with everything. He said, ‘How many more times do I have to bow my head in front of Tyson. Why should I do this? It’s enough. Either he accepts what I say or I leave’. Tyson did not accept it and he left.”
Krassyuk did say a one-fight deal could still be “acceptable, but the split should not be 70/30.”
The undisputed championship, he insisted, was their “highest priority”.
“The money that was anticipated for Usyk in this fight was not even close to what Usyk earned in his last fight. It’s definitely not Usyk’s payday and it’s definitely not his attempt to get more money. It’s his attempt to get the WBC belt,” Krassyuk said.
“We will do our best to deliver this fight to the fans,” he added. “With Usyk, we’ve been together since 2013. We went through hell, through fire, through water, through everything. We never had any troubles with our opponents, we were always flexible.”
The Fury v Usyk fight would have been one of the most significant contests in world boxing.
Between them, they hold all four of the major heavyweight world titles.
Fury, who first became a unified world champion when he sensationally defeated Wladimir Klitschko in 2015, never lost those titles in the ring but they became vacant when he did not box for more than two years.
He made a remarkable return in 2018 and controversially drew with Deontay Wilder that year. Fury then beat Wilder in the rematch to win the WBC title and triumphed again in a sensational 2021 trilogy fight.
Undefeated he has held the WBC belt ever since and last year Fury headlined two stadium fights in London, stopping both Dillian Whyte and Derek Chisora to defend his title.
Usyk, a former undisputed cruiserweight champion, has established himself as Fury’s closest rival at the top of the heavyweight division.
He stepped up to heavyweight and in 2021 dethroned Anthony Joshua to win the IBF, WBO and WBA titles.
The Ukrainian defended those belts with another emphatic win over Joshua last August.
Read more on Sky News: Who is Oleksandr Usyk? Anthony Joshua: ‘I let myself down’ after Usyk defeat
Usyk has become a renowned global figure, returning to his Ukrainian homeland when Russia invaded in February of last year and continuing to represent his country on a global stage when he resumed his boxing career.
After Fury beat Chisora in his last fight, he faced off with Usyk in the ring and their teams conducted intensive negotiations for a protracted period.
Publicly Fury demanded Usyk agree to a 70/30 split, which the Ukrainian did accept as long as Fury consented to make a sizeable donation to the Ukrainian relief effort.
But the two parties were unable to conclude negotiations and Usyk’s promoter confirmed on Wednesday that talks had finally collapsed.
Dubois next for Uysk?
Britain’s Dubois is well-placed to challenge Usyk next, as long as he has recovered from the injury he sustained when he beat Kevin Lerena in his last fight.
Dubois is the mandatory challenger for the WBA title that Usyk holds and the WBA has already stated Usyk must begin negotiations for a defence against Dubois if he cannot show signed contracts for the Fury fight by 1 April.
Dubois is also represented by Warren, like Fury, so talks between the promoter and Usyk’s team will continue.
“We’re going to be having discussions anyway because if it comes to the mandatory Daniel Dubois, he’s with Frank as well,” Krassyuk said. “I treat Frank with big respect.
“We will have to comply with our obligations [for] the mandatories, probably. It’s very early to speak about that.”
No fighter has been considered the undisputed heavyweight champion since Lennox Lewis 20 years ago. Fury v Usyk would have crowned one finally. But the wait, for the fight the boxing world was longing to see, is set to continue.
Council taxpayers in Edinburgh have had to fork out more than £100,000 to pay the legal fees in the local authority’s failed bid to ban strip clubs.
Lawyers representing strippers and the clubs they work in faced down an attempt by the City of Edinburgh Council to set the number of sexual entertainment venues at zero – part of a nil-cap policy which would have effectively banned them – when they launched a judicial review against the policy.
The council revealed it had so far paid £117,011 in legal fees for the review, which saw Lord Richardson rule that the policy was unlawful after a two-day hearing at the Court of Session.
The figures, which were unveiled using freedom of information powers, also showed that six members of council staff had been involved in the judicial review.
Read more: Sex workers fight council strip club ban in Edinburgh Dancers say ban on strip clubs will financially devastate them
In addition, the council said the amount to be paid by the authority to the opposing side had not yet been confirmed.
The battle to keep Edinburgh’s four strip clubs open was launched in March 2022 when the city council’s regulatory committee voted to set the appropriate level of sexual entertainment venues in the capital at zero.
Strippers told councillors at the meeting about their fears if it had been passed, and how they felt it would push women into prostitution, but was approved in a five to four vote.
During the judicial review, the council had argued the nil-cap policy did not ban the clubs but set a level it deemed appropriate, and allowed a rebuttable presumption.
But Lord Richardson said the council would just look at the number of sexual entertainment venues in the area and then at the number it deemed appropriate, which was set at zero.
“In the event that the first number is equal to or greater than the second number, then the ground will apply and, as a consequence, the local authority must refuse the application,” he said in his ruling earlier this year.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Lord Richardson said the council did not put forward “a good reason why the erroneous decision should not be quashed”, and added that the regulatory committee was “clearly advised that making a nil determination would only create a rebuttable presumption which could ultimately result in closure of existing premises”.
He went on to rule: “I do consider that there is a realistic possibility that, properly advised, a different decision may have been taken.
“It seems to me that, were I to decide otherwise, I would be trespassing on the decision-making which had been entrusted [to the council].”
A City of Edinburgh Council spokesperson said: “It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on legal action.
“A report will go to the regulatory committee in May outlining a 12-week consultation plan regarding a review of the sexual entertainment venues policy.
“Following the consultation the responses will be collated and considered by councillors with the new licensing scheme set to be implemented by 31 December 2023.”
Boris Johnson is facing a fight for his political career after MPs said evidence strongly suggests breaches of COVID rules would have been “obvious” to the then-PM.
The cross-party privileges committee said the Commons may have been misled at least four times over Partygate allegations, and MPs are set to cross-examine Mr Johnson in the week beginning 20 March.
If the committee finds that Mr Johnson was in contempt of parliament he could face sanctions, including a suspension.
If the suspension is for longer than 10 days and the Commons agrees to it, his constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip could find themselves voting in a by-election.
The committee’s preliminary report said: “The evidence strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings.”
But Mr Johnson claimed the report “vindicated” his belief that he did not break any rules.
Mr Johnson said: “There’s absolutely nothing to show that any adviser of mine or civil servant warned me in advance that events might be against the rules, nothing to say that afterwards they thought it was against the rules, nothing to show that I myself believed or was worried that something was against the rules.”
Sam Coates: We have a date for the ‘trial of Boris Johnson’ – and now know what his plan may be
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Partygate: What did Boris know?
One of the potential instances of contempt mentioned in the report is Mr Johnson making a similar claim in the House of Commons, based on advice meant only for a media statement and referencing a single event rather than multiple gatherings.
Mr Johnson received one of the 126 fines issued by Scotland Yard over lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street and Whitehall.
Everything you need to know about the investigation into Boris Johnson New photos of Boris Johnson during lockdown gatherings released by MPs
Boris Johnson’s four potential contempts
Telling MPs in December 2021 that no rules or guidance were broken, when Sue Gray and the police judged otherwise
Failing to tell the Commons he knew about events where rules and guidance were broken, with evidence showing he was present
Claiming he had “repeated assurances” rules were not broken, when this was only given about one event – and not intended to be used in the Commons
Hiding behind the Sue Gray report while it was happening when he knew enough to give MPs answers earlier
Labour was quick to criticise Mr Johnson, with the party’s deputy leader Angela Rayner saying the report was “damning”.
Ms Rayner said current prime minister Rishi Sunak “must stop propping up this disgraced PM and his legal defence fund – and make clear that if he is found to have repeatedly misled parliament his career is over”.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called on Mr Sunak – “who of course got fined in this process” – “to ensure that we move forward as fast as we can with the COVID inquiry and he absolutely acts on any recommendations that come in the interim”.
The UK is considering supplying Ukraine with British tanks for the first time to fight Russia’s invading forces, Sky News understands.
Discussions have been taking place “for a few weeks” about delivering a number of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tank to the Ukrainian armed forces, a Western source with knowledge of the conversations said.
Such a move would mark a significant step-up in Western support to Ukraine and could help prompt other NATO allies, in particular Germany, to follow suit.
“It would encourage others to give tanks,” a Ukrainian source said.
No final decision has yet been made by Rishi Sunak’s government, but if the UK did sign off on such a delivery it would become the first nation to respond to pleas from Ukrainian leaders to equip their military with powerful Western tanks.
A US-led grouping of some 50 nations – including the UK – that is delivering military support to Ukraine is due to hold its next meeting on 20 January. Any announcements about new assistance, such as tanks, could be made to coincide with the Contact Group gathering.
One source suggested Britain might offer around 10 Challenger 2 tanks – enough to equip a squadron.
The source said this in itself would not be a “game changer” but it would still be hugely significant because the move would breach a barrier that has so far prevented allies from offering up Western tanks to Ukraine for fear of being seen as overly escalatory by Russia.
That could in turn prompt other allies to do the same, sources said.
Leopard II tanks used by several European allies
“It will be a good precedent to demonstrate [to] others – to Germany first of all, with their Leopards… and Abrams from the United States,” the Ukrainian source said.
Ukraine has long requested the mass-produced, German-made Leopard II tanks, used by several European allies, including Germany, Poland, Finland, the Netherlands and Spain.
Warsaw and Helsinki have already signalled a willingness to supply their Leopard tanks to Kyiv but this requires approval from Berlin because Germany holds the export licence.
Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, has adopted a more cautious approach to equipping Ukraine with weapons than other countries such as the UK and the United States.
But he has slowly been ramping up his country’s assistance.
Germany and US promise armoured combat vehicles
Last week, Berlin and Washington said in a joint statement that they would supply Ukraine with armoured combat vehicles in an important policy shift. For Germany, this means the Mardar infantry fighting vehicle. For the US, it comprises the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
Over the weekend, the economy minister said that Berlin cannot rule out the delivery of Leopard tanks, which are heavier fighting vehicles than the Mardar. But a German government spokesperson on Monday said it has no current plans to send tanks.
The UK’s Ministry of Defence would neither confirm nor deny that the British government was considering supplying Ukraine with tanks.
A spokesperson said: “The government has committed to match or exceed last year’s funding for military aid to Ukraine in 2023, and we will continue to build on recent donations with training and further gifting of equipment.
“We have provided over 200 armoured vehicles to Ukraine to date – including Stormer vehicles armed with Starstreak missiles.
“We have also donated tens of thousands of items including helmets and body armour, mobility and logistics vehicles, anti-tank weapons, air defence missiles and systems, winter and medical equipment.”
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Last year, the UK sent 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Poland as part of a deal to help Ukraine by freeing up capacity for Warsaw to supply its Soviet-era T-72 tanks to Kyiv.
In service since 1994, the Challenger 2 tank weighs 62.5 tonnes and is armed with a 120mm rifled gun and a 7.62mm chain gun.
A squadron of Challenger tanks is currently in Estonia as part of a NATO mission in eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression. The Challenger 2 has previously been deployed in Bosnia and during the 2003 Iraq war.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a former commander of 1st Royal Tank Regiment, said the introduction of Western tanks could “tip the balance” on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favour.
“Strategically this sends a very firm message to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin that nothing is off the table,” he said.
“Challenger 2 and Leopard II are modern tanks. They are much better protected, more reliable, quicker,” he added.
Read more: Why is Bakhmut so important to Russia? Putin’s ceasefire is useful for a different reason
By contrast, Ukraine’s military is operating Soviet-era tanks like the T-72, including some that have already been supplied by partners that also use them.
Russia’s military has also largely been relying on tanks manufactured during the Cold War.
The UK’s Challenger tanks – while modern by comparison – were last updated in the 1990s and are themselves in the process of being upgraded again. Ukrainian soldiers would need to be trained up on how to operate and maintain them.
Russia said on Monday that new deliveries of Western weapons to Kyiv would “deepen the suffering of the Ukrainian people” and would not change the course of the conflict.
The government is pressing ahead to introduce legislation which will require transport workers to run a minimum service when strikes are taking place.
It comes after commuters have been plagued by months of travel chaos caused by industrial action by railway workers, who are calling for better pay, working conditions and job security.
But trade unions have insisted the proposals will undermine workers’ right to strike and have promised to defend their members.
New chancellor warns of ‘tough decisions’ ahead – Politics latest
The legislation is part of a pledge made by the prime minister to introduce such a bill within the first 30 days of parliament sitting.
Liz Truss is aiming to ensure transport services, including rail, tubes and buses, cannot be completely shutdown when workers go on strike.
“The government stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce minimum service levels. As we have seen only too often in recent months, it is wrong that strikes are preventing hard-working people and families up and down the country from getting to work, doctors’ appointments and school,” a government source said.
“That is why we are introducing this legislation, to keep Britain moving, ensure people can get to work, earn their own living and grow the economy.”
The minimum service levels law is expected to come into force next year.
Similar legislation already exists in some western European countries, such as France and Spain, but unions have criticised the move as being “unworkable”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What are rail workers asking for?
‘Unfair, unworkable and incompatible’
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said the proposals “undermine the right to strike” and called for the government to “stop blocking negotiations” to allow workers and unions to reach an agreement
“Truss and her ministers want to make it harder for workers to win better pay and conditions. It’s a cynical distraction from their own failings,” he said.
“The changes are unfair, unworkable and incompatible with our international commitments. Trade unions will oppose them every step of the way.”
Read more: Nine tips to reduce how much fuel you use Worst performing rail operator revealed ‘Time for union bosses to get out of the way’
Rail, Maritime and Transport union general secretary Mick Lynch said the restrictions will only make it “more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement” in the current rail dispute.
“We already have the most draconian and restrictive anti-trade union laws in Western Europe,” he said.
“Working people are fed up with the government trying to make them scapegoats for the country’s problems.”
Mick Whelan, general secretary of the train drivers union Aslef, described the idea as “stupid”, adding that it shows Ms Truss wants to make industrial action “ineffective”.
A murder investigation has been launched after a 60-year-old man died at the scene of a fight in east London.
The Metropolitan Police were called at just gone midnight on Sunday to reports of a fight at the junction of Ford Road and Broad Street in Dagenham, east London.
Officers and the London Ambulance Service rushed to the location, but the man was pronounced dead at the scene.
Three men have been arrested on suspicion of murder, and detectives “remain keen to hear from any witnesses”.
The victim has not been formally identified, and his name has not been released, but officers say his next of kin have been spoken to and are being supported by specialist officers.
“A post-mortem examination will be held in due course,” the police added.
Two of the three men, a 26-year-old and a 36-year-old, were arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder and remain in police custody.
The third man, 23, was later arrested on suspicion of murder and is also being held in police custody.
Officers from the Metropolitan Police’s Specialist Crime Command are leading the investigation.
Detective Chief Inspector Kate Blackburn said: “At this stage we believe an altercation happened between a group of men and the victim, who was with a friend. This then became physical, leading to the victim sadly suffering fatal injuries.
“We have three men in custody, but would still like to hear from anyone who witnessed the incident or the lead up to it as soon as possible.”
Anyone who can help is asked to contact police on 101 and give reference 36/14AUG. To remain anonymous, contact independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.