Polls: Sports

I honestly believe Brock Lesnar’s retirement feels incredibly rushed. Looking at his physique, it really feels like he still had 3 to 4 good years of wrestling left in him, with plenty of major blockbuster matches left in the tank.

At the end of the day, if this retirement is what HE wanted, then it's the best thing for him. We all know Brock has never been a "company guy"—he actually does whatever he wants. What he did out there at WrestleMania was completely unscripted and not planned at all, but he went ahead and did it anyway! After that, he was essentially contractually obliged to perform at SummerSlam in Minnesota.

But looking closely at those last few performances, while he might still be physically capable, mentally he looks completely done. His matches became highly predictable with the exact same repetitive moves, and he wasn't really trying anything new, which usually means he is just no longer interested in the business.

I know some people have pushed back on this take, saying: "Just because he's in great shape doesn't mean he can wrestle for 3–4 more years. He can't go for longer than 10 minutes anymore. Accept that he's done and move on."

Where do y'all stand on this? Do you think Brock actually cut his career short while he still had a few good years left in him, or do you agree that he was mentally and physically checked out and it was the perfect time to walk away?

During his prime in the 1980s and 1990s, Mike Tyson possessed an unmatched level of intimidation and devastating knockout power. Beyond his dominance inside the sport of boxing, his unpredictable temper outside the ring created an aura where people genuinely believed that if anyone said the wrong thing to him, he might instantly flash out.

Looking back at that era, did he truly hold the crown as the most feared person alive globally, both in the sports world and in everyday public life? Or has his out of ring mystique been amplified by pop culture over time?

There's no question that it's between these two men only. My vote is for Moss.

Now that millions of people have seen the FIFA Men's World Cup 2026, there is a lot of discussion of who is the greatest soccer player of all time.

Who do you think is the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time)?

Please vote in the poll, and explain your choice if you want.

Note: The players in this question are considered great, but there are thousands who have played the game at a high level. These players are shown with the country they play for internationally, though they may also play, or have played, with professional teams in other countries. For example, among others, Pele played for New York Cosmos in the United States, Messi played for Barcelona in Spain and Miami in the United States, and Ronaldo and Mbappe each played for Real Madrid in Spain.

The 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup was an overwhelming success, with more fans in attendance than the previous two World Cups combined, and billions of dollars earned by FIFA, more than any other World Cup in history. And 2026 brought billions of dollars to the three host countries: Canada, Mexico, United States (CANMEXUS)

The FIFA World Cup is held every 4 years, and moves from place to place, as cities make bids to hold it.

With 2026 being so successful, hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States (CANMEXUS), should FIFA consider changing its rules and pick a permanent site for the World Cup? CANMEXUS would probably like that.

What do you think?

Please vote in the poll.

The World Super Bowl Trophy for football is not a Bowl, and the soccer World Cup is not a Cup, have the competitions organisers gone mad.

What is your opinion?

Me and my mom thought it was stupid, all over the place and the choice of artists was poor, except Shakira. And I don't know what was up with the kids and the brass band. The idea was good, but the execution was poor. We didn't even recognize Madonna. They didn't even perform THEIR songs but World Cup themed songs. If they were gonna do that, they should've just gotten Shakira by herself. Or my dad said a country singer would've been better. But at the same time, it felt weird. This isn't the Super Bowl and it added an additional 10 minutes to the halftime. I don't think they should do it again.

The next World Cup the opening matches will be played in Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay. Messi will be 43. I don't expect to start and play full time, but I think they should at least put him on for a few minutes in Argentina's opening match, so he can be the first player to play in 7 world cups

I'm watching now and i'm cheering for Argentina (Messi) ⚽️ 😁 🏆

We don't want political scenes like this in the World Cup, with the Argentinan players also causing clashes with the supporters not only in the ground, but also everywhere the match was shown on public screens.

A similar occurrence happened this year in the African Cup of Nations, with the players walking off the pitch because they disagreed with the referees decision.

The right decision was finally made with the African Cup Final, and the same decision should be made before Argentina play in this final.

What is your opinion?