More stories

  • in

    China's zero-Covid strategy 'won't work' against omicron, says U.S. epidemiologist

    China’s strict zero-Covid approach won’t be able to limit the spread of the highly infectious omicron variant, according to a U.S. epidemiologist.
    Beijing may not be able to use the same “authoritarian approaches” against omicron because this variant is unlike the others, said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minnesota.

    China’s strict zero-Covid approach won’t be able to limit the spread of the highly infectious omicron variant, according to a U.S. epidemiologist.
    Beijing may not be able to use the same “authoritarian approaches” against omicron because the variant is unlike the others, Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, said on Friday.

    “Trying to stop omicron is kind of like trying to stop the wind,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.”
    China is “uniquely at risk” to omicron, Osterholm said, for a combination of reasons: Early studies suggest its Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines are “not very effective” against the variant, and at the same time China’s success at preventing the spread of Covid so far means it has a very large population that remains vulnerable.
    CNBC on Friday requested comment from China’s embassies in Washington, D.C., and Singapore, but had received no response at the time of this report’s publication.
    According to U.S.-based consultancy Eurasia Group, China’s zero-Covid policy ranks among the top risks for 2022.
    While the approach “looked incredibly successful in 2020,” it has now “become a fight against a much more transmissible variant with broader lockdowns and vaccines with limited effectiveness,” Eurasia said in a January report.

    Sticking with the strict measures also could lead to more economic disruption, it added.  
    “China’s policy will fail to contain infections, leading to larger outbreaks, requiring in turn more severe lockdowns. This will in turn lead to greater economic disruptions, more state intervention,” the report said.
    China, which recorded its first omicron case in January, has doubled down on its zero-Covid strategy, in contrast to the growing number of countries that have shifted to living with the virus and lifting restrictions. Many of those countries use proven vaccines and have already experienced waves of infection — two major ways that populations establish antibodies to the virus.

    CNBC Health & Science

    Many nations initially took an aggressive approach through mass lockdowns and strict social restrictions, but they gradually abandoned that strategy as the highly infectious delta variant spread quickly and lockdowns became less effective.
    While Europe has rapidly lifted restrictions, China may take a more gradual approach, said Dale Fisher from the National University of Singapore’s Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine.
    China has not started the “rite of passage” to let the “virus in and deal with the consequences,” Fisher said.
    “I think when China does decide to move, it will be a gradual … approach, similar to Singapore,” he told CNBC.

    The Winter Olympics in Beijing, which started on Friday, has further tested China’s zero-Covid strategy, as the country seeks to ensure the Games run smoothly without becoming a super-spreader event.
    “I think China can control Covid in the Winter Olympics, there’s obviously very strict rules,” said Fisher, adding that the athletes get tested daily.
    “Anyone that’s tested or anyone that’s positive, and I’m sure the contacts, will be isolated and quarantined. It’s manageable and they only have to do it for two weeks,” he added.
    Disclosure: CNBC parent NBCUniversal owns NBC Sports and NBC Olympics. NBC Olympics is the U.S. broadcast rights holder to all Summer and Winter Games through 2032.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Stock futures are flat after S&P 500 posts best week of the year

    U.S. stock index futures were little changed during overnight trading Sunday after the S&P posted its best week of 2022, boosted by quarterly earnings reports and a better-than-expected January employment report.
    Futures contracts tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 0.08%. S&P 500 futures added 0.11%, while Nasdaq 100 futures were up 0.1%.

    The S&P and Nasdaq Composite advanced on Friday for their fifth positive session in the last six, and the indices also posted their best week since December. The Dow slid 0.06% on Friday, but still managed to post a 1.05% gain for the week. The Russell 2,000 meantime posted its first positive week in five and best week of 2022.
    Earnings reports and a better-than-expected January jobs report pushed the major averages higher. The Labor Department said Friday that 467,000 jobs were added in January, well ahead of the 150,000 economists polled by Dow Jones were expecting.
    “The increase in payrolls came as a welcome sign for the economy,” said Peter Essele, head of portfolio management at Commonwealth Financial Network. “The increase sent confirmation to investors that rate hikes are imminent, with the first occurring in the March meeting.”
    Last week’s gains follow a rocky start to the year for the major averages as rising rates prompted investors to shed growth names in favor of value-oriented areas of the market.

    Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

    So far 56% of S&P 500 companies have posted quarterly earnings, with 79% beating earnings estimates and 77% topping revenue expectations.

    Individual performance has been different, however. Amazon shares added 13.5% on Friday, while Snap surged 58.8%. Facebook-parent Meta dropped 26% on Thursday after its quarterly update. The social media company is coming off its worst week on record.
    “Overall investors continue to ‘sell the news,’ ” Wells Fargo said Friday in a note to clients. “We are getting late in the cycle. The market is becoming more selective. The tide will no longer lift all boats and the market will become less and less forgiving.”
    The firm said that looking forward investors should cut losses quickly, and focus on companies’ margins rather than top- or bottom-line numbers.
    Another busy week of earnings is on deck with 76 S&P 500 companies set to post results. Three Dow components will provide quarterly updates, including Disney and Coca-Cola. Amgen, Take-Two Interactive and On Semiconductor are among the names that will report earnings on Monday.
    Later in the week, investors will be watching key inflation data: the consumer price index on Thursday, followed by the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment survey on Friday.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Who buys the dirty energy assets public companies no longer want?

    THE FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred from one place to another. The same seems to apply to the energy industry itself. Pressed by investors, activists and governments, the West’s six biggest oil companies have shed $44bn of mostly fossil-fuel assets since the start of 2018. The industry is eyeing total disposals worth $128bn in the coming years, says Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy. Last month ExxonMobil said it would divest its Canadian shale business; Shell put its remaining Nigerian oilfields on the block. But much of the time these outmoded units are not being closed down. Instead they are moving from the floodlit world of listed markets to shadier surroundings.Many are ending up in the hands of private-equity (PE) firms. In the past two years alone these bought $60bn-worth of oil, gas and coal assets, through 500 transactions—a third more than they invested in renewables (see chart). Some have been multibillion-dollar deals, with giants such as Blackstone, Carlyle and KKR carving out huge oilfields, coal-fired power plants or gas grids from energy groups, miners and utilities. Many other deals, sealed by smaller rivals, get little publicity. This sits uncomfortably with the credo of many pension funds, universities and other investors in private funds, 1,485 of which, representing $39trn in assets, have pledged to divest fossil fuels. But few seem ready to leave juicy returns on the table.PE’s love affair with oil is not new. Between 2002 and 2015, rising global demand for the fuel pushed its price above $100 a barrel, prompting funds focused on “upstream” assets—exploration and production, especially fracking wells—to mushroom. But then Saudi Arabia and its allies, eager to crush American shale, flooded the market, causing drilling firms to go bust and deals to sour. Buyout funds targeting fossil fuels posted ten-year internal rates of return (IRRs) of -0.7% at the end of June 2021, reckons Preqin, a data firm. But the wind has shifted. As demand for oil and gas persists while dwindling investment in production limits supply, prices are rising again. Shell predicts IRRs of 20% for investments in upstream projects, against 10% for renewable ones. Buyout funds, which often have a ten-year life, can hope to make their money back in half the time, most of it from the operating cash flows the acquisitions generate rather than from reselling assets. They can source capital cheaply: in contrast to the majors, which have an annual cost of equity of about 10%, they typically finance energy deals with 80% debt, at interest rates of 4-5%. And discounts imposed on “brown” assets by the stockmarket, linked to sustainability factors rather than financial ones, are causing a lot of mispricing on which private funds thrive. PE managers have also been canny in changing their strategies. Many are no longer marketing energy funds except those with a focus on renewables. Instead, upstream assets are being lumped with others into funds labelled “growth” or “opportunistic”, which cover a range of industries. Private-debt funds snap up oil and gas loans from banks. The biggest shift has been a swoop on “midstream” assets (chiefly pipelines) by private-infrastructure funds. Because their revenues are contracted and paid for by big clients—energy majors and utilities—they are deemed very safe, and also generate attractive IRRs in the high teens. Some firms do everything. In June a fund manager owned by Brookfield, which is based in Canada, acquired joint ownership of the entire portfolio of North American oil and gas loans of ABN AMRO, a Dutch bank. In July Brookfield agreed to pay $6.8bn for Canada’s fourth-largest pipeline company—a day after touting a $7bn fundraising round for a green “transition” fund. PE firms say they can be trusted to manage those assets well. Because they own controlling stakes and escape the constant gaze of public markets, they see themselves as being in a unique position to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. But the incentives to pocket dividends first and worry about the rest later are growing. Global private-capital “dry powder”—money raised by funds that has yet to be spent—has hit a $3.3trn record. With so much to spend, managers want to do a lot of deals, which in turn means many don’t have time to craft considered decarbonisation plans for assets.Investors seem in no rush to tighten the taps. A recent survey by Probitas Partners, which helps private firms raise funding vehicles, shows investors have almost no appetite for oil funds today. But few have policies that exclude case-by-case transactions by broader funds. Using data from PEI Media, The Economist has looked at eight PE firms that have closed fossil-fuel deals in the past two years. The investors in some of their latest energy-flavoured vehicles include 53 pension funds, 23 universities and 32 foundations. Many are from America, such as Teacher Retirement System of Texas, University of San Francisco and the Pritzker Traubert Foundation, but that is partly because more institutions based there disclose PE commitments. The list also features Britain’s West Yorkshire Pension Fund and China Life.Over time, some investors may decide to opt out of funding their portion of fossil-fuel deals. But a third, yet more opaque class stands ready to step in: state-owned firms and sovereign funds operating in the shadows. Last month Saudi Aramco, the Kingdom’s national oil company, acquired a 30% stake in a refinery in Poland, and Somoil, an Angolan group, bought offshore oil assets from France’s Total. In 2020 Singapore’s GIC was part of the group that paid $10bn for a stake in an Emirati gas pipeline.Could banks act as a restraining force? Big lenders in Europe are soon to face “green” stress tests; many have announced net-zero targets. Their appetite for upstream deals is “diminishing rapidly”, says a Wall Street banker. Yet for big deals, bond markets remain open. Smaller deals can tap private-debt markets. And although Western banks shun loans to midstream projects, Asian ones do not. Liquidity still abounds. Last month a group of investors led by EIG, an American buyout firm, hired Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to help it refinance the $11bn loan it took in June to buy Saudi pipelines. No matter how deep you dig into the capital structure, the laws of thermodynamics still seem to apply. More

  • in

    Private equity invaded sports in 2021 with nearly $2 billion in deals, and the NBA was in high demand

    Sports leagues invited private equity firms to join in 2021 and firms invested nearly $2 billion in team stakes, according to PitchBook.
    Investors flocked to the NBA to provide growth capital to teams and PitchBook private equity analyst Wylie Fernyhough projected more deals in 2022.
    “NBA teams are trading at more expensive valuation because they are expecting to grow more over the next decade or so,” Fernyhough said. “You just have to make sure it’s done at the right price.”

    Ballboys wear gloves while handling warmup basketballs as a precautionary measure prior to an NBA game between the Charlotte Hornets and Atlanta Hawks at State Farm Arena on March 9, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia.
    Todd Kirkland | Getty Images

    U.S. stocks made a ton of money for investors in a decade-long bull market that lasted through the end of last year.
    But those returns pale in comparison to the windfall from sports investing, particularly in the National Basketball Association.

    The NBA has the highest price return compared to other leagues, as basketball’s globalization has expanded to other markets, including its more than $5 billion China operation and the newly launched $1 billion NBA Africa venture.
    Between 2002 and 2021, the average price return for an NBA team was 1,057% compared to 458% returns on the S&P 500, according to estimates from PitchBook.
    But other sports offered solid returns, too. PitchBook estimates Major League Baseball clubs offered a 669% price return from 2002 to 2021, and the National Hockey League returned 467%.
    Now, private equity investors are rushing in for a piece of the action. PitchBook’s 2021 private equity breakdown estimated over $1 trillion in total deals last year, and roughly $2 billion of that was spent purchasing equity stakes in U.S. sports franchises.
    Investors are attracted to “the overall professionalization of sports,” said Wylie Fernyhough, PitchBook’s private equity lead analyst.

    “It was certainly the beginning,” Fernyhough said of PE sports deals in 2021. “We’re going to see a lot more deals going forward.”

    NBA teams getting growth capital

    Sports leagues including the NBA and Major League Soccer started allowing private equity to invest early in the pandemic. But Major League Baseball was the first league to eye private equity money.
    In a 2019 interview with CNBC, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred explained, “Franchise values have escalated, the capital structures in the clubs have become more complicated. The idea of having a fund that would essentially be a passive equity investor in a club or clubs is one that is helpful in terms of facilitating sale transactions in clubs.”
    Firms including Arctos Sports, Dyal Capital Partners, RedBird Capital and Sixth Street established funds to buy minority shares in teams in 2021, attracted to the economic moat around sports leagues, including the increasing value of media rights and global expansion.
    This is where the NBA is most attractive. Tennis, motorsports, and golf are considered the most global sports, but basketball is creeping up with its growth outside the U.S.

    Benjamin Chukwukelo Uzoh 2nd R of Rivers Hoopers of Nigeria vies with Wilson Nshobozwa of Patriots Rwanda during the opening game of the the inaugural Basketball Africa League BAL in Kigali, capital city of Rwanda, May 16, 2021.
    Cyril Ndegeya | Xinhua News Agency | Getty Images

    In 2019, the NBA announced the Basketball Africa League, run by its NBA Africa entity. Friction remains from a 2019 dispute involving team executive Daryl Morey, but NBA China is still operating, and games are streaming on Tencent. The league is targeting India’s massive population of more than one billion, too.
    In addition, the league’s WNBA operation lured a $75 million raise last week that reportedly values the league at $1 billion. The WNBA will use those funds to grow the women’s game.
    Factoring in the established global footprint and “younger fans on average,” Fernyhough called buying minority stakes in NBA clubs a “gigantic” opportunity.
    “I think there are a lot of reasons to be bullish on the NBA,” he added.
    Chris Lencheski, chairman of private equity consulting company Phoenicia, agrees.
    “The NBA has a clear, more straightforward, and well-defined path to a global consumer than just about every other major league that’s stick and ball related,” he said.
    “And eventually,” Lencheski added, “within the next 20 years, you’ll have supersonic travel, which will allow an NBA team to travel within three hours anywhere in the world. So, it’s easy to see a Madrid versus the New York Knicks. And the NBA, by the nature of their product, is perfectly suited for that.”

    Gerry Cardinale, chief executive officer of Redbird Capital Partners LLC, stands for a photograph next to a 10-foot-tall statue of the Incredible Hulk in New York, U.S., on Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2018.
    Griselda San Martin | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Inside the PE deals

    NBA teams, including the Golden State Warriors, Sacramento Kings, and San Antonio Spurs, sold stakes to private equity firms in 2021.
    Reports have Arctos taking a 13% stake in the Warriors, a franchise valued at $5.6 billion, according to Forbes. Using that valuation, Arctos’ shares in the Warriors are worth more than $700 million.
    “NBA teams are trading at more expensive valuation because they are expecting to grow more over the next decade or so,” Fernyhough said. “You just have to make sure it’s done at the right price.”
    PitchBook estimates Arctos raised roughly $3 billion to buy stakes in sports clubs, including NBA and NHL teams, as well as in the Fenway Sports Group, which owns the MLB Boston Red Sox and NHL Pittsburgh Penguins. 
    Dyal, a division of Neuberger Berman Group, took a minority stake in the Atlanta Hawks. RedBird, run by former Goldman Sachs executive Gerry Cardinale, made a splash with its $750 million investment in Fenway Sports Group. In addition, Ares Management Corporation invested $150 million in MLS franchise Inter Miami CF.
    Private firms make money on the funds by collecting management and incentive fees. Fernyhough estimates most of the stakes sold in NBA teams is for growth capital, allowing clubs to expand franchises, including upgrades to facilitates.  
    The NBA doesn’t allow private equity to own more than 30% in teams, with a maximum of 20% ownership for one fund. Fernyhough said there are no “ownership accoutrements” with PE stakes. Instead, those perks – like courtside seats – are reserved for limited partners like Michael Dell, who buys direct.
    MLS has similar rules to the NBA, with a minimum investment of $20 million. MLB doesn’t have a set limit but evaluates investments on a deal-by-deal basis.
    There is a tax deduction known as “roster depreciation allowance,” allowing sports owners – even limited partners – to delay paying taxes on revenue earned from clubs. Former MLB commissioner Bud Selig mastered this tax loophole while owning a baseball team.
    “We’ve seen these pro sports franchises go from something that was a trophy asset for rich guys to show off their wealth and be a part of an elite club to something that runs like a business,” Fernyhough said.

    General view at the start of the between the Atlanta Falcons v New York Jets, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, London, Britain – October 10, 2021.
    Matthew Childs | Action Images via Reuters

    Watch the Broncos to see if the NFL embraces PE

    While private equity has invaded the NBA, MLB, and NHL, the National Football League remains on the sidelines. The NFL is contemplating adding the capital safety nets, but it could take a while to figure out its plans.
    The NFL has more important concerns to address, including the Class Action complaint former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores filed last week. That lawsuit claims Dolphins owner Steven Ross offered Flores $100,000 to lose games – a violation of a federal law known as the “sports bribery act.”
    The forthcoming Denver Broncos sale will be telling. According to industry sources, the NFL could allow a private equity firm to get in on that transaction and obtain minority shares.
    Sports bankers estimate the Broncos sale could fetch $4 billion. That would be a record amount paid for a U.S. sports club, surpassing the $2.2 billion private equity tycoon David Tepper spent to buy the Carolina Panthers in 2018.
    Fernyhough said the league would likely approve an established fund if private equity is allowed in the NFL deal. 
    “The NFL is not likely going to let allow some new firm or group to come in and buy stakes of it,” he said. 

    CORRECTION: This article was updated to reflect the 2019 announcement of the Basketball Africa League.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Delta asks the Justice Department to put unruly travelers on a 'no-fly' list

    Regulators received a record 5,981 reports of unruly travelers last year.
    Most incidents have been tied to disputes over masks.
    Delta last year said airlines should share their own no-fly lists of unruly travelers.

    Flight attendants hand out refreshments to a packed Delta Airlines flight traveling from Ronald Regan National Airport to MinneapolisSaint Paul International Airport on Friday, May 21, 2021.
    Kent Nishimura | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

    Delta Air Lines’ CEO Ed Bastian asked the U.S. Department of Justice to put convicted unruly travelers on a national “no-fly” list, the airline’s latest effort to deter aggressive behavior on flights that have surged during the pandemic.
    Bastian said that while such incidents are rare, a “no-fly” list “will help prevent future incidents and serve as a strong symbol of the consequences of not complying with crew member instructions on commercial aircraft,” he wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland in a letter dated Jan. 3.

    The Federal Aviation Administration declared a “zero tolerance” policy for unruly travelers last year. In 2021, it logged a record 5,981 cases of unruly passenger behavior, 72% of them related to disputes over mask compliance. Enforcement actions were initiated in 350 cases. So far this year, the FAA received 323 reports of unruly passengers.
    Last September, Delta said airlines should share a central “no-fly” list of unruly passengers, arguing it could prevent individuals barred from flying on one carrier from traveling on another.
    Garland instructed prosecutors in November to prioritize cases of disruptive and violent behavior on flights, such as assaults on crew members or passengers. Earlier that month, the FAA said it referred 37 unruly passengers to the FBI.
    Delta has barred 1,900 people from flying the carrier for failing to follow the federal mask mandate, it said.
    The Justice Department didn’t comment on Bastian’s letter, which was first reported by Reuters.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Opinion: Washington Commanders should have picked the Red Hogs name

    The Washington Commanders revealed its new name this week, ending a search that lasted more than a year.
    The NFL club kept its burgundy and gold colors but decided against using the “Hogs” name to honor its 1980s team that won two Super Bowls.

    The Hogettes, Washington Redskins fans, stand in a line as they watch Hall of Fame offensive lineman Russ Grim, shown on the monitor, accept his ring during halftime of the Redskins/Colts game at FedEx Field on October 17, 2010 in Landover, Md.
    Ricky Carioti | The Washington Post | Getty Images

    Doug Williams looked a bit surprised. And judging by his stalling, it appeared as if he even disapproved of the Washington Football Team’s new name.
    The Washington Commanders.

    The National Football League franchise officially revealed its long-awaited secret with a rebrand on Wednesday, burying the name Washington Football Team on NBC’s “TODAY” show. It had used that generic moniker since it dropped its previous name, long considered a racist slur against Native Americans, in July 2020 following the threat of corporate sponsors pulling business.
    During the announcement, Williams, a team executive and the first Black quarterback to win a Super Bowl, sat beside team President Jason Wright, the first Black team president in the NFL.
    “We are the Commanders,” Williams said. 
    “It’s something that allows us to tie the rich history and championship legacy of this franchise to new traditions of the future,” added Wright.
    The NFL team, which is worth more than $4 billion, still has the same problems — there are new sexual harassment allegations surrounding the owner, Dan Snyder, accusations Snyder has denied.

    And now the team has its new brand. But it missed a chance to revisit a fun part of its past with its name change. Here’s why.

    Love them Hogs

    The Commanders isn’t the worst name the team could have selected, but it’s not original, either.
    The short-lived Alliance of American Football owned the San Antonio Commanders franchise before the league folded in 2019. Hence, it’s likely the name was up for grabs after the football property filed for bankruptcy. The league owed more than $40 million, $7 million of that to MGM, which was an initial investor in AFF, according to The Wall Street Journal. 
    Throughout the search, Wright, who took the role of president in August 2020, solicited fan responses for a new name. He wrote in a blog post that the franchise couldn’t go with fan favorite the Red Wolves because of trademarks held by other teams. And the Presidents, another rumored name, was the least favorite among polls of NFL fans.
    Research company the Morning Consult found the Defenders name was the most favorable. The Admirals and Commanders were next.

    But leading up to the name reveal, I became curious about what a true fan would think. So I called my good friend Ron Burke, a lifelong Washington football fan, and he told me about the Hogs.
    The Hogs nickname traces back to the 1980s offensive linemen, including Pro Bowlers Jeff Bostic, Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm. The group was coached by longtime assistant Joe Bugel, the creator of the “Hogs” nickname. The unit helped Washington appear in three Super Bowls during the 1980s, winning in the 1982 and 1987 seasons.
    “The name was there, but it never took off until you started winning,” Grimm said in a video explaining the Hogs’ origins. “The fans — they made it as big as it’s turned out to be,” added Grimm, who was known as “Porky.”
    The group was fun and had character. The Hogs grew with their annual “5 o’clock club” gatherings, which started in 1982 and took place after practices. And according to Jacoby, they created Hog T-shirts that they wore every Thursday or suffered a $5 fine among the group. That money collected helped fund their annual Hogs party.

    Members of the “Hogettes” led by Michael “Boss Hogette” Torbert (white hat) at Super Bowl pregame pep rally outside the RFK stadium Washington, DC., January 21, 1984
    Mark Reinstein | Corbis Historical | Getty Images

    “You had to be ugly, you had to be fat, and you had to be semi-lineman to be in the 5 o’clock club,” joked former Washington lineman Don Warren in the video. 
    After researching the Hogs, I thought the name was a great fit for the team and the business would excel. The merchandise play was there with the Hog noses. Fans would probably dress up again as the “Hogettes.” And Ron had some suggestions about how the franchise could honor the original Hogs for the first few seasons to help reintroduce the history and rebuild the brand.
    The Red Hogs. Ron agreed. My CNBC colleague, Dominic Chu, even chimed in on Twitter to approve of “Warthogs” — but that was after the team went with the Commanders.
    “That’s what we are,” Williams said. “We’ve got to go forward with it. And I do like the name. It has a good sound to it. The Washington Commanders.” 

    Team co-owners Dan and Tanya Snyder pose for a photo with the new team uniforms during the announcement of the Washington Football Team’s name change to the Washington Commanders at FedExField on February 02, 2022 in Landover, Maryland.
    Rob Carr | Getty Images

    A secret no more

    On Wednesday, I tuned in to “TODAY” for the reveal, even though the name was no longer a secret after a video shot from a helicopter captured the Commanders name inside the team’s home stadium, FedEx Field.
    “It’s a name that has the weight and meaning befitting a 90-year-old franchise,” Wright explained during the reveal. “It’s something that broadly resonated with our fans and it’s something that we believe embodies the values of service and leadership that really define the [District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia area]. 
    “It’s also something, importantly, that we could own and grow for the next 90 years,” Wright added.
    Perhaps Ron, Dominic and I are in the minority regarding any version of the Hogs name. It sounded fun, though.
    Following the reveal, e-commerce company Fanatics told CNBC the Commanders was the top-selling team across its platform. In addition, the company added four of the top five selling products: two Commanders jerseys, a team hoodie and a long sleeve T-shirt. 
    The fifth most-popular item: Tom Brady’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers jersey, because the NFL quarterback retired one day before the Commanders name went live.  
    And that Morning Consult poll? Well, it showed the Red Hogs name is one of the least popular. It turns out 54% of fans thought the name was unfavorable. Armada and the Presidents were also at the bottom of the list.
    Asked his response to fans who disapprove of the Commanders name, Williams responded: “What I would say to those people is — with guys like Jonathan [Allen] and this football team, they’re going to come to love the Commanders.” 
    I still like the Red Hogs. 

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Tequila could overtake vodka as America's favorite liquor as sales boom

    Tequila and mezcal was the second-fastest growing spirits category in 2021, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.
    Agave-based liquor is the second-best selling category, trailing only vodka, and if its growth rate continues to soar, it could be No. 1 in just a few years.
    Consumers are increasingly sipping on high-end tequila and mezcal like scotch or cognac.

    An employee pours tequila into the popular Mountain Dew Baja Blast frozen drink at the new Taco Bell Cantina in Brookline, MA.
    John Tlumacki | Boston Globe | Getty Images

    Tequila could soon overtake vodka as America’s favorite liquor, fueled by consumers’ desire for pricey bottles of agave-based spirits.
    Tequila and mezcal was the second-fastest growing spirits category in 2021, trailing only premixed cocktails. Agave-based spirits saw sales climb 30.1% compared with the prior year to $5.2 billion, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.

    It was also the second-largest category by revenue behind No. 1 vodka, which has been the top-selling spirit in the U.S. since the 1970s. At $7.3 billion in revenue, vodka is still selling roughly $2 billion more annually than tequila and mezcal, but agave-based spirits could be on track to outstrip it in just a few years.

    For more evidence of the trend, look no further than casinos. Julian Cox, renowned bartender and executive director of beverage and corporate mixologist for MGM Resorts International, said total sales of vodka and tequila are running neck and neck at the hospitality giant.
    “Nobody could believe it,” he said.
    Using volume as a measure, vodka still remains king. According to DISCUS, the liquor sold 78.1 million cases in 2021, more than double the volume of the next category: premixed cocktails. Tequila and mezcal scored a distant fourth at 26.8 million cases.
    High-end tequilas are helping drive growth for the category, according to Christine LoCascio, DISCUS chief of public policy.

    “It’s not just for margaritas,” LoCascio said at the trade group’s annual economic briefing on Thursday. “There are so many high-end tequilas that you can sip and savor like many other high-end products, like whiskeys and cognacs and bourbons and high-end rums as well.”
    Diageo CEO Ivan Menezes echoed that sentiment on the company’s recent earnings call. The distiller owns two upscale tequila brands: Don Julio and Casamigos.
    “The category’s appeal across demographics is significant,” he said. “It has crossed over. The multicultural growth is very strong. It cuts across age segments, it cuts across gender, it cuts across dayparts, the occasion and the nature of drinks. It’s not just shots and margaritas as it used to be many years ago.”
    The Crown Royal owner is forecasting that tequila sales will expand faster than the broader spirits industry for the next five to 10 years. In the first half of its fiscal 2022, it saw tequila sales surge 56% over the year-earlier period.
    Tequila is also helping the spirits industry steal customers from beer. Tony Abou-Ganim, celebrity mixologist and author of “Vodka Distilled,” created the beverage programs for T-Mobile Arena and Allegiant Stadium, both in Las Vegas. The sports venues have margaritas on the menu, made with fresh ingredients and 100% agave tequila.
    “A lot of people think when they go to an arena or stadium, ‘I’m just going to drink beer,’ and our feeling was, if we put a better margarita in their hands, they’re going to buy margaritas. And that’s proven to be the case,” Abou-Ganim said.
    DISCUS’s LoCascio also acknowledged that high-profile celebrity launches have helped draw attention to the category.
    A host of celebrities have rolled out their own tequila and mezcal brands, including both actor and former professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson and model Kendall Jenner last year. In addition to hopping on the agave bandwagon, they’re hoping to emulate the success of George Clooney’s Casamigos tequila, which was sold to Diageo for $1 billion in 2017. Last year, Constellation Brands invested in “Breaking Bad” co-stars Aaron Paul and Bryan Cranston’s Dos Hombres mezcal for an undisclosed amount.

    Mezcal’s growth potential

    About 98% of agave-based spirits’ $5.2 billion sales were from tequila, which is only made from the blue agave plant. Mezcal is a much broader label, applying to any spirit made using dozens of kinds of agave.
    “[Mezcal] is growing, but it’s still a very small portion of that broader category,” LoCascio said.
    MGM’s Cox is bullish on the future of mezcal, citing the wide variety of flavors and taste profiles. “Mezcal is like a flavor bomb,” he said. “For cocktail making, if you use it in the right medium, you’ve got a lot of flavor.”

    Julian Cox
    Source: MGM Resorts International

    Once consumers try cocktails made with mezcal, the next step for category promoters is to introduce them to spirits made with all of the different kinds of agave.
    Abou-Ganim said younger consumers are leading the charge, eager to expand their taste horizons. There’s a geographic element to its growth as well. Cox, who was previously based in Los Angeles but now works in Las Vegas, said most visitors to Sin City remain largely uninformed about mezcal.
    Mezcal is seen as authentic to its roots and tradition, appealing to purists like Cox and Abou-Ganim. Mexico has placed regulations on what distillers can call mezcal, limiting production to certain states in the country. (Uncertified products can be sold in the U.S. labeled as “agave spirits.”)
    “They can’t make a lot of mezcal, and that’s the beauty and the art of it,” said Abou-Ganim.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Though rare, Moderna Covid vaccine recipients have higher risk of heart inflammation than Pfizer

    The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met Friday to debate the risks of developing myocarditis after receiving Moderna’s or Pfizer’s vaccines.
    Though rare, Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines have both been linked to a risk of myocarditis.
    However, the risk was higher following the second dose of Moderna’s vaccine in people ages 18 to 39, according to the CDC’s safety surveillance program.

    Lalain Reyeg administers a COVID-19 booster vaccine at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital on September 24, 2021 in Hines, Illinois.
    Scott Olson | Getty Images

    Moderna’s two-dose Covid-19 vaccine is associated with a higher risk of heart inflammation than Pfizer’s, but the benefits of both companies’ shots outweigh the risks, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of outside experts.
    The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met Friday to debate the risks of developing myocarditis after receiving Moderna’s or Pfizer’s vaccines.

    Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that can result in serious health problems, according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Though myocarditis is most common after a viral infection, the CDC has found a link between heart inflammation and vaccination with Moderna and Pfizer’s shots. 
    The risk of myocarditis after Covid vaccination is highest in teenage boys and young men following the second dose of mRNA vaccines, the technology used by both Moderna and Pfizer. Symptoms develop within a few days after vaccination, including chest pain, shortness of breath, heart palpitations and fatigue. 
    Though rare, Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines have both been linked to a risk of myocarditis. However, the risk was higher following the second dose of Moderna’s vaccine in people ages 18 to 39, according to the CDC’s safety surveillance program, which gathers data from nine health-care organizations in eight states.
    For every 1 million second doses administered, Moderna vaccine recipients had 10.7 additional cases of myocarditis and pericarditis over people who got Pfizer, according to the study. The difference was even higher in men, who experienced 21.9 excess myocarditis and pericarditis cases with Moderna’s second shot, while women had 1.6 additional cases.
    However, there was no difference in the symptoms experienced by people who got either company’s shots. Most patients were in the hospital for a single day and nobody was admitted to intensive care, according to the study.

    Public health authorities in Ontario, Canada found that the rate of myocarditis was five times higher for males ages 18-24 following the second dose of Moderna’s vaccine than Pfizer’s. The rate of myocarditis was also higher among people in the same age group who received Pfizer as their first dose and Moderna as their second than in people who got two Pfizer shots.
    Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official, said more myocarditis cases would be expected following Moderna’s vaccine, but the company’s shots would also prevent more Covid hospitalizations than Pfizer’s vaccine. “The benefits still for the mRNA vaccines far outweigh the potential risk,” Oliver said. 
    Canada, the United Kingdom and several other countries have recommended Pfizer’s vaccine over Moderna’s shot in higher-risk age groups. Dr. Pablo Sanchez, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University, said the CDC’s vaccine experts should consider making a similar recommendation. 
     “It may be that we should at least in the highest risk groups, that younger male, that we should maybe be recommending a preference of Pfizer versus Moderna,” Sanchez told the committee.
    Researchers are still investigating what triggers myocarditis after Covid vaccination. Canadian public health authorities also found that the rate of myocarditis was higher for both Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccine when the interval between the first and second dose was less than 30 days. 
    The CDC’s vaccine experts are considering a longer interval of 8 weeks between the first and second doses of both company’s shots to address the risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s vaccine is fully approved for adults 18-years-old and over. Pfizer’s vaccine is fully approved for those 16-years-old and over, and authorized on an emergency bases for children 5 to 15 years of age. 
    The overwhelming majority of people who had myocarditis after Covid vaccination fully recovered and most reported no impact on their quality of life, according to a CDC survey of cardiologists and other health-care providers.
    The survey found that 81% of their patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination completely or probably recovered within 37 weeks after their diagnosis. Another 15% had improved, while 1% had not gotten better.
    Most of the patients, 83%, had restrictions on their physical activity after their myocarditis diagnosis. However, 39% still had restrictions at the time of the survey. Physicians recommend that people who develop myocarditis avoid vigorous physical activity for a few months to make sure their heart fully recovers. 
    There were no known deaths from myocarditis following vaccination in the group, according to the data. 
    People face a much higher risk of developing myocarditis from Covid infection than the vaccines, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The risk of myocarditis from Covid is 100 times higher than developing the condition after Covid vaccination, according to a recent paper in Nature Reviews Cardiology.
    “There’s a little bit of danger in focusing on vaccine and myocarditis when the elephant in the room is really true disease, true infection from COVID-19 and the potentially devastating even life threatening myocarditis,” said Dr. Camille Kotton, an expert on infectious disease and people with compromised immune systems, at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.  

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More