Tom Brady and Logan Paul reignited their simmering rivalry with an explosive encounter at Fanatics Fest on Friday night, a spectacle that follows months of speculation about a potential WWE showdown between the two.

Captured on video by the Daily Mail, the confrontation began with Brady and Paul exchanging fiery words at the glamorous New York City gathering, culminating in the NFL icon losing his composure.

In a dramatic turn, Brady smacked Paul on the head, prompting NBA star Karl-Anthony Towns and a vigilant security guard to swiftly step in and separate the two.

Even after the physical altercation, Paul, a prominent WWE figure, was visibly agitated, emphatically gesturing toward Brady as Towns attempted to defuse the tension.

Prior to this fiery face-off, Brady and Paul had already clashed verbally, revisiting contentious issues from their previous encounter at the Fanatics Flag Football Classic event held earlier in the year.

They had a couple of run-ins on the field that day, but it was the online personality who had the last laugh after his Wildcats FFC team defeated Brady’s Founders FFC.

‘It’s just nuts to me how Tom Brady couldn’t come back from us winning the flag football game that he said he was going to beat me,’ Paul said while sitting on the same panel as the seven-time Super Bowl winner at Fanatics Fest.

‘I just want to say it… never forget. Never forget the YouTuber beat the football player.’

‘There were a lot of cheap shots in that game too,’ Brady responded.

After the viral slap, Paul posted on X: ‘This happened bc I was roasting Tom for beating him in flag football. And he tries to smack me ?? Horrible example for the kids Aura -100 + Blocked. With a torn tricep’.

Brady quoted his post and wrote: ‘I tried America… will try again next time I see this nerd.’

Brady became embroiled in a shocking beef with Paul after he mocked the wrestler’s athletic ability during a guest appearance on his ‘Impaulsive’ podcast in February. He dismissed Paul’s athlete chops as ‘cute’ while claiming he lacks the toughness of football players.

In response, Paul argued that he could beat the majority of NFL athletes in a fight – a statement which sparked fierce debate – before they ramped up their rivalry at the flag football event.

Many have questioned how real Paul and Brady’s apparent disdain for one another is, instead rubbishing it as an attempt to generate attention.

The Daily Mail revealed back in March that, according to an insider, Paul and Brady are only playing on the feud to promote a potential WWE storyline.

The former New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback was expected to appear at WrestleMania earlier this year, only to not show up at the wrestling company’s showpiece event.

Yet on Thursday, Brady revealed he is waiting for WWE president Nick Khan to give him a call about making an appearance.

He said at Fanatics Fest: ‘I feel like, I’m retired from football, have the opportunity to go out there and showcase that I’m still a little bit of an athlete. My boy Gronk’s done it, I’ve seen Logan Paul do it. I think I could get in there for at least one match, right?’

Brady has been keeping himself busy since retiring from the NFL in 2023. He is preparing to enter the third year of his decade-long, $375million contract with Fox after venturing into broadcasting for the league.

Shortly after joining Fox, he also became an NFL owner in highly controversial fashion. His deal to acquire a minority stake in the Las Vegas Raiders sparked uproar in 2024 over what many argued was a conflict of interest amid his commentary role.

When asked if he’d want to be a good guy or a ‘heel’ in the wrestling world, Brady insisted: ‘It’s such an easy choice. I’m a bad guy. I’ve always been a bad guy.

‘I mean, I feel like when our teams did really well, I would always go into these stadiums and I would feel that… When you go on the road and you’ve had some success in the NFL, they don’t like you. It’s an incredible feeling when you work that entire day to basically try to send the crowd home early.’

California’s lenient approach to crime continues to spark controversy, but a newly filed lawsuit by a victims’ rights organization is aiming to halt these reforms.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has initiated legal action against the California Board of Parole Hearings. The lawsuit challenges regulations that could potentially ease the path to early release for some of the state’s most notorious criminals.

This pushback is warranted. Proposed changes by the parole board could see some of California’s most violent offenders, who are serving life sentences, gain their freedom sooner than expected.

According to the foundation and its supporters within law enforcement, the revised rules could allow thousands of inmates—convicted of crimes like murder, torture, and offenses against children—to become eligible for early parole.

Is there truly any rational, law-abiding Californian who desires such an outcome?

How many more victims would fall prey to these thousands of felons, should some be released? 

Among the convicts potentially eligible to walk are some serving “life without the possibility of parole,” the foundation says.

So the crimes were so egregious that a court determined the offenders should be confined for life, and the state parole board might say, in effect, “never mind, we know better than the judge and jury”?

That’s galling.

It would also be a gut punch to victims, and a broken promise to society, to free heinous criminals who –– we all were promised –– would be safely locked away for life.

The legal foundation says the parole board exceeded its authority by making such a sweeping change to the state’s legal system without either legislative or voter assent.

Good point.

State officials wouldn’t dare put this scheme before voters, and even soft-on-crime legislators might not go this far.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

So an unelected board issues regulations while the left moans about prison crowding.

But if prisons are packed to bursting, that argues for more prison space –– not the wanton release of felons who probably, based on recidivism rates, will go find new victims.

This move at its core is not about prison crowding, or the pursuit of justice, or “evidence-based policies,” as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it. 

And it’s certainly not about public safety.

The culprit, as ever, is probably ideology.

These days, it’s en vogue on the far left to treat criminals as victims. The idea: Those who harm others are somehow deserving of compassion, leniency and, for those with long rap sheets, 57th (or so) chances. 

Also: The entire 21-member parole board is composed of appointees of Democrat Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.

There was a time when public safety transcended party and ideology, when both parties saw the sense in locking up the worst offenders and keeping them caged where they can’t hurt innocents.

No longer. From defund the police to no jail for thieves to early prison releases for felons, many on the left are now, for all intents and purposes, pro-criminal.

So good for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

Someone needs to stand up for victims and innocents while the parole board and governor ease up on the perps.

True public safety comes from law and order. Not from leniency, misplaced compassion and far-left wishful thinking.

Earlier this year in March, Netflix made waves by purchasing Ben Affleck’s artificial intelligence start-up, InterPositive. The astonishing figure of this transaction has now come to light.

In a recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure, Netflix revealed that it shelled out $587 million in cash for the acquisition, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.

The details emerged from the company’s 10-Q filing, indicating that ‘in March 2026, the Company finalized an acquisition, recognized as a business combination with a total purchase price just shy of $587 million, fully paid in cash.’

While the filing stops short of directly naming InterPositive, the acquisition by Netflix was announced on March 5.

The significant expenditure was also documented in the company’s first-quarter 10-Q, completed in May.

In a statement earlier this year, Affleck said he ‘couldn’t be happier’ with the deal after quietly founding the LA-based company in 2022 with a 16-person team of engineers, researchers and creatives.

An insider had previously told Bloomberg in March that the movie star-turned-senior adviser and his investors would earn up to $600 million from the streaming giant as long as it met ‘certain performance targets.’

‘InterPositive is a tool that’s designed to solve the specific problems that I’d encountered as a filmmaker that connect you more to the filmmaking,’ Affleck detailed in a Netflix video this past spring.

‘It’s not about text prompting or generating something from nothing. You’re building a model from your own material. 

‘That’s how this works. You have to create your movie, essentially, first before you can really build your model around your movie using AI.’

He explained he wanted to ‘take out all the logistical, difficult, technical stuff that often gets in the way.’

‘You can use your own model to remove the wires on stunts, reframe a shot, get a shot you missed, shape the lighting, enhance the backgrounds,’ the Oscar-winning star said.

‘If you can take some of those problems out, yes, you can do it more quickly, you can do it more easily, you’re giving more choice, you’re giving more opportunity, you’re getting more episodes of your favorite shows, you’re getting more human work,’ he stated emphatically.

Affleck emphasized that the goal was ‘to preserve what makes storytelling human’ and vowed that he and the streamer would do so, based on their shared ‘values’ and Netflix’s ‘responsibility with applying and scaling technology.’

Earlier this year, Affleck starred in the Netflix crime/thriller The Rip, which he produced and acted in alongside longtime best friend and collaborator Matt Damon.

The Joe Carnahan-directed movie is about Miami cops who seize millions of dollars.

Affleck and Damon first gained notoriety in cinema with their 1997 movie Good Will Hunting, which earned them an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

The father of three, who was previously married to Jennifer Garner and later Jennifer Lopez, also scored a Best Picture Academy Award in 2012 as a producer for Argo.

A secretive report commissioned for the Iranian presidency has sparked significant debate in Washington and among its allies. The core question being pondered: Could the overwhelming dissatisfaction and appetite for systemic change among Iranians imply that the Islamic Republic is more susceptible to regime change than previously estimated?

The clandestine document, bearing the title “What Iran Wants,” reveals striking statistics: a mere 9% of participants wish to maintain the current setup, while 53% advocate for crucial reforms. Moreover, over 19% support a complete transformation of the political landscape.

Collectively, these numbers suggest that nearly 75% of those polled desire either a significant overhaul or a total change of the existing system. This data could reinforce the view that Iran’s political turmoil extends beyond mere discontent with specific leaders or policies.

On July 13, IranWire reported it had acquired this document, which Ali Rabiei—President Masoud Pezeshkian’s social advisor and a previous governmental spokesperson—had composed. The findings were drawn from surveys conducted by the Ara Opinion Research Center in May 2026 and subsequently distributed across the nation’s governing institutions in June, as reported by the outlet.

Miad Maleki, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told News Media that the report should prompt a fresh assessment of the potential for political upheaval inside Iran.

“If anything, this research understates the depth of Iranians’ rage,” Maleki said. “And that is what makes it remarkable: even a survey prepared for the regime’s own president, by its own pollsters, records anger levels above 63%, well beyond the highest rate Gallup has ever recorded anywhere in the world, alongside 81% struggling to put food on the table and a majority expressing hopelessness.”

Maleki cautioned that polling conducted under an authoritarian government cannot be treated as precise because respondents may fear the consequences of expressing opposition.

“In a police state where expressing the wrong opinion can cost you your job, your freedom, or your life, respondents self-censor, which means these findings are best read as a floor, not a ceiling,” he said.

The complete survey methodology was not included in the material obtained by IranWire. The report reportedly did not disclose how respondents were selected, who was questioned or whether the sample reflected Iran’s geographic and demographic makeup.

Its findings therefore cannot be independently verified or treated as definitive measurements of Iranian opinion. The report also cannot establish that dissatisfaction will translate into an organized movement capable of removing the government.

Still, its findings portray multiple pressures converging at once.

Approximately 64% of respondents reported persistent anger, up roughly 12% points from a previous government survey conducted in December 2025. Half reported hopelessness, approximately 48% reported sadness or depression and about 45% reported persistent fear or anxiety, according to IranWire.

Economic distress also appears central to the public anger.

More than 81% experienced severe or partial difficulty obtaining enough food, while 75% struggled to cover medical costs, IranWire reported. Fifty-four percent said their income did not cover current household expenses, and only 8% reported earning enough to save.

Respondents blamed domestic governance more frequently than international pressure. 46.9% cited government inefficiency as the cause of Iran’s economic problems, 26.3% blamed corruption and 20.7% cited foreign sanctions.

That finding could be especially significant to the regime-change debate because it suggests many Iranians do not primarily blame outside powers for their deteriorating living conditions.

The document also points to a crisis of institutional confidence. Roughly 60% reportedly distrusted major government institutions, while 61.2% negatively assessed officials’ ability to solve Iran’s problems. Distrust of the government, parliament, judiciary and state television remained above 50%, IranWire reported.

The report’s recommendations, however, reportedly centered on managing dissatisfaction rather than addressing demands for systemic change.

Rabiei urged state institutions to better explain the impact of sanctions, moderate the rhetoric used by officials and religious platforms, present a more inclusive image through state television and avoid policies that place the government in direct confrontation with society.

IranWire’s follow-up analysis argued that the recommendations treated Iran’s crisis primarily as a communications and public-perception problem. The report offered few concrete proposals involving institutional accountability, political liberalization or fundamental economic reform, according to the outlet.

Maleki said the findings were consistent with the expanding scale of unrest, citing demonstrations that spread from more than 80 cities in 2017 to more than 200 cities across all 31 provinces this year, alongside what he described as a quadrupling of strikes.

“Iranians have moved from being skeptical of what another revolution might bring to concluding there is no alternative to one, because reform has proven impossible,” Maleki said.

Yet the report does not resolve one of the largest obstacles to regime change: The Islamic Republic has spent decades building institutions designed to monitor, deter and violently suppress organized opposition.

“This regime was born of revolution, by revolutionaries,” Maleki said. “Preventing and crushing the next one is the one thing they genuinely know how to do.”

He nevertheless argued that further unrest was inevitable.

“So the discontent will translate into renewed protest,” Maleki said. “The question is not if, but when, and whether anyone is prepared to stand with the Iranian people when it does.”

PHILADELPHIA — As the MLB trade deadline of August 3 fast approaches, whispers abound about the future of many players. While several ball clubs are contemplating retaining their key pieces, the New York Mets seem to be bucking the trend. Despite kicking off the second half of their season with a victory over the Philadelphia Phillies, the Mets are strongly considering selling off some of their assets.

Among the players likely to be affected is Luke Weaver, a significant figure rumored to be on the trading block. Though conscious that his tenure with the Mets may be drawing to a close, Weaver remains hopeful of continuing with the team that brought him on board with a two-year contract during the last offseason.

“I signed up to give my all here for two years,” Weaver shared before Thursday night’s triumph, a game where he surrendered his first earned run since April. His commitment to the Mets remains unwavering, as long as the team shares his vision for the future.

“I aim to contribute to this organization in any way possible,” Weaver continued. “If they find value in me and trust my abilities, that’s incredible. Still, I get how this game plays out. Having been through similar scenarios, I feel mentally ready, based on experience. However, it’s not something dominating my thoughts right now.”