• Yumna Jawad is the founder of the Feel Good Foodie brand.
• She has 2 million followers on TikTok and says its ban will impact her business.
• She's built her website and other platforms to help diversify her income.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Yumna Jawad, founder of the Feel Good Foodie. It has been edited for length and clarity.

When I think about the upcoming ban on TikTok, which could take effect as soon as Sunday if the Supreme Court doesn't intervene, I feel sad. There's a social and cultural aspect of TikTok that I'm going to miss if the app goes away. It's always felt more diverse and interesting to me than other social media.

TikTok disappearing could also be a big deal for my company, Feel Good Foodie. I have over 2 million followers on TikTok and make money from sponsored posts and content creation. The ban will impact my income, but not as much as some other influencers. Luckily, I learned early on in my content creation career that having diverse income streams is critical.

Losing access to my Instagram was an important lesson

I started Feel Good Foodie in 2013 to teach myself how to cook. My Instagram following grew quickly, and I had a lot of fun learning in this public setting. About 18 months in, I had about 300,000 followers, and I was starting to get free products and occasionally be paid by brands.

One day in 2014, I woke up, and my account was deactivated. It happened to other food accounts too, and we never figured out why. But it was really scary. I realized I was building this passion and avenue to make money, and it could all just go away.

Luckily, I got my account back in about 24 hours. But I had learned an important lesson about diversification.

I quit my day job when my influencer earnings took off

At the time, I was making about $80,000 a year as a marketing consultant. About two years into Feel Good Foodie, my revenue from social media surpassed my marketing income. When I hit a six-figure income from Instagram, I quit my marketing work.

In 2016, Instagram changed its algorithm, and I realized fewer people were seeing my posts. That's when I started a website. I wanted to know that my audience could find my content, even if the algorithm didn't show it to them. Creating the website helped me maintain control.

Today Feel Good Foodie is a very substantial business (I'm always hesitant to be more specific about my income — that's part of the culture in my Lebanese family). I have 12 contractors working for me who help produce content, and I'm making more than I ever would be in marketing.

I have about seven different income streams, which keeps the business stable. About 60% of my revenue comes from my website, where I make money from ad revenue. Another 30% comes from sponsored content, most often on Instagram and TikTok. I also make money from my cookbook, and Facebook, YouTube, and Pinterest accounts.

My rates for sponsored content could dip by 25%

Although I've diversified, a TikTok ban will still create a blip in my income. Most of my sponsored content is sold as a package, where I post the same video on Instagram and TikTok. I charge with both platforms in mind.

If TikTok is banned, I won't be able to charge the same amount. I would expect to see a 20-25% reduction in what I make from sponsored content.

Luckily, I have really solid audiences elsewhere. My website averages about 7 million page views a month, which makes it very appealing to advertisers, and I have more than 4 million followers on Instagram. I'll be OK, but other content creators who are more reliant on TikTok may not be.

I'm lucky my skills are transferable to other platforms

Social media platforms come and go, but it's not easy for advertisers to make the switch. It takes a long time for brands to feel comfortable with a new platform. I was on TikTok for about three years before I was paid to post there. It will take advertisers time to accept any new platform users migrate to.

Luckily, I've built skills that are transferable to other platforms. I'm disappointed about the TikTok ban, but optimistic about the health of my company.

• Sean "Diddy" Combs' attorneys called the criminal sex trafficking case against him "sexist."
• The attorneys also said prosecutors' video evidence show their client is innocent.
• They said the videos depicting so-called "freak offs" show "sexual activity between fully consenting adults."

Attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs revealed in court filings this week that a key part of their defense strategy for the hip-hop mogul's sex trafficking case will be to attack the prosecution as "sexist" and argue that video evidence of his so-called "freak offs" will vindicate him at trial.

Combs' attorneys made the comments in a partially-redacted seven-page letter to the Manhattan federal judge overseeing the rapper's criminal case as part of a bid to obtain their own copies of the recordings in preparation for Combs' trial defense.

"Having reviewed these videos, it is now abundantly clear that they confirm Mr. Combs's innocence," Combs' attorneys wrote in the letter.

"Any fair-minded viewer of the videos will quickly conclude that the prosecution of Mr. Combs is both sexist and puritanical," the letter read. "It is sexist because the government's theory perpetuates stereotypes of female victimhood and lack of agency."

The prosecution, said Combs' attorneys, "reflects a paternalistic view that the government is here to protect women, who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about sex, and are not capable of consenting to sex that the prosecutors view as outside the 'norm.'"

At the center of the indictment against Combs are accusations he orchestrated "freak offs," which prosecutors describe in court papers as "elaborate and produced sex performances that Combs arranged, directed, masturbated during, and often electronically recorded."

In these alleged drug-fueled sex sessions, prosecutors say Combs "used force, threats of force, and coercion" to get female victims to engage in sex acts with male commercial sex workers.

"Contrary to what the government has led this Court and the public to believe, the so-called 'Freak Offs' were private sexual activity between fully consenting adults in a long-term relationship," Combs' defense attorneys wrote in their letter to the judge.

"Like many Americans in the privacy of their own bedrooms, they sometimes filmed their sexual activity," the attorneys wrote, adding that the videos "do not depict sex parties."

"There are no secret cameras, no orgies, no other celebrities involved, no underground tunnels, no minors," the letter reads, adding, "At bottom, this case is about whether Victim-1 was or was not a willing participant in her private sex life with Mr. Combs."

The sex-trafficking indictment against Combs mentions one cooperating accuser referred to only as "Victim-1." "Victim-1" has been widely identified Combs' ex-girlfriend, R&B singer Cassandra "Cassie" Ventura. Previously published details of Ventura's relationship with Combs — including that it lasted some 10 years — match the prosecution descriptions of "Victim-1" in multiple court documents.

Attorneys for Ventura did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Business Insider for this story. A spokesman for the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

Combs' lawyers wrote in their letter to the judge that after four weeks of attempting to schedule the viewing of the prosecutors' video evidence, the defense was able to view the footage under the supervision of law enforcement on November 20 and December 13.

"There is no evidence of any violence, coercion, threats, or manipulation whatsoever," Combs' attorneys wrote. "There is no evidence that anyone is incapacitated or under the influence of drugs or excessive alcohol consumption. There is certainly no evidence of sex trafficking."

Combs' attorneys initially filed a lesser-redacted version of their letter with the court on Tuesday, but that letter disappeared from the public docket after prosecutors successfully argued for its removal, saying a protective order in the case was violated.

In the initial letter filed by Combs' defense attorneys, they said that videos "unambiguously show that the person alleged in the indictment to be 'Victim-1' not only consented, but thoroughly enjoyed herself."

In a separate letter to the judge on Wednesday, Combs' attorneys wrote: "Faulting the defense for characterizing that same evidence as exculpatory and consensual is an unfair double standard and demonstrates the government's intent to mislead the public and the Court."

Combs has been locked up pretrial at a federal Brooklyn jail since his September 2024 arrest and indictment on charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Combs has vehemently denied the federal charges against him as well as all accusations of sexual abuse. His attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Amazon is cutting jobs in its Fashion and Fitness group, according to internal messages seen by BI.
• A spokesperson said the cuts affect about 200 employees.
• Amazon has been trying to expand in apparel and fashion categories for years.

Amazon is cutting jobs in its Fashion and Fitness group, according to internal messages seen by Business Insider.

One of the internal messages, posted to an internal Amazon Slack channel, said San Diego-based employees in this group, known as F2, were let go recently.

An Amazon spokesperson said the role eliminations affect roughly 200 employees across the country.

"We're always looking at our team structures to ensure we're best set up to move fast as we innovate for customers," the spokesperson said. "We've adjusted parts of our North America Stores team because we believe this structure will better enable us to deliver on our priorities. As part of these changes, we've made the difficult decision to eliminate a small number of roles, and we're committed to supporting affected employees through their transition." ­

The job cuts are likely unrelated to Amazon's plans to shut down Try Before You Buy, previously known as Prime Wardrobe. This service lets consumers order clothing, try it on, and either send it back or buy it.

Amazon has tried several times to expand in apparel and fashion categories. This part of the retail industry can be more challenging for e-commerce businesses because consumers often prefer to try own items before buying them. When online clothing orders don't fit, and consumers send products back, that can be expensive and cut into profit margins.

Are you a tech-industry employee or someone else with insight to share?

Contact the reporter, Ashley Stewart, via the encrypted messaging app Signal (+1-425-344-8242) or email ([email protected]). Use a nonwork device.

• UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Ukraine on Thursday to sign a "100-year partnership" with Ukraine.
• The deal aims "to deepen security ties and strengthen partnership for future generations."
• Starmer pledged to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position."

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Kyiv on Thursday to sign a "historic partnership" with Ukraine, just days before President-elect Donald Trump is set to be sworn in as US president.

During an unannounced trip to the capital, his first since being elected prime minister, Starmer pledged to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position."

"Our 100 Year Partnership is a promise that we are with you, not just today or tomorrow, but for a hundred years — long after this war is over and Ukraine is free and thriving once again," he said in a post on X.

According to a UK government press release, the treaty will boost military collaboration on maritime security across the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Azov Sea in an effort to deter Russian aggression.

The deal will also seek to advance the countries' scientific and technology partnerships in areas such as space and drones, it said.

In a press briefing following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Starmer also announced that the UK would deliver 150 artillery barrels and a mobile air defense system to Ukraine.

The UK has been one of Ukraine's main backers. As of December 20, the UK had committed £12.8 billion (around $15.7 billion) to Ukraine, including £7.8 billion ($9.5 billion) in military aid since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Starmer's visit comes as Ukraine gears up for the return of Trump to the White House.

Trump — who along with his vice president pick JD Vance has been skeptical of US aid to Kyiv — has said that he intends to bring the war in Ukraine to a swift close without detailing how he plans to do so.

Both Moscow and Kyiv have been racing to put their respective sides in the best possible position ahead of his return to office.

• Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have been together for more than a decade. 
• Lively and Reynolds met on the set of "Green Lantern," wed in 2012, and have four kids.
• They have recently been involved in a public legal battle related to one of Lively's movies. 

Hollywood A-listers Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have been together for over a decade.

The two met on the set of a movie they were both working on and started out as friends. They have since walked many red carpets, supported each other's work on a range of films, and had four children. 

Here's a timeline of Lively and Reynolds' relationship. 

July 2010: Lively and Reynolds met on the set of "Green Lantern."

In the summer of 2010, Lively and Reynolds were cast as the lead roles in "Green Lantern" and made their first public appearance together at Comic-Con in San Diego.

They weren't a couple at the time — Lively was still dating "Gossip Girl" costar Penn Badgley, while Reynolds was married to Scarlett Johansson.

 

September 2010: Lively and Badgley split.

Shortly after filming started, Lively and Badgley ended their relationship. An insider told Us Weekly they had been keeping the news quiet for a while but were still friends.

December 2010: Reynolds and Johansson announced their divorce

Not long after, Reynolds and Johansson released a joint statement confirming their divorce.

It read, "After long and careful consideration on both our parts, we've decided to end our marriage. We entered our relationship with love and it's with love and kindness we leave it. While privacy isn't expected, it's certainly appreciated."

October 2011: Sources confirmed that Lively and Reynolds were dating.

After months of reports, a source confirmed to People that the "Green Lantern" costars were "very much a couple" and that they were "really happy together."

Lively was also spotted leaving Reynolds' apartment on his birthday weekend.

 

September 2012: Reynolds and Lively tied the knot in a surprise wedding.

After months of keeping things relatively low-key, the pair got married at Boone Hall Plantation in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, in front of their family and friends.

Although they did not release photos, they shared details about Lively's couture ball gown by Marchesa, their giant dessert table, and the bouquets.

Years later, in an interview with Fast Company, Reynolds apologized for his and Lively's choice to get married at that plantation, which had enslaved Black people.

"It's something we'll always be deeply and unreservedly sorry for," he said. "It's impossible to reconcile."

October 2012: Lively said in an interview that she had "never been happier."

In an interview with Allure, Lively spoke about how happy she was with Reynolds, saying, "Right now, I'm so peaceful. I've never been happier in my life."

She also made it clear she wanted kids, saying, "I've always wanted a big family. Oh, I'd love 30 (children) if I could."

May 2014: They made their first red carpet appearance as a couple at the Met Gala.

The couple hit the red carpet for the first time together as a couple at the Met Gala in 2014. They both wore Gucci.

August 2014: Lively gushed about Reynolds to Vogue magazine

In an interview with Vogue, Lively wasn't shy when it came to expressing her love for her husband.

She said, "Everything we do in life we do together. If I'm working on a movie, he helps me with my character; I do the same with him. Picking out a coffee table. What we're going to eat. He's a beautiful writer — he's written a lot of stuff for us. And he's got a great barometer and he knows me, so he will tell me if it's not as good as it can be."

October 2014: Lively announced she was pregnant for the first time

Lively took to her then-new lifestyle website, Preserve (which has since been deleted), to announce her first pregnancy. She posted a photo of herself among other photos of other pregnant people.

"Congratulations to all the expecting mothers out there," she wrote at the time. 

January 2015: Lively gave birth to their first child.

In January 2015, Lively gave birth to the couple's first child,

After a few months without many details about the baby, Reynolds revealed their daughter's name on "The Today Show."

He said, "It's James. Everyone knows. I didn't want to be the first guy screaming it out to the media, because as we know, little girls turn into teenage girls and little teenage girls sometimes scan through the archives and go, 'Why did you do that?'"

February 2016: Reynolds spoke about how he and Lively first got together.

At an amFAR New York Gala, Reynolds told Entertainment Weekly they were "buddies" when they first met.

Apparently, they went on a double date together, except she was with another man and he was with another woman.

He added, "That was the most awkward date ... it was weird at first, but we were buddies for a long time. I think it's the best way to have a relationship is to start as friends."

October 2016: Lively and Reynolds welcomed their second daughter.

In October 2016, the couple welcomed their second child. 

Us Weekly later confirmed that the couple had named their second daughter Inez.

November 2016: Reynolds revealed the moment he knew Lively was the one.

In an interview with O magazine, Reynolds talked about the date when he knew he wanted to marry Lively.

He said, "We were hanging out at this little restaurant in Tribeca that's open really late, and this song came on and I was just like, 'Want to dance?' No one was in there, so it was just totally empty. And it was just one of those moments where halfway through the dance, it was like, 'Oh, I think I just crossed a line.' And then I walked her home."

"And, uh, you know, I don't really need to go into what happened after that," he added. 

May 2019: Lively and Reynolds seemingly announced they are expecting their third child together.

Lively seemed to announce her third pregnancy in May 2018 while attending the "Detective Pikachu" premiere to support her husband, who voiced the lead character in the film. 

October 2019: Multiple publications confirmed the couple welcomed their third child.

In October, multiple publications confirmed that the couple welcomed their third child.

Swift, who wrote the song "Betty" for her album "folklore" that features the names of Lively and Reynolds' other two kids, James and Inez, seemingly confirmed the couple's third child's name is Betty.

July 2021: Reynolds shared more about when he made the first move.

"I met Blake on the darkest crease in the anus of the universe called 'Green Lantern,'" Reynolds recalled on the "SmartLess" podcast in July 2021, per HollywoodLife.

He said he made the first move when they were both going on a train to Boston. 

"Next thing you know, she was going to Boston, I was going to Boston and I said, 'Well, I'll ride with you,'" he said. "We got on the train and we rode together. I was just begging her to sleep with me."

September 2022: Us Weekly confirmed Lively was pregnant again.

In September, Us Weekly confirmed that Lively was pregnant with the couple's fourth child. 

The actor seemed to reveal her pregnancy while attending the 10th annual Forbes Power Women's Summit. She wore a gold minidress and an onlooker told Us Weekly that she was not "trying to hide" her pregnancy. 

According to E!, she seemed to allude to her growing family during the event, saying, "I just like to create. Whether that's baking or storytelling or businesses or humans, I just really like creating."

 

February 2023: The pair welcomed their fourth child.

They welcomed their fourth child on the day of the 2023 Super Bowl. 

July 2024: The couple revealed the name of their fourth child during Reynolds' movie premiere.

The couple attended the premiere of Reynolds' film "Deadpool & Wolverine" together.

While walking the carpet and sending love to his kids, Reynolds revealed their fourth child's name is Olin, according to People. 

August 2024: The couple posed together at the premiere of Lively's newest film.

In August, the couple attended the New York premiere of Lively's film "It Ends With Us."

Lively starred in the romantic drama alongside Justin Baldoni, who was also the film's director.

January 2025: Reynolds joined the legal battle between Lively and Baldoni.

Months after the release of "It Ends With Us," Baldoni and Lively became involved in a lot of public controversy. Reynolds has also become a part of the ongoing feud and legal battle. 

In December, Lively filed a legal complaint against Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment, conspiring to damage her public reputation, and retaliation. The New York Times detailed her allegations in an article that same month.

Shortly after, Baldoni filed a libel lawsuit against the Times for its story about Lively's complaint. The same day, Lively filed a suit against Baldoni, his team, and others. 

In January, Baldoni filed a countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, and others. Baldoni pushed back on claims he sexually harassed Lively and orchestrated a smear campaign against her, instead accusing her and Reynolds of trying to damage his career. 

The controversy and legal battle is ongoing. For more details, read Business Insider's in-depth timeline of the Lively and Baldoni feud. 

• TikTok faces a shutdown in the US on Sunday.
• Or maybe it won't?
• There's lots of confusing and contradictory information out there. Here's what we know.

TikTok is shutting down in the US on Sunday.

Or maybe TikTok won't get shut down because either the Supreme Court, or Joe Biden, or Donald Trump will save it before then.

Or maybe TikTok will get shut down on Sunday, and then Donald Trump will restart it a day or two later.

Confused? Me too. It's possible things will get easier to understand in the near future. They could also remain opaque for some time.

But let's try to sort out where things stand right now — again, with the caveat that this could all change soon.

The law and TikTok

The one thing we know for sure: Last year, Congress passed a bill, signed into law by Joe Biden, that required ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to sell its US operations to a non-Chinese owner. The deadline for that transaction is this coming Sunday, January 19.

Everything after that is at least somewhat fuzzy.

For instance: While the intent of the law is to force ByteDance to sell US TikTok or shut it down, it's not entirely clear what would happen if the law goes into effect.

The law requires app stores like the ones run by Apple and Google to stop distributing TikTok, but that doesn't mean TikTok would disappear from your phone. The law also prohibits internet companies from maintaining or updating the app. But it's unclear whether that means TikTok would immediately fall apart, or if it could limp along in some crippled manner.

But last week an attorney for TikTok told the Supreme Court that the service would go "dark" in the US on Sunday if the law stays in place. Subsequent press reports say that TikTok plans to simply shut down the service itself on Sunday, hoping that it will create political pressure. The Information reports that TikTok plans on sending users who open the app to a website with information about the ban.

The courts and TikTok

TikTok has spent months trying unsuccessfully to get the law overturned, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. TikTok got a last-ditch hearing before the US Supreme Court last week, but the justices seemed skeptical of its arguments. We're still waiting on a ruling.

The possible TikTok loophole

The TikTok sell-or-ban law does offer a theoretical reprieve for the app. It says that prior to the Sunday deadline, the president can grant a 90-day extension if there is "significant progress" in place to transfer ownership of US TikTok, including "relevant binding agreements" to make that happen.

But so far, TikTok and its owner have shown no public interest in a sale, and there are no reports that a non-Chinese buyer has a plan in place, let alone a deal.

It's also worth noting that no Big Tech company with the resources to buy and run a company the size of TikTok has shown any interest — in public — to take it on. The only plausible buyer mentioned to date is Elon Musk — Trump's new ally — but that only came up in recent days, via reports that suggested it was a last-minute brainstorm from Chinese officials in Beijing. Musk has remained uncharacteristically mute about the scenario.

The TikTok possible workarounds

This is where the information is by far the fuzziest, and often contradictory.

For instance: Donald Trump, who will become president on Monday, had previously tried to push through his own TikTok ban-or-sale effort during his first term in office. But last year, Trump said he thought TikTok should stay in the US — and he's been even more enthusiastic about the app following his reelection.

Last month, Trump's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to push back the January 19 deadline so he could work on the deal once he becomes president again. And Trump has invited TikTok CEO Shou Chew to attend his inauguration, a source familiar with the matter told BI. He's been offered a prime seat for the event — on the dais alongside other important figures, including Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos,

Various news reports and analysts have talked about a scenario where Trump brokers a deal between ByteDance and a buyer once he's in office. The law appears to allow for that while keeping the restrictions on TikTok in place until a deal is done.

Under normal circumstances, it would take many days, weeks, or even months to get a complicated deal worth tens of billions of dollars executed. Which would mean TikTok would stay dark, or at least crippled in some way, for some time. But perhaps Trump thinks he can get something down in record time.

An alternate scenario you may have read about involves Trump simply overturning the ban via an executive order — a mechanism he has already said he intends to use to reverse other moves Joe Biden made in office.

But the whole point of a law — again, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president — is that it's a law. And it's supposed to be hard to change or modify a law unless the courts weigh in or unless Congress amends it. So, it's very unclear whether an executive order would suffice.

Another scenario recently floated would be that Trump simply tells Pam Bondi, his candidate to become attorney general, not to enforce the law — an extraordinary step. Asked about that prospect in her confirmation hearing, Bondi declined to comment. It's also worth considering whether the likes of Apple and Google would follow Trump's theoretical command to ignore the law while it was still on the books.

One last bit of confusion: Members of outgoing President Joe Biden's team, who have been quiet about the looming deadline for weeks, are now trying to figure out a solution themselves, NBC reported Wednesday. "Americans shouldn't expect to see TikTok suddenly banned on Sunday," an anonymous administration official told NBC — without providing any possible solutions themselves.

But on Thursday, Bloomberg reported that Biden doesn't plan on intervening, and that his administration expects Trump's administration to deal with the problem.

At this point, the only thing we can really tell you with any certainty is that we'll know at least a bit more in the next few days.

• I booked a stateroom on Royal Caribbean's Wonder of the Seas, one of the biggest cruise ships.
• For $2,000 a week, the 179-square-foot ocean-view cabin had a private bathroom and a king-size bed.
• I thought I'd feel cramped in the room, but it had everything I needed and left no space unused.

I took my first cruise in 2022 on Royal Caribbean's Wonder of the Seas. At the time, it was the world's largest cruise ship, but the title has since been replaced by the same cruise line's Icon of the Seas.

During my seven-day voyage from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, we sailed to Roatán, Honduras; Cozumel and Costa Maya in Mexico; and Royal Caribbean's private island in the Bahamas.

I spent seven nights in an ocean-view stateroom on deck eight for $2,000. The cruise was on sale, as it was originally priced at $3,000. Take a look inside the 179-square-foot space.

My room was a mid-tier cabin at the front of deck eight.

My ocean-view stateroom was a step above interior staterooms with no windows, a category below staterooms with a balcony, and two steps below a stateroom suite.

My cabin was on the same deck as Central Park, an outdoor space with 20,000 plants.

I thought Central Park was the most relaxing outdoor deck on the ship — and often, the least crowded. So I enjoyed being close by.

When I stepped inside my stateroom, I was surprised at how big it felt.

Right away, I thought the cabin made great use of a small space.

I inserted my room key into a slot on the wall to operate most of the electricity in the room.

I'm always looking for more sustainable ways to travel, so I appreciated the energy-saving system.

One side of the room was filled with a mirror and a desk with several outlets for charging electronics with USB, American, and European ports.

I used the desk to eat meals and sort daily flyers about the goings-on.

Next to the desk, a set of drawers included a cabinet with a minifridge inside.

The desk drawers were mostly empty, save for a hair dryer, which I didn't use.

Across from the desk, I had a couch positioned in between two closets.

I found a rack of hangers, shelving, and a small safe inside each closet. I thought it was plenty of space for a weeklong journey.

Next to the couch and desk area, a small bathroom used clever storage hacks.

In the bathroom, there were two glasses, a bar of soap, and a two-in-one hair and body wash.

The trash can and toilet paper were situated under the counter to save space.

At the top of the shower, a pullout clothing line was useful for drying my bathing suits.

Each night, my stateroom attendant replenished towels and brought flyers and schedules for the next day.

Sometimes, the towels were folded creatively to look like animals.

I noticed that my king-size bed at the back of the room was actually two twin beds pushed together.

All Royal Caribbean cabins come with this configuration so that they may be separated for additional guests. I often woke up in the crevice.

A large flat-screen TV was mounted across from the bed with storage hooks below.

Skinny nightstands on either side of the bed held lamps, charging ports, and a room phone on one side.

Because I booked an ocean-view room, I could see the front of the ship from a window above my bed.

The window had an electronic shade that could be opened during the day for grand views and closed when I was ready to sleep.

While I thought the room might have been too small for a couple with a lot of luggage or a family, it was just right for me.

And watching the sun rise over the Caribbean Sea from the comfort of my room was the best part.

Justin Baldoni has sued his "It Ends with Us" costar Blake Lively, accusing her of hijacking the movie and destroying his reputation. He and a group of plaintiffs are seeking $400 million in damages.

The 179-page suit filed Thursday in a US District Court in New York also names Lively's husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her PR rep, Leslie Sloane, as defendants.

In the suit, Baldoni, his associates at Wayfarer Studios, and PR reps repeat some of the accusations they made in a previous libel suit against The New York Times. The Times reported on December 21 on Lively's accusations of sexual harassment against Baldoni.

The suit accuses Lively of taking over the movie, trying to destroy Baldoni and his associates' reputations, and seeking to drive them out of business.

Lively reps and Sloane didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Lively rep has previously told Business Insider that the claims she made in her California Civil Rights Department complaint and a similar federal complaint still stand.

This story is developing. Check back for updates.

• Severus Snape is one of the most divisive characters in the entire "Harry Potter" series.
• He was a double agent, so many character details were kept a secret.
• His mother was a witch and his father was a Muggle, leading to the moniker "The Half-Blood Prince."

Severus Snape is one of the most highly-debated characters in the "Harry Potter" franchise. On one hand, he was a vindictive bully, but on the other, he was living a secret double life as both a Death Eater and a member of the Order of the Phoenix.

Prior to using her platform to spread transphobic messages, the series' controversial author J.K. Rowling was known to use Twitter, interviews, and the official Wizarding World website to expand the "Harry Potter" canon beyond the seven books. 

With both the original series and this supplemental information in mind, here are 13 little-known facts about Snape.

His first and last names loosely translate to mean "stern" and "disgrace," respectively.

The name Severus translates to "strict" or "stern" in Latin, which seems to match the professor's demeanor quite well.

According to the official Wizarding World site, his last name is based on the Old Norse word "sneypa" meaning "to outrage, disgrace or dishonor." Seeing as he was a double agent, this also fits. 

However, his surname also holds ancestral significance in England, where it's tied to families who lived near the snæp (boggy land) in North Yorkshire, the Lowlands, and Suffolk. 

Alan Rickman almost didn't play Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" movies.

It's nearly impossible to think of any actor other than Alan Rickman playing Snape, but he almost didn't.

On a 2019 episode of the UK game show "There's Something About the Movies," actor Tim Roth said that he was offered the role of Snape the same year he was cast in Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes."

He ultimately turned down the "Harry Potter" role, paving the way for Rickman's iconic portrayal.

He was possibly the only Death Eater to conjure a Patronus.

According to Wizarding World, a Patronus is generated through "memories of happiness and hope." Because of this, few dark wizards can conjure them.

As far as readers and viewers know, Snape was the only Death Eater to cast a Patronus spell throughout the series. Snape anonymously sent a silver doe into the Forest of Dean to help Harry with his mission in the final book/movie.

Since his happiest and most loving memories were with Harry's mother, Lily, his Patronus took the same form as hers — which is what made Harry follow it in the first place. 

However, Snape isn't the only villainous character in the series that uses a Patronus. Dolores Umbridge also casts a Patronus (in the form of a cat) during "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

Snape pretty much fits the description of a Potions Master to a T.

It's widely known by Hogwarts students and professors that Snape wanted to be the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, not Potions.

However, based on the description of the position on Wizarding World, it seems like Snape was destined for the role.

The site reads, "The popular idea of a Potions expert within the wizarding community is of a brooding, slow-burning personality."

Although we know he wasn't always this way, Snape seemed to have grown into the position quite comfortably by Harry's first year. 

His father was a muggle.

Snape was a half-blood, born to a Muggle father named Tobias Snape and a witch mother named Eileen Prince.

His father was neglectful and sometimes abusive, which may have contributed to Snape's disdain for Muggles. At some point during his school years, he decided to reject his father's name entirely, giving himself the moniker "The Half-Blood Prince" with his mother's maiden name instead. 

He didn't have the easiest childhood.

The films give the impression that Snape grew up alongside Lily and her sister, Petunia. Although both families did live in the fictional English town of Cokeworth, they resided in two different neighborhoods.

Snape's family lived on Spinner's End, which is shown as a run-down street in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," insinuating that Snape's family wasn't very wealthy. 

Snape may have ended his relationship with Lily Evans by calling her an offensive name.

"Half-Blood Prince" also gave fans a glimpse at the relationship between Severus and Lily through memories in the Pensieve. But the film version doesn't clearly show why their relationship fell apart the way it did.

In the book, we learn that James Potter and his friends were bullying Snape, and Lily came to his defense. Instead of accepting her act of kindness, he rejected her and called her a "mudblood" — an insult to witches and wizards with Muggle parents — despite his own impure bloodline.

Their relationship seemed to be permanently damaged from that day on.

Snape taught Potions partly because Rowling hated chemistry.

In 2015, Rowling wrote on Pottermore (now Wizarding World) that chemistry, the Muggle equivalent to Potions class, was her least favorite subject in school.

This partially influenced her decision to make Snape — a hated teacher among Hogwarts students, especially Harry — the Potions Master.

Snape was one of Slughorn's favorite students when he was at Hogwarts

Snape was a Slytherin when he was at Hogwarts, and like many students in that house, he excelled at Potions, the Dark Arts, and Charms.

Professor Slughorn, his Potions Master, was very fond of both Snape and Lily, so they were both likely a part of his elite student group, the Slug Club. However, it's never clearly mentioned in the books, probably because Slughorn only liked to show off the students he was most proud of.

The professor questioned Snape's loyalty, especially after he killed Dumbledore, so he likely wouldn't have highlighted him even if he was one of his favorite students back in the day. 

His final words differ in the final movie compared to the book.

Snape's death is one of the most emotional moments in the series.

In the film, as Harry is holding a dying Snape in his arms, the professor uses his final words to repeat a line we've heard from several other characters throughout the series: "You have your mother's eyes."

The book, however, is a bit more subtle. He simply says "Look ... at ... me ...," presumably, so he could see Lily's eyes one last time.

He's neither all good nor all bad.

After the big reveal that Snape was a double agent, fans started debating whether he was a hero or a villain. 

However, as some fans — and even Rowling herself — were quick to point out, he's neither good nor bad.

Rowling described him in one 2015 tweet as "grey," with both saint-like and devil-like tendencies.

Snape evidently smells like bitterness and old shoes.

In 2015, the series' author began answering a slew of fan questions on Twitter.

One fan asked about what Snape smells like, and although the original tweet with the question has since been deleted, Rowling's reply is still up.

It turns out, the answer is "bitterness and old shoes."

Rita Skeeter probably wrote a tell-all about Snape.

Rita Skeeter is a journalist and author in the Wizarding World known for her sensationalized tell-alls, including "The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore."

In a 2007 interview with Bloomsbury, Rowling joked that Skeeter would probably have gone on to write a biography titled "Snape: Scoundrel or Saint?" after the character's death. 

This story was originally published in 2020 and most recently updated on January 16, 2025. 

Read More:

• A 'Harry Potter' costume designer breaks down iconic looks worn by Voldemort, Bellatrix, and more of the films' villains
• 18 little-known facts about Voldemort even die-hard 'Harry Potter' fans may not know
• 28 major 'Harry Potter' movie deaths, ranked from least to most heartbreaking
• 27 details the 'Harry Potter' movies got totally wrong

• Israel and Hamas appear close to a cease-fire deal to end 15 months of fighting in Gaza.
• The conflict has left Hamas battered, with thousands of its militants killed.
• But for Israel, an end to the conflict doesn't mean an end to its Hamas problem.

Israel and Hamas appear close to a cease-fire deal to end more than 15 months of devastating fighting in Gaza, though it's facing something of a last-minute crisis.

The agreement, which has hit a snag at the eleventh hour as Hamas reneges on certain parts and Israel pushes for last-minute concessions, is expected to eventually go through. The deal aims to facilitate the release of hostages from Gaza and a surge of humanitarian aid into areas ravaged by fighting, as well as create options for a permanent end to the bloodshed.

Regardless of how the negotiations ultimately work out, many of the issues that fueled this conflict remain, and Israel's Hamas problem appears to be an enduring challenge.

US officials have said that Israel's scorched-earth campaign in Gaza killed thousands of Hamas fighters and eliminated senior commanders, including Yahya Sinwar, its longtime leader. But after all this, the militant group remains alive, leaving Israel with a problem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set out to wipe out Hamas, but that hasn't happened.

That reality makes the next steps especially important.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US had long conveyed to Israel that it couldn't defeat Hamas through a military campaign alone and needed a postconflict plan for Gaza, or "something just as abhorrent and dangerous" would take its place.

"Each time Israel completes its military operations and pulls back," he said at an Atlantic Council event this week, "Hamas militants regroup and reemerge because there's nothing else to fill the void."

The latest war is the fifth Israel and Hamas have fought since 2008, though the scale has been significantly larger than past fights. Hamas, however, remains an issue for the Israeli leadership and military.

"We assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost," Blinken said, adding that this "is a recipe for an enduring insurgency and perpetual war."

The October 7, 2023, attacks, during which Hamas and other militants killed some 1,200 people across Israel and took another 250 people hostage, triggered a retaliatory Israeli bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza that reduced much of the enclave to rubble and left tens of thousands of Palestinians dead.

Israeli officials have said throughout the war that the goal is to crush Hamas and remove the group from power in Gaza. However, analysts were skeptical of this approach, arguing that Israel faced a no-win situation in its high-intensity campaign.

Even with a cease-fire agreement in view, Hamas — though heavily battered and bruised and devoid of the external support from Hezbollah in Lebanon it had enjoyed — remains a decision-making and militant power in Gaza.

"Hamas is not going to disappear," Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official, told Business Insider. "All this rhetoric about crushing Hamas and eliminating Hamas — it will never really stick. It was just political rhetoric."

Melamed, the founder of the Inside the Middle East institute, said that the big question was whether Palestinians would hold Hamas accountable for initiating the war with its October 7, 2023, massacre. He said the release of prisoners from Israel as part of the cease-fire deal could increase the popularity of the militant group in Gaza.

Polling data has indicated that the group maintains notable support within Gaza, where Hamas as an organization has ruled for nearly two decades. Its deeply entrenched position makes it more difficult for Israel to eradicate it. This has been a challenge with terrorist operations across the Middle East.

Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told BI that such groups, which have survived for so many years, "are enormously difficult — if not impossible — to completely eliminate."

He said that for the foreseeable future, Hamas would be incapable of launching another October 7-style attack against Israel but cautioned that the group still had considerable resources at its disposal. What Hamas needs most is leadership, and it may be able to fill that vacuum with prisoners released from Israel.

"The group is undeniably weakened and a shell of its former self, but the capacity to continue to regroup, I mean, this is a given," Hoffman said. "I don't think anybody's surprised by that."

• TikTok CEO Shou Chew is planning to attend President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.
• TikTok may go dark in the US the day before the inauguration, as dictated by a divest-or-ban law.
• Trump asked the Supreme Court to give TikTok more time as he seeks a political resolution.

TikTok CEO Shou Chew is planning to attend President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to Business Insider.

Chew has been invited to sit on the dais alongside other important figures, including Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, the source said.

The New York Times first reported on plans for Chew to attend.

TikTok did not respond to a request for comment from BI.

An appearance by Chew is notable, considering that a divest-or-ban law is pushing TikTok to go dark in the US on Sunday, a day before Trump's inauguration.

TikTok challenged the law in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in December but lost its case. It appealed to the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction to stop enforcement and awaits a decision.

Trump pushed for a TikTok ban in 2020, when he was last in office, but now he says he wants to save the app.

On December 27, Trump filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, asking it to pause the enforcement of TikTok's divestment deadline to give him time to find a political resolution. Trump met with Chew at Mar-a-Lago on December 16.

"You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump said at a press conference that day.

• The NFL is one of the biggest businesses in the world.
• Jerry Jones' Dallas Cowboys are the most valuable sports team in the world, valued at $10.1 billion.
• Kansas City Chiefs co-owner Clark Hunt is hoping for his team's third Super Bowl victory in a row.

The NFL is one of the biggest businesses in the world, accounting for 29 of Forbes' top 50 sporting franchises.

And while star players and coaches are certainly deserving of credit for that fact, it's often the owners who are responsible for the key decisions made by their franchise.

Kansas City Chiefs co-owner and CEO Clark Hunt hired head coach Andy Reid in 2013; the Chiefs have since won three Super Bowls and are after their fourth. Likewise, Detroit Lions owner Sheila Ford Hamp hired head coach Dan Campbell in 2021; last season, the team made its first NFC Championship appearance since 1991.

But for every good decision, there are some questionable ones. Led by owners John Mara and Steve Tisch, the New York Giants have been criticized for the decision to let go of running back Saquon Barkley, who now leads the league in rushing yards with the Philadelphia Eagles.

Owners are judged not only by their fanbases, but players, too. In February 2024, the NFL Players Association released its second annual club report cards, based on a survey completed by 1,706 active players.

One of the categories players were surveyed about is ownership, which was graded based on how willing players believe an owner is to invest in the team's facilities. Each owner was given a letter grade ranging from an F- (0-49) to an A+ (97-100), which are included below.

Now, as eight teams continue to fight for a shot at the Lombardi trophy, here's everything you need to know about the NFL team owners, from how they became owners, to their NFLPA grade, to how the team's performed during their tenure.

Arizona Cardinals: Michael Bidwill

Michael Bidwill is a third-generation owner of the Arizona Cardinals, having inherited the team after the death of his father, Bill Bidwill, in 2019. Forbes estimated in 2015 that the family had a net worth of $1.4 billion.

The Cardinals were originally purchased by Michael Bidwill's grandfather Charles in 1933 for $50,000 — now, they're worth $4.3 billion, making them tied with the Phoenix Suns for the 50th most valuable sports team in the world, per Forbes.

Under Michael Bidwill's leadership, the team has made just one wild-card playoff appearance, which they lost in 2021, and he was given an F by the NFL Player's Association, though the report said the rating was "significantly higher than last year given some of the upgrades," like getting new equipment in the weight room and providing a daycare and small family room.

Meanwhile, a November 2023 investigation by ESPN detailed a number of workplace misconduct allegations from current and former Cardinals employees. Bidwill told the outlet in a statement the team has "worked hard over the last several years to improve our culture across the board," adding, "We have more to do and, as I have said to every member of the Cardinals organization, that includes my own work to grow and improve as a leader."

The Cardinals did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Atlanta Falcons: Arthur Blank

The Home Depot cofounder Arthur Blank, who Forbes estimates is worth $9.2 billion, purchased the Atlanta Falcons in 2002 for $545 million, famously writing the agreement on a cloth napkin during a December 2001 meeting with seller Taylor Smith. The sale was finalized just a couple months later in February 2002.

Under Blank's leadership, the Falcons have had nine winning seasons, including eight playoff berths and an appearance at Super Bowl LI in 2017. Blank also built Mercedes-Benz Stadium and was named the 2021 Sports Philanthropist of the Year by ESPN. He was given an A- ranking by the NFLPA.

Per Forbes, the Falcons are the 29th most valuable sports team in the world, worth $5.2 billion.

Baltimore Ravens: Steve Bisciotti

At 64, Allegis Group founder Steve Bisciotti, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of $7.5 billion, is one of the youngest owners in the NFL. He bought a minority stake from previous owner Art Modell in 2000 and completed his purchase in April 2004, spending a total of $600 million, ESPN reported at the time.

"We're proud of what we're giving to Baltimore. You have to make the playoffs to have the opportunity to compete for championships, and championships are our goal. We want to be a consistent winner that avoids big lulls and not being in the playoffs for any length of time," Bisciotti has said.

The Ravens have won two Super Bowls under Bisciotti (2000 and 2012) and are one of the most consistent teams in the league, with the fourth-most postseason victories from 2008 to 2023.

Forbes valued the team at $5 billion, making it tied with Bayern Munich for the 34th most valuable team in the world. Bisciotti was given an A ranking by the NFLPA.

And with two-time league MVP Lamar Jackson at the helm, they're poised to make yet another deep run in the playoffs.

Buffalo Bills: Terry Pegula

In October 2014, energy billionaire Terry Pegula, who now has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion, purchased the Buffalo Bills with his wife, Kim Pegula, for $1.4 billion cash, outbidding the likes of Donald Trump and Jon Bon Jovi.

In December 2024, Terry Pegula and the Bills added 10 limited partners to the team's ownership group, described as "non-controlling, minority interests." Some of these partners include former US National Team soccer player Jozy Altidore and former NBA players Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady.

The diversification of ownership comes after Kim Pegula was declared legally incapacitated in March 2023 following a brain injury sustained during cardiac arrest in June 2022. Kim Pegula is still listed as a coowner by the Bills organization, but her duties as president have been assumed by Terry Pegula, who maintains the titles of co-owner, CEO, and president.

During the Pegulas' tenure, the Bills have become a formidable team, with seven playoff appearances, including the 2020 AFC Championship. The Pegulas also own the Buffalo Sabres in the NHL.

In August 2024, Forbes reported that the Bills are worth $4.2 billion— making them the 30th most valuable NFL team and falling just outside the world's top 50 highest-valued franchises. Pegula was given an A- in ownership by the NFLPA.

Terry and Kim Pegula are the parents of WTA No. 6 player Jessica Pegula.

Carolina Panthers: David Tepper

Billionaire hedge fund manager and philanthropist David Tepper purchased the Carolina Panthers in 2018 for $2.275 billion, ESPN reported. Tepper has an estimated net worth of $21.3 billion, according to Forbes.

"I am thrilled to begin this new era of Carolina Panthers football and am humbled by the overwhelming excitement and support for the team," Tepper said at the time.

But the team has had no winning seasons in the last seven years. Still, it was valued at $4.5 billion, making it the 45th most valuable team in the world, according to Forbes.

Tepper was given a D in ownership by the NFLPA; in the report card, players expressed frustration over the stadium's use of synthetic turf rather than natural grass. Business Insider reached out to the Panthers for comment.

Still, sophomore quarterback Bryce Young showed increasing promise as the season progressed, leading to some much-needed hope for the future in Charlotte.

Chicago Bears: Virginia Halas McCaskey

At 102 years old, Virginia Halas McCaskey is the oldest and longest-tenured team owner in the NFL.

She inherited the team in 1983 after the death of her father, Hall of Famer and Bears founder George Halas Sr. In 2015, Forbes estimated the McCaskey family had a net worth of $1.3 billion.

Under her ownership, Halas McCaskey has seen the Bears appear in four NFC Championships, going to Super Bowl XLI in 2007 and winning Super Bowl XX in 1986. However, the team has struggled in recent years, finishing the 2024 season 5-12.

Still, the Chicago Bears are the 15th most valuable sports team in the world, worth $6.4 billion, according to Forbes; and, Halas McCaskey earned a B+ in ownership from the NFLPA.

Cincinnati Bengals: Mike Brown

Mike Brown inherited the Cincinnati Bengals in 1991 after the death of his father, Hall of Fame coach Paul Brown.

Paul Brown founded the Bengals in 1967 after cofounding and coaching the Cleveland Browns (who yes, bear his name) for more than a decade.

In 2011, the Brown family purchased the remaining 30 percent of the team they didn't own for $200 million cash to become the sole owners of the Bengals, the NFL reported, citing Forbes. Mike Brown and his family have an estimated net worth of $3.9 billion, according to Forbes.

Mike Brown serves as the Bengals' principal owner and is president of the team. After decades of struggle, the Bengals have found success in recent years thanks in part to quarterback Joe Burrow and wide receiver Ja'Marr Chase, who led the team to Super Bowl LVI in 2021, losing 23-20 to the LA Rams.

Mike Brown was given a C+ ownership rating by the NFLPA.

Cleveland Browns: Jimmy and Dee Haslam

Former CEO of the Pilot Company Jimmy Haslam and his wife, Dee Haslam, purchased a 70 percent stake in the Cleveland Browns in 2012 from Randy Lerner for $1 billion. Jimmy Haslam has an estimated net worth of $8.5 billion, according to Forbes.

Since the Haslams took over, the Browns have had just two winning seasons, in 2020 and 2023.

They were given a B ownership rating by the NFLPA and, per Forbes, the team is worth $5.15 billion, making it the 30th most valuable franchise in the world.

Dallas Cowboys: Jerry Jones

Jerry Jones is the man behind the most valuable sports franchise in the world — the Dallas Cowboys — worth $10.1 billion, per Forbes.

That's more than 72 times what Jones paid for the team in 1989. (He paid H.R. Bright $140 million.) He now has an estimated net worth of $17.2 billion, per Forbes.

In the decades that followed, the Cowboys have won three Super Bowls (1992, 1993, and 1995) but they haven't made it beyond the divisional round of playoffs since.

Jones was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2017 — the 15th owner to receive such an award — and was given a B in ownership by the NFLPA in 2024.

Denver Broncos: Greg Penner

In August 2022, the Walton-Penner Family Ownership Group purchased the Denver Broncos from the Pat Bowlen Trust for $4.65 billion, the NFL reported.

The controlling ownership designation was transferred from Rob Walton — heir to the Walmart fortune — to his son-in-law, Broncos CEO Greg Penner (who's married to Carrie Walton Penner), in October 2023. Rob Walton and his family have an estimated net worth of $109.8 billion, per Forbes.

Penner oversaw the hiring of Broncos head coach Sean Payton, who, alongside rookie quarterback Bo Nix, took the team to its first playoff game since its Super-Bowl-winning 2016 season.

The Broncos are tied with the Los Angeles Clippers for the 22nd most valuable sports team in the world, with a worth of $5.5 billion, according to Forbes.

The Walton-Penner family was given an A ownership ranking by the NFLPA.

Detroit Lions: Sheila Ford Hamp

Sheila Ford Hamp became the principal owner and chair of the Detroit Lions in June 2020, after inheriting the team from her mother, Martha Firestone Ford.

Firestone Ford had previously taken over the team in 2014 after the death of her husband, Bill Ford Sr., who'd purchased the Lions in 1963 for $6 million. In 2015, Forbes estimated the Ford family had a net worth of $2 billion.

Under Sheila Ford Hamp's leadership, the Lions have entered an unprecedented era of success thanks in large part to her hires, GM Brad Holmes and head coach Dan Campbell.

Last season, the team made its first NFC Championship appearance since 1991, and now, as the NFC's No. 1 seed, the team will be looking to improve upon last year's success as they strive for the city's first-ever Super Bowl appearance.

Sheila Ford Hamp was given a B- in ownership in February 2024 by the NFLPA.

Green Bay Packers: Publicly owned

The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly owned team in the NFL.

Fans have owned the franchise for more than a century and there have only been six stock offerings, the most recent being in 2021 with stocks worth $300. Per the Packers, the franchise is owned by more than 539,000 people who own more than 5.2 million shares.

The Packers are the 20th most valuable sports team in the world, worth $5.6 billion, according to Forbes, and they were given an A in ownership by the NFLPA.

And if you're wondering how the team is actually run: It's governed by an unpaid board of directors and a seven-member executive committee.

Houston Texans: Cal McNair

In 1999, the Houston Texans were founded by Janice and Bob McNair. When Bob McNair died in 2018, ownership was transferred to Janice. Then, in March 2024, it was transferred to their son, Cal McNair, via a vote. Per Forbes, Janice McNair and the family have an estimated net worth of $6.2 billion.

Cal McNair had already been serving as the team's chair and CEO since July 2018 and January 2019, respectively.

"It's an exciting time to be a Houston Texan and I'm honored to lead this franchise. This move ensures the long-term stability of our franchise and we will continue to operate the way we have been over the last couple of years, pursuing a championship for the City of Houston while doing great things in the community and for our fans," Cal McNair said in a statement.

The Texans finished the 2024 regular season 10-7 and defeated the Los Angeles Chargers 32-12 in the wild-card round of the playoffs. They will face the Kansas City Chiefs in the divisional playoff round on January 18.

Forbes reported that the Texans are the eighth most valuable sports franchise in the world, worth $6.1 billion. Janice McNair was given a B+ ownership rating by the NFLPA in February 2024.

Indianapolis Colts: Jim Irsay

Jim Irsay has been the principal owner of the Indianapolis Colts since 1997, when he inherited the team from his father, Robert Irsay, at just 37 years old. Yet, Jim Irsay's time with the Colts began long before that, as he worked in everything from ticket sales and public relations to football operations before becoming the team's GM in 1983 at 24 years old. He now serves as the team's owner, chairman, and CEO, and has an estimated net worth of $4.8 billion.

Robert Irsay originally purchased the team — then known as the Baltimore Colts — in 1972 for $12 million. He moved the team to Indianapolis in 1984.

Under Jim Irsay's leadership, the Colts have won 10 divisional championships, made two Super Bowl appearances, one of which they won in 2007.

The Colts are the 40th most valuable sports franchise in the world, worth $4.8 billion, and Irsay was given a C in ownership by the NFLPA.

In 2014, he was arrested on a DUI charge and later pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, which led to a six-game suspension and $500,000 fine from the NFL. In a 2023 interview on "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel," Irsay said he was "prejudiced against" because he's a "rich, white billionaire."

Jacksonville Jaguars: Shahid "Shad" Khan

Shahid "Shad" Khan, who now has an estimated net worth of $13.3 billion, purchased the Jacksonville Jaguars from Wayne Weaver in November 2011 for $770 million. The sale was finalized in January 2012.

The Jaguars have struggled throughout Khan's leadership, having made the playoffs just twice. Still, he was given an A in ownership by the NFLPA and the team is worth $4.6 billion, making it tied with the Philadelphia 76ers as the 43rd most valuable franchise in sports, according to Forbes.

Kansas City Chiefs: The Hunt family

The Kansas City Chiefs have been owned by the Hunt family since the beginning. Lamar Hunt Sr. founded the team in 1959 as the Dallas Texans, and the team was moved to Kansas City in 1963. After Lamar Hunt Sr.'s death in 2006, ownership was divided between his wife, Norma, and their four children: Clark Hunt, Sharron Hunt Munson, Daniel Hunt, and Lamar Hunt Jr. The family has an estimated net worth of $24.8 billion, per Forbes.

Clark Hunt (pictured above) became the team's CEO in 2010 and has since been responsible for team decisions. He was responsible for hiring head coach Andy Reid in 2013, now the winningest head coach in franchise history with three Super Bowl victories alongside quarterback Patrick Mahomes.

Forbes ranked the Chiefs, worth $4.85 billion, as the 39th most valuable franchise in sports.

And yet, all of the team's success didn't stop the Hunt family from receiving an F- ownership grade from the NFLPA in February 2024.

The Chiefs did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Las Vegas Raiders: Mark Davis

Mark Davis, who has an estimated net worth of $2.3 billion, per Forbes, inherited the Las Vegas Raiders (then the Oakland Raiders) in 2011 after the death of his father, Al Davis.

Al Davis originally purchased a 10% stake in the team in 1966 for $18,500 and increased his ownership to 67% before his death.

In October 2024, Mark Davis expanded the team's ownership, selling 5% to former NFL quarterback Tom Brady, 5% to Knighthead Capital Management cofounder Tom Wagner, and 0.5% to former NFL defensive lineman Richard Seymour.

The following month, Davis agreed to sell an additional 15% of the franchise, with equal stakes going to Silver Lake co-CEO and Endeavor board chairman Egon Durban and Discovery Land Company founder and chairman Michael Meldman.

Despite the changes, Davis remains the team's principal owner and was given a B+ rating by the NFLPA. The Raiders are reportedly worth $6.7 billion, making them the 11th most valuable sports team in the world.

Los Angeles Chargers: Dean Spanos

In 2018, Dean Spanos became the principal owner of the Los Angeles Chargers (previously the San Diego Chargers) after the death of his father, Alex Spanos.

The elder Spanos had owned the team since 1984, after purchasing a 60% stake for $70 million, ESPN reported. He went on to buy out minority owners' shares to own 97% of the team, which was passed on to his four children. As of 2018, the Spanos family has an estimated net worth of $2.4 billion, according to Forbes.

Dean Spanos took over daily operations as team president in 1994, and has passed along day-to-day duties to his sons, AG and John Spanos, who now work as president of business operations and president of football operations, respectively.

In October 2024, billionaire Tom Gores purchased a 27% stake in the team for $750 million.

In the last 10 seasons, the Chargers have made three playoff appearances. The team is tied with Manchester City as the 31st most valuable sports franchise in the world, worth $5.1 billion.

Spanos was given a C+ for ownership by the NFLPA.

Los Angeles Rams: Stan Kroenke

In August 2010, Stan Kroenke paid $750 million to become the principal owner of the St. Louis Rams. He had previously been a minority owner of the team, purchasing a 30% stake in 1995 and increasing it to 40% stake by 1997.

In 2016, fellow NFL owners approved Kroenke's proposal to move the Rams back to Los Angeles, and in 2021, he opened SoFi Stadium which is home to both the Rams and Chargers.

The LA Rams are now worth $7.6 billion, according to Forbes, making them the third most valuable team in sports, behind the Dallas Cowboys and the Golden State Warriors, while Kroenke himself has an estimated net worth of $16.9 billion, according to the publication.

"Stan has the vision, resources, inspiration and creativity to create the right setting for the NFL in Los Angeles," Jerry Jones has said, calling him "a valuable asset to the National Football League."

Since 2010, the Rams have made five playoff appearances, all under head coach Sean McVay. The Rams won the Super Bowl in 2022 at home at SoFi, becoming just the second team to win the Super Bowl at home.

Kroenke was given a C+ ownership rating by the NFLPA.

He also owns Premier League team Arsenal FC.

Miami Dolphins: Stephen M. Ross

In January 2009, billionaire Stephen M. Ross completed his purchase of the Miami Dolphins for a total of $1 billion (Ross has an estimated net worth of $17 billion, per Forbes). Ross had initially purchased a 50% stake in the franchise in February 2008 for $550 million, and the following January, he purchased an additional 45 percent of the team, leaving 5% to previous owner Wayne Huizenga, ESPN reported.

After his 2009 purchase, Ross said, "That is the most important thing, and the thing that drives me — creating and being part of a winning organization. There is nothing more important than that."

Today, Ross is the chairman of the board, managing general partner, and owner of the team, which is worth $6.2 billion, according to Forbes, making it the 17th most valuable franchise in sports.

The Dolphins were the highest-ranked team in the league by the NFLPA, earning scores of A- and above in all categories, including treatment of families, the locker room, weight room, training staff, head coach, and ownership. Ross himself earned an A+ ranking, one of only two coaches to receive such high praise.

Minnesota Vikings: Zygi Wilf

In June 2005, Red McCombs sold the Minnesota Vikings to brothers Zygi and Mark Wilf, their cousin Lenny Wilf, and their co-investors for $600 million. Zygi Wilf is widely reported to have an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion.

Today, Zygi Wilf is the chairman and control owner of the team, and the trio's individual stakes have never been shared, Sport Business Journal reported.

The Vikings ranked as the second-best team in the NFL, according to the NFLPA's 2024 report cards, earning A+ marks in ownership and head coach, as well as A marks in categories like the weight room, locker room, and treatment of families.

Under the Wilfs' ownership, the team opened US Bank Stadium in 2016 — the largest construction project in Minnesota state history — and made eight playoff appearances, though they haven't made it to the Super Bowl since 1976.

The Vikings are the 33rd most valuable team in sports, worth $5.05 billion, per Forbes.

New England Patriots: Robert Kraft

Robert Kraft is one of the best-known owners in the league. He purchased the New England Patriots in 1994 for $172 million and now has an estimated net worth of $11.8 billion, per Forbes.

Through the purchase, Kraft became the team's chairman and CEO and he pledged "to help bring a championship to New England."

More than 30 years later, the Patriots have become one of the most successful teams in NFL history with six Super Bowl victories from 10 appearances.

Per Forbes, the Patriots are worth $7.4 billion — more than 43 times what Kraft bought the team for — but he received a D+ ownership ranking from the NFLPA. Dissatisfaction with the weight room and training room were two examples of areas players felt Kraft could invest more in, per the report card. The Patriots did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

New Orleans Saints: Gayle Benson

In 2018, Gayle Benson inherited the New Orleans Saints from her husband, Tom Benson, after his death. She has an estimated net worth of $6.6 billion, Forbes reported.

Tom Benson had previously purchased the team in 1985 for about $70 million.

In 2021, Gayle Benson told The Times-Picayune that after her death, the succession plan is to sell the Saints and the NBA's New Orleans Pelicans (which she also owns) to a buyer that promises to keep the teams in New Orleans and donate all the proceeds to charities.

"When Tom bought this team, he didn't have a lot of money. Everything that he had, had to be given to keep the team. He worked really hard to get the Pelicans here. He sacrificed a lot. I want to make sure that we keep the teams here. I want them to stay in New Orleans forever," Benson said.

Benson was given a B+ ranking in ownership by the NFLPA and the Saints are tied with Paris Saint-Germain and the Toronto Raptors as the 47th most valuable sports franchises, worth $4.4 billion each.

New York Giants: John Mara, Steven Tisch

The New York Giants were founded in 1925 by Tim Mara and have been part of the Mara family ever since.

Team ownership was passed to Tim's sons, Jack and Wellington Mara, in 1959 and now the team is run by principal owner, CEO, and president John Mara, who took over in 2005 after his father, Wellington's, death. John Mara had already been with the organization since 1991.

However, while John Mara is listed as the team's principal owner, he's actually shared ownership with Steve Tisch since 2005.

Steve Tisch's father, Preston Robert Tisch, purchased a 50% stake in the Giants in 1991, and after his death, Steve became chairman and executive vice president.

Together, Mara and Tisch helped plan and build MetLife Stadium and the team has won two Super Bowls (2008 and 2012) under their leadership. However, the team has struggled in recent years, winning just three games this season.

Still, the Giants are the seventh most valuable team in sports, worth $7.3 billion, per Forbes, and Mara and Tisch were given a B+ ownership ranking by the NFLPA. Tisch has an estimated net worth of $1.6 billion, Forbes reported, while Mara reportedly has a net worth of $500 million.

New York Jets: Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson

Woody Johnson — of Johnson & Johnson lineage — purchased the New York Jets in 2000 for $635 million. Forbes estimated in 2024 that the Johnson family had a net worth of $16 billion.

The Jets have struggled under his leadership, having failed to make the playoffs for the past 14 seasons. Johnson was also recently accused of letting his teenage sons, Brick and Jack, make decisions for the organization, as reported by The Athletic and ESPN's Rich Cimini in December 2024. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers also joked during a December 2024 interview with "The Pat McAfee Show" that "being released by a teenager" would be a first if he were to be let go from the Jets at the conclusion of the 2024 season.

Johnson denied those claims in a January 2025 interview with the New York Post, telling the outlet they were "unsubstantiated" and that his son Brick "has no role in the organization." Johnson added, "When you're losing games, it gives people the artistic license to kind of do what they want."

When reached by Business Insider for a comment, a representative for the Jets shared the earlier comments made to the New York Post.

The Jets finished the season 5-12 and will be looking to hire a new head coach and GM after the firings of Robert Saleh and Joe Douglas. Still, the team is considered the ninth most valuable franchise in sports, worth $6.9 billion, and Johnson was given a B- ownership ranking by the NFLPA in February 2024.

Philadelphia Eagles: Jeffrey Lurie

Businessman Jeffrey Lurie purchased the Philadelphia Eagles in 1994 for $185 million. He now serves as the team's chairman and CEO; and he and his family have an estimated net worth of $5.3 billion, according to Forbes.

Under his leadership, the Eagles have made the playoffs 19 times and won one of their three Super Bowl appearances.

Lurie was given an A ranking by the NFLPA, and the team is now worth $6.6 billion, per Forbes, making it the 12th most valuable franchise in sports, alongside Real Madrid.

Pittsburgh Steelers: Arthur Rooney II, Daniel Rooney Trust

Similar to the Mara family and the Giants, the Pittsburgh Steelers have been part of the Rooney family since 1933, when the team was founded by Art Rooney. He remained the team's chairman until his death in 1988.

After his death, his son Dan Rooney took over ownership until his death in 2017.

Now, Dan's son, Art Rooney II, is responsible for most of the franchise's stake. However, he's been an active member of the organization since 1989, when he was first on the team's board of directors. He was named president of the Steelers in 2003.

Since 2017, the Steelers have made five playoff appearances, though they've failed to get past the divisional round. Despite recent difficulties, the Steelers remain one of the most successful franchises in NFL history, with six Super Bowl wins from eight appearances.

The Steelers are the 28th most valuable team in sports, per Forbes, worth $5.3 billion. In 2015, Forbes reported that the Rooney family had an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion.

However, Art Rooney II was given one of the lowest ownership rankings — an F — by the NFLPA at the conclusion of the 2024 season. Some of players' complaints about the Steelers organization included in the report card are outdated lockers in the locker room, lack of access to individualized care, and average quality weight room equipment.

The Steelers did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

San Francisco 49ers: The York family

In 1977, Edward DeBartolo Sr. paid $13 million for the San Francisco 49ers to give to his son, Edward DeBartolo Jr.

Edward DeBartolo Jr. ran the 49ers organization throughout the '80s and '90s, leading to five Super Bowl wins and securing his position in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. But in 1998, DeBartolo pleaded guilty "to not reporting a bribe from a Louisiana government official," Forbes reported, so his sister, Denise DeBartolo York, took over ownership in 2001. DeBartolo Jr. was pardoned by Donald Trump in February 2020.

DeBartolo York and her husband, John York, have been cochairs of the team since then, while their son, Jed York, has been CEO since 2010.

In March 2024, ESPN reported that Jed York was moving to become the team's principal owner. "I think it's just a move from a family standpoint to just keep this team in our family for generations to come," he said, per ESPN.

Though the team hasn't won a Super Bowl since 1994, it has remained competitive. In the last six seasons, the 49ers have made four NFC Championship and two Super Bowl appearances.

The 49ers are the 10th most valuable franchise in sports, worth $6.8 billion, and the DeBartolo-York family received an A in ownership from the NFLPA. They have an estimated net worth of $6.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Seattle Seahawks: Paul G. Allen Trust, Jody Allen

The Seattle Seahawks are owned by the Paul G. Allen Estate.

Paul G. Allen was the cofounder of Microsoft alongside Bill Gates. He purchased the Seahawks in 1997 for $194 million.

Since his death in 2018, his estate has been controlled by his sister, Jody Allen. He had an estimated net worth of $20.3 billion. In July 2024, Sports Illustrated reported she is the team's principal owner and that there's a "mandate that she eventually sells the team and donates the proceeds to charitable causes" Paul Allen supported.

Other members of the Seahawks' senior leadership include president Chuck Arnold and GM John Schneider.

The Seahawks have been steady since 2018, with four playoff appearances, though they have not progressed beyond the divisional round since 2014.

The team is valued at $5.45 billion by Forbes, making it tied with the LA Dodgers for 24th most valuable sports franchise. Jody Allen was given a C+ in ownership.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The Glazer Family

Ownership of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is split between the six siblings of the Glazer family: Avram Glazer, Bryan Glazer, Darcie Glazer Kassewitz, Edward Glazer, Joel Glazer, and Kevin Glazer.

The team was purchased by their father, Malcolm Glazer, in 1995 for $192 million, and they inherited it after his death in 2014. As of 2024, the Glazer family has an estimated net worth of $10 billion.

On the Buccaneers' team site Bryan, Edward, Joel Glazer are listed as the team's cochairmen, but Joel (pictured above) is the only sibling specifically named in the NFLPA's team report card, which gave ownership a D-. One primary concern in the report is the locker room's lack of cleanliness. The Buccaneers did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

The Buccaneers have won two Super Bowls (2003 and 2021) under the Glazer family and are worth $5.4 billion, according to Forbes, making the team the 26th highest valued franchise in the world. The family also owns Premier League team Manchester United.

Tennessee Titans: Amy Adams Strunk

Amy Adams Strunk, who has an estimated net worth of $2 billion, is the controlling owner and cochair of the Tennessee Titans, having inherited the team in March 2015 after the death of her father, KS "Bud" Adams, in 2013. (Adams founded the team as the Houston Oilers in 1960.)

Since 2015, the Titans have had six winning seasons, including four playoff berths. The team struggled during the 2024 season, though, producing only three wins.

As an owner, Adams Strunk has worked to increase the team's staff by more than 150 percent and has been a key figure in getting approval for a new stadium, the Titans reported. She was awarded a B+ in ownership by the NFLPA and the team is tied with the Houston Rockets for 37th most valuable franchise, worth $4.9 billion, per Forbes.

Washington Commanders: Josh Harris

In 2023, investor Josh Harris purchased the Washington Commanders from Dan Snyder for a record $6.05 billion. He made the purchase through the Harris Ownership Group, which includes limited partners like former NBA star Magic Johnson, investor David Blitzer, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

"I feel an awesome responsibility to the city of Washington," Harris said after the sale, per ESPN. "I know what I've got to do. It comes down to winning. It's on me and on our ownership group to deliver. That's what we're going to do."

Harris has an estimated net worth of $10.8 billion, per Forbes.

On Sunday, January 12, the Commanders won their first playoff game since 2006 under the leadership of head coach Dan Quinn and rookie quarterback Jayden Daniels.

Harris was given a B in ownership by the NFLPA after his first season with the team. The Commanders are the 16th most valuable franchise in sports, worth $6.3 billion, according to Forbes.

• The American Cancer Society reported that women under 65 are getting cancer at higher rates.
• Breast cancer cases are the most common, but female lung cancer diagnoses are also soaring.
• Racial disparities are a factor, too: More Black women are dying of breast cancer.

Working-age women in the US are now more likely to get cancer than men of the same age.

A new report out Thursday from the American Cancer Society showed that the number of women under 65 diagnosed with cancer has been steadily increasing.

The report, which tracked cancer incidence nationwide from 1991 to 2022, found that cancer rates in women under 50 are now 82% higher than for men the same age, signaling a dramatic, steady climb over the past two decades.

The biggest cancer risk for working-age women is still breast cancer, but researchers were alarmed to see female lung cancer cases are also ticking up and have crossed a threshold.

"For the first time, if you're a woman under the age of 65, you have a greater chance of developing lung cancer than a man," Dr. William Dahut, the American Cancer Society's chief scientific officer, said in a briefing with reporters.

"This is, I think, really a transformational change," he said.

The trend, building for years, reached a tipping point in 2021.

Dahut said that could be due in part to uneven smoking patterns between men and women in the 1960s. Women smoked "heavily later on, more likely in the mid- to late-'60s, while men peaked earlier," he said.

Still, around 20% of lung cancer diagnoses in women are not linked to smoking and are more likely due to environmental factors like radon and asbestos exposure, air pollution, or heavy drinking.

Racial gap

The report emphasized that while there was major progress in cancer treatment over the 30-year study period, with roughly 4.5 million cancer deaths avoided nationwide from 1991 to 2022, there are still striking racial disparities in cancer detection, treatment, and survivability.

Though white women are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer, Black women are more likely to die from it, suggesting that both cancer screening and cancer treatment for people of color are subpar.

Native Americans have disproportionately high rates of kidney, liver, stomach, and cervical cancers. Death rates for Black people with prostate, stomach, and uterine cancer are twice as high as for white Americans.

Cancer cases rising in young people

The report does contain some good news: Overall cancer deaths across the US tumbled 34% in the 30-year period from 1991 to 2022.

Increasingly, though, young adults are now facing a higher risk of cancer. Colorectal cancer rates are up for people under 65; cervical cancer is on the rise in women between 30 and 44 years old; and teens between 15 and 19 are more likely to develop adolescent cancers.

"Continued reductions in cancer mortality because of drops in smoking, better treatment, and earlier detection is certainly great news," Rebecca Siegel, an ACS epidemiologist and the lead author of the new report, said in a release.

"However, this progress is tempered by rising incidence in young and middle-aged women, who are often the family caregivers, and a shifting cancer burden from men to women, harkening back to the early 1900s when cancer was more common in women," she said.

• Frank Rothwell, a 74-year-old from the UK, wasn't sporty as a child but got into sailing in his 30s.
• He switched to rowing in his 70s — he has now twice rowed across the Atlantic solo.
• He raised money for Alzheimer's Research UK by rowing for 12 hours a day for 56 days.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Frank Rothwell, a 74-year-old British businessman who owns the soccer club Oldham Athletic. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

I didn't get much chance to do sports as a child. But when I got to my 30s, I got interested in sailing. And now, at 74, I've rowed solo across the Atlantic twice.

In 1990, my family chartered a yacht off the coast of the Whitsunday Islands in Australia for two weeks. We enjoyed it so much that we bought a yacht.

I started doing longer sailing trips, about six weeks. At this point it was only a hobby, and I was using all my holidays to go sailing. I own my own business, so I could take as much time off as I liked, but I was close to retiring then anyway.

I met a bloke in a pub who'd just sailed the Northwest Passage, the sea that goes between Alaska and Russia. I couldn't stop thinking about doing it too, so I did. And then I sailed from the UK around South America, and then a figure eight around the Americas and through the Panama Canal.

By the time I got home, I'd had enough of sailing. It's really hard to find people willing to come sailing with you, because they think it'll be a holiday like in the ads — but you need someone with sailing experience who can take months off work and who will still want to go out when it's rough and pouring rain and they're seasick. So I wanted something I could do by myself.

I switched from sailing to rowing

One night I met a woman in a pub who had a mate who was going to row the Atlantic solo. I thought it must be achievable if someone who had no sailing experience was planning to do it.

So a couple of weeks later, in 2020, I entered the same race, the World's Toughest Row. I was doing it purely for my own benefit, but when I found out all the other teams were raising funds for a charity, I thought I should too. I knew it would be easy for me to raise money because I'm a wealthy bloke and I have wealthy friends.

I decided on Alzheimer's Research UK because Alzheimer's affects everybody — the person who has it, their family, their neighbors. On my first trip I raised £1.1 million.

You had to record 100 hours of rowing to take part in the race, but I enjoyed the training so much that I ended up doing 400 hours in proper open-sea conditions.

I also trained by doing hill runs and weightlifting — I did lots of pulling movements with weights heavier than how much I'd be pulling when I rowed.

I rowed all day, every day, for 56 days

For my first Atlantic row, I set off on December 12, 2020, from La Gomera, one of the Canary Islands. It took me 56 days. I arrived in Antigua on February 6, 2021. At 70, I was the oldest person in the race.

I did my second row at 73 — I finished on February 15, 2024, after 64 days of rowing, and I raised over £383,000.

On the boat, you're either rowing or sleeping. I used to try to row between eight and 14 hours a day, depending on the sea conditions. Some days I made good progress and went 70 miles forward; some days I ended up going 8 miles backward.

On a typical day I'd wake up around 7:30 a.m. and phone base control to assure them I was still there. Then I'd phone my wife, Judith, for 10 minutes as she woke up, and have breakfast — dry granola out of the tin and coffee with cold water.

Then I'd row until 10 or 11 a.m. until the sun got warmer and I needed to put on more clothes to completely cover my skin. I'd have a snack, maybe a couple of chocolate bars, and carry on rowing.

I had to row quite slowly, about 2.5 mph. If you're going to be rowing for 12 hours, you have to go at a speed you can keep up easily. It's easier to row in a boat than on a rowing machine because you have inertia helping you.

During the rowing, I snacked on macadamia nuts, because they're full of calories. I'd get through a kilogram of those a week for lunches. If I wanted to sleep, I'd try to have a nap just after noon, when the sun is at its hottest.

I'd row until teatime, when I'd have two or three pot noodles made with warm water. All the water I had was 23 degrees Celsius, or 73 degrees Fahrenheit — always warm. One of the things I really looked forward to when I finished was drinking something cold.

I was completely alone

I called my son every day for advice. He'd spend an hour every day checking the weather, and so I'd call him for five minutes when he talked me through the route I should take.

I had no other support. A safety boat came to check on me when I was asleep once, but other than that, I didn't even see an airplane.

During my second row across the Atlantic, the boat capsized twice in 24 hours. I was in the cabin, so I was OK. The boat would always flip back over, but I lost one of its safety features and my sea anchor.

I felt a bit depressed afterward, so my wife suggested I have a day off. But I got halfway through the day and thought, "What am I doing?" So I got back on the oars, stopped being soft, and banged on.

My family isn't keen on it, but I'd love to row again.

• Kohl's plans to close 27 underperforming stores by April.
• The retailer operates more than 1,150 locations across the US.
• Here's the full list of locations that will shutter in the coming months.

Kohl's has announced the closure of more than two dozen stores it deemed underperforming.

The Wisconsin-based retailer has struggled in recent quarters with "frankly disappointing" sales, in the words of then-CEO Tom Kingsbury last quarter. Kingsbury stepped down from the job on January 15.

The 27 locations spread across 15 states that are shuttering represent a small fraction of the overall 1,150-plus store fleet the company says is healthy, strong, and profitable. The closures are expected to be completed by April.

"As we continue to build on our long-term growth strategy, it is important that we also take difficult but necessary actions to support the health and future of our business for our customers and our teams," Kingsbury said in a statement last week.

In addition to the closing stores, the company said it will shutter an e-commerce fulfillment center in San Bernardino, California, as newer centers and fulfill-from-store capabilities have made the 15-year-old facility unnecessary.

Kohl's said employees at affected locations have the option of applying to another open role or taking a "competitive" severance package.

Here is the list of closing Kohl's locations

Alabama

• Spanish Fort
  21000 Town Center Ave.

Arkansas

• Little Rock West
  13909 Chenal Pkwy.

California

• Balboa (San Diego)
  5505 Balboa Ave.
• Encinitas
  134 N El Camino Real
• Fremont
  43782 Christy St.
• Mountain View
  350 Showers Dr.
• Napa
  1116 1st St.
• Pleasanton
  4525 Rosewood Dr.
• Point West (Sacramento)
  1896 Arden Way
• San Rafael
  5010 Northgate Dr.
• San Luis Obispo
  205 Madonna Rd.
• Westchester
  8739 S Sepulveda Blvd.

Colorado

• Arapahoe Crossing (Aurora)
  6584 S Parker Rd.

Georgia

• Duluth
  2050 W Liddell Rd.

Idaho

• Boise
  400 N Milwaukee St.

Illinois

• Plainfield
  11860 S Route 59
• Spring Hill (West Dundee)
  3000 Spring Hill Ring Rd.

Massachusetts

• Stoughton
  501 Technology Center Dr.

New Jersey

• East Windsor
  72 Princeton Hightstown Rd.

Ohio

• Blue Ash
  4150 Hunt Rd.
• Forest Park (Cincinnati)
  100 Cincinnati Mills Dr.

Oregon

• Portland Gateway
  10010 NE Halsey St.

Pennsylvania

• Pottstown
  351 W Schuylkill Rd.

Texas

• North Dallas
  18224 Preston Rd.

Utah

• Riverton
  13319 S 3600 W Ste 13LOT

Virginia

• Herndon
  2100 Centreville Rd.
• Williamsburg
  100 Gristmill Plz

• Meta plans to cut more low-performing employees, calling the move "nonregrettable attrition."
• Companies often use euphemistic language for job cuts to avoid alarming investors and employees.
• Yet such phrasing often doesn't soften the impact of cuts on affected workers.

Allow for a quick riff on RIFs.

Many companies go out of their way to avoid calling job cuts what they are. Whether it's a "reduction in force," "rightsizing," or "streamlining," the fancy language doesn't soften the blow for workers — or hide the reality of lost jobs.

One recent example: Meta said this week it would push out an additional 5% of what Mark Zuckerberg called "low-performers." Clear enough. Yet in a subsequent memo from Hillary Champion, Meta's director of people development growth programs, the focus became "non-regrettable attrition."

At Amazon, a phrase often used for such cuts is "unregretted attrition."

It's the type of language that can draw snark online. Following Meta's announcement, one person wrote on X: "'Non-regrettable attrition' lmao.'"

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment beyond saying the company plans to fill the vacated positions in 2025.

Steve McClatchy, who consults on leadership and is the author of the book "Leading Relationships," told BI that public companies often use euphemistic language around job cuts to try to avoid spooking investors and raising concerns that the business is in trouble. But, he said, that effort often falls flat when they use terms like nonregrettable attrition.

"How sad is that language? It's trying to say to the ownership group, we're headed in the right direction, not the wrong one," McClatchy said.

There are numerous other ways to frame offboarding, err, cutbacks, err, workforce adjustments, and the need to do so.

For example, the news site TechCrunch told BI on Tuesday it's reducing staff because of "evolving needs."

It's possible that for many employers, workforce optimization, organizational realignment, and — shout out to ChatGPT for this one — internal mobility challenges just sound better than job cuts.

Yet, workplace experts told BI, the fallout is the same.

"We're seeing a lot of companies now do everything not to use the actual word layoff, even though that's exactly what they're doing," Peter Rahbar, an employment attorney who founded the boutique law firm the Rahbar Group, told BI.

A spokesperson for the food giant Cargill previously told BI that job cuts were designed to "realign our talent and resources to align with our strategy."

Last year, Bumble said it would cut about 30% of its workforce "to better align its operating model with future strategic priorities."

The hidden messages behind layoff language

Cutting jobs is often bad for morale and can hurt productivity when workers become consumed with worrying they're next. That can be true even with a case like that of Meta, which said it planned to "backfill" roles in 2025. Translation: hire better people — though not you.

Yet, McClatchy said, to imply that a worker who gets pushed out for poor performance is solely at fault misses the responsibility that employers have to make good hires and that managers have to help those under their tutelage perform their best.

"It's 100% an attack on the employee that has to go then find a job. And what a shame that is," he said.

Sandra Sucher, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School who has studied layoffs, told BI that most terms for layoffs are designed to make an otherwise negative act appear more positive.

She said companies often use the term regrettable attrition for good workers they're sorry to see leave. So a term like nonregrettable attrition is a way of "sugarcoating" the fact that an employer is letting people go. Connecting it to attrition is meant, Sucher said, to imply that employers have a handle on the outflow. Yet, she said, attrition isn't always something companies can control.

"The point of attrition is that you're not managing it. It's something that, by and large, happens to you," she said.

'It's not going to soften the blow'

Rahbar, the attorney, said employers' choice of wording when it comes to culling workers isn't about protecting themselves legally. Instead, he said, it's mostly a public-relations dance and, ultimately, one that does little good.

"If you're an employee who is impacted by this, the language they're using to describe it is irrelevant. It's not going to soften the blow," Rahbar said.

Ravin Jesuthasan, a coauthor of the book "The Skills-Powered Organization" and the global leader for transformation services at the consulting firm Mercer, told BI that employers have been cutting jobs for more than a century when business falters.

"I don't know why there was a need to introduce new language," he said.

In some cases, the words aren't new; they're just redeployed, reassigned, or transitioned to a new role. In Champion's memo at Meta, she wrote that the company was "aiming to exit" an additional 5% of its workers who'd been around long enough to get a performance rating.

"'Exit' as in GTFO!" one X user posted.

Not all euphemisms might be as likely to whip up worker cynicism, of course. The practice of scoring workers based on various metrics and getting rid of the worst performers sometimes goes by the human-resources shorthand "rank and yank."

Corporatespeak can also be a handy way to add levity in uncertain times. One social media user wrote on X about what might happen when artificial intelligence shows up to make cutbacks, oblique language in tow.

"Humans will become 'Non-Regrettable Attrition' for AI," the person wrote.

Do you have something to share about job cuts or something else at work? Business Insider would like to hear from you. Email our workplace team from a nonwork device at [email protected] with your story, or ask for one of our reporters' Signal numbers.

• Workers in the future may face longer hours, more years of labor, and more productivity pressure.
• A McKinsey report said future generations would pay for low birth rates and people living longer.
• Elon Musk and Jeremy Grantham have both warned that population decline is a huge threat to humnity.

As declining birth rates lead to a youth shortage and a surfeit of older people, future generations of workers face longer hours, more years in the labor force, and more pressure to be productive.

"Absent action, younger people will inherit lower economic growth and shoulder the cost of more retirees," reads a McKinsey Global Institute report published Wednesday that examines the demographic time bomb.

The authors said a combination of more workers, more hours of work, and higher productivity would likely remedy the problem. They also touched on lengthening people's working lives as part of the solution.

They estimated that a German worker would have to work an extra 5.2 hours a week to keep the nation's living standards rising at the same rate as it has since the 1990s, assuming labor force participation doesn't rise.

Working-age populations have historically powered their nations' economic growth and borne the costs of caring for older generations. That balance is becoming more and more lopsided in many advanced economies as people have fewer children and live longer.

Baby bust

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has been one of the loudest voices on the subject of demographic doom.

"Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming," the world's richest man posted on his X platform in August 2022.

"Just have kids one way or another or humanity will die with a whimper in adult diapers!" he said in a post last May.

Jeremy Grantham, asset manager GMO's cofounder and long-term investment strategist, sounded the alarm during a Rosenberg Research webinar this month.

He pointed to Japan, where nearly 30% of the population is over 65, and the birth rate slumped in 2023 to a record low of 1.2 children per woman — far below the replacement rate of 2.1. Grantham described the decline as "cataclysmic."

Grantham also said South Korea's birth rate of 0.7 leaves one grandchild to support eight aging grandparents. "It does not compute, as you can see."

He added that population decline put the stability of human civilization at risk, and he agreed with Musk that it's "a very big threat, and it's in the data, and it's not to be denied."

Synthetic food dyes add a burst of color to many beloved American foods, such as candy, cereal, and even bacon. But some dyes — like Red No. 3 — have links to cancer, behavioral disorders, and other health issues.

Now, after more than 30 years, the FDA is banning Red No. 3 in cereals and other food products. The move comes as California is poised to ban synthetic dyes in schools, and as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pushes for a nationwide ban on artificial dyes.

But how did synthetic dyes take over America's food system in the first place? And how will the FDA's new policy change how food giants formulate their products? Health editor Mia de Graaf breaks it down.

• Pete Davidson said that he wanted to quit "Saturday Night Live" after his first year.
• Davidson felt like he didn't "belong" with his cast mates.
• He asked "SNL" boss Lorne Michaels to fire him and was told it would get better after three or four years.

Pete Davidson broke into Hollywood and pop culture through his work on "Saturday Night Live," but he wanted to quit the sketch comedy series early on.

"After my first year, I actually called for a meeting with Lorne," Davidson said in the new Peacock docuseries "SNL50: Beyond Saturday Night," referring to the show's creator and executive producer Lorne Michaels. "I was like, 'Please fire me.'"

Davidson made his "SNL" debut as a featured player during season 40, which aired between 2014 and 2015. At 20, he was one of the youngest-ever hires and the show's first cast member born in the 1990s. The comedian said that because of his age difference with the cast, he felt out of place.

"I was like 'I don't belong here. Everybody here is so talented and they don't want to be my friend,'" Davidson recalled telling Michaels. "I was a child. I was like, 'Nobody wants to be my friend.' And he said, 'You don't figure it out until your third or fourth year.'"

The comedian added that Michaels explained to him, "It's just gonna suck for like, three or four years."

"And he was right," Davidson said.

Despite early reservations, Davidson stayed on "SNL" for eight seasons. During his time on the show, and since leaving in 2022, the comedian has kept busy with TV and film roles and comedy specials. He even returned to "SNL" as a host for the season 49 premiere in 2023.

Davidson is one of many "SNL" alums who appear in "SNL50," a four-part docuseries celebrating the show's 50th anniversary.

The docuseries includes never-before-seen audition footage, interviews with former "SNL" cast and crew members, a deep dive into one iconic sketch, and a breakdown of the messy but pivotal 11th season.

Reps for Michaels didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

All episodes of "SNL50: Beyond Saturday Night" are streaming on Peacock.

• Americans ages 18 to 29 were more likely to report feeling lonely than older adults, per a survey.
• Older Americans were also more optimistic about their lives than the younger cohort.
• Gen Z's loneliness may stem from fewer social connections and later marriages.

As social life rebounds uneasily from pandemic-era shocks, Gen Z is still feeling lonely.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center of 6,204 American adults, conducted from September 3 through 15, looks at how optimistic and lonely different age groups feel. Broadly, 16% of all American adults say that they feel lonely or isolated from those around them all or most of the time.

But loneliness starkly varies by age. Nearly a quarter of Americans ages 18 to 29 said that they felt lonely, compared to just 6% of those 65 and older. At the same time, adults 65 and older were the most likely to say that they felt optimistic about their lives all or most of the time, while just under half of 18- to 29-year-olds said they felt the same.

"Older people are almost always the happiest age group," in research on happiness, Kim Parker, Pew's director of social trends research, told Business Insider. However, she was surprised by the more negative opinions of the younger cohort.

"It's interesting to see that two-thirds of adults 65 and older say they feel optimistic about their life all or most of the time when only 48% of 18- to 29-year-olds do when they have so much time ahead of them," Parker said. "But it may be that there's just so much more unknown at that stage of life that it's harder to feel optimistic."

Gen Z's loneliness woes could have something to do with weakening social connections. As BI previously reported, Gen Zers are coming up against a fringe friend crisis: They're lacking wider connections and social networks that were more easily accessible to prior generations. At the same time, community-building groups like unions and religious institutions are fading away, as are third spaces — places that aren't work or home, but instead centered on congregating and socializing.

Part of the loneliness and optimism chasm might also have to do with how much Gen Z is socializing: Younger Americans have been spending more time alone. In 2010, Americans between 20 and 24 years old spent about four hours a day alone, a number that's since gone up, peaking at an average of 6.7 hours a day spent alone in 2021 — a likely result of time spent solo during the thick of the pandemic. Notably, time-use data isn't available for 2020, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics ran into issues running its survey during COVID's early spread.

Of course, not every boomer and older American is optimistic or avoiding loneliness. Older Americans who rely almost entirely on Social Security, for instance, have told BI that they feel isolated and can't afford social activities that might otherwise help keep loneliness at bay.

Another factor contributing to Gen Z's loneliness could be chalked up to larger societal and demographic trends. Eight percent of married Americans said that they felt lonely or isolated all of the time, compared to 24% of those who are unpartnered.

With 86% of 18- to 24-year-olds unpartnered as of 2023, Gen Z's relationship status might also be weighing on them, especially as dating becomes more costly and Americans get married increasingly later in life.

"We always see that married adults are happier than unpartnered adults are. It doesn't bode well for a population that's increasingly likely to not be married about how they might feel about optimism, about their life, and what we'd be looking at in the future in terms of a trend," Parker said. "But we won't know until we get there."

Are you dealing with loneliness, or found a solution? Contact this reporter at [email protected].