The United States is making plans to bid for the hosting rights to the 2027 Women's World Cup, U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro indicated on Monday.

Cordeiro was speaking on a conference call with reporters in which he announced that Kate Markgraf has been named GM of the U.S. women's national team while Earnie Stewart had been promoted from his GM position with the U.S. men to be the USSF sporting director, overseeing all of the technical aspects of the federation.

In outlining Markgraf's responsibilities, Cordeiro said that she will take charge of what he is calling "Vision 2027."

"Not surprisingly, that is linked to us bidding to host the 2027 Women's World Cup," Cordeiro said.

This is not the first time that Cordeiro has hinted that the U.S. will bid for the tournament's hosting rights. During his speech at the USSF's Annual General Meeting in Scottsdale, Ariz. last February, Cordeiro said, "We need to ensure excellence across all our women's teams. So when we look ahead to 2027 we can imagine -- dare I say, dream -- of once again hosting the Women's World Cup right here in the United States, including a win on home soil."

There are some practical considerations that need to be addressed before the USSF can submit a bid. FIFA has yet to name a host for the 2023 Women's World Cup. Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand and South Africa have all submitted registrations to host the tournament. A joint bid from North and South Korea has also been submitted.

FIFA is expected to name a host in March of 2020. Once that takes place, focus can shift to find a host for the 2027 edition of the tournament.

The decision to bid on the hosting rights must also be approved by the USSF Board of Directors, but one federation source said that it was "very likely" that the USSF would submit a bid.

The U.S. has previously hosted two Women's World Cups. The first was in 1999 when the U.S. prevailed in a penalty shootout over China at the Rose Bowl.

The U.S. was a last-minute replacement to host the 2003 Women's World Cup after a SARs epidemic in China resulted in FIFA opting to relocate the tournament. That competition was won by Germany.

Gab and Juls discuss Man United's deficiencies despite their impressive win over Chelsea. Plus, do Real Madrid and Barcelona need Neymar, and can they strike a deal with PSG?

Download » Archive » Apple Podcasts »

It's back! After a summer of international soccer, Gab Marcotti returns with his weekly column reflecting on the big talking points. It's the first edition of Monday Musings for the 2019-20 season.

Jump to: Is Neymar really on the move? | Man United vs. Chelsea | Stop complaining about VAR | Juve's squad issues | Are Man City deep enough? | Bayern get their winger

The latest on Neymar's transfer saga

So now it's apparently just a question of making the numbers work. PSG sporting director Leonardo confirmed that the club are in talks to sell Neymar, with Real Madrid and (possibly) Barcelona the likeliest destinations. But when you put a $210 million Euro price tag on a guy, it's far from straightforward. Particularly since whoever signs Neymar will also be on the hook for some $300m-plus in wages over the next five years.

The depressing thing here is that this seems to be driven more by ego than footballing logic on all sides. Sure, Neymar is a hugely talented player and, possibly, still one of the heirs apparent to the Cristiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi duopoly. But Barcelona have just added Antoine Griezmann to a front line that includes Messi and Luis Suarez (not to mention Ousmane Dembele). Real Madrid have just spent $110m on Eden Hazard and have big plans for Vinicius Junior and Rodrygo, plus Marco Asensio won't be injured in perpetuity. (And that's before we get into Gareth Bale and James Rodriguez.)

Where does he fit at either club, except as an ego trip and commercial roll of the dice?

The answer? He doesn't. Signing Neymar would require a dismantling of the team that has been built (and, presumably, planned, though with Real Madrid you're never quite sure how much planning is involved). And is his contribution, especially at that price, big enough to justify tearing up the blueprint?

I'd suggest the answer is a resounding "no," not to mention the numbers. I know some people treat Financial Fair Play as a joke but, hey, it's real and it's still around. Barcelona can't find a few extra million to land Matthijs De Ligt but they can commit half a billion to bring back Neymar, the guy who left so he could write his own story away from Messi's shadow? Really?

Real Madrid, already stuck with two guys (Bale and James) whom they're struggling to sell because of the absurdly onerous contracts they gave them, happily go and lavish another mega-deal on a guy who started less than half of his league games at PSG in the past two years? You sure?

It's a sign of the modern game, and the way big clubs are straitjacketed by massive contracts, that if this deal happens, it won't be a cash deal. The only way it works is by throwing in makeweights, which is why you're likely to hear plenty of talk of Philippe Coutinho or Nelson Semedo, or James or Isco going the other way. Sticking a player in as part exchange not only saves you cash, but it allows for some neat accounting sleight of hand because you can put almost whatever valuation you like on him and then let the magic of amortization do the rest.

Stay tuned.

There's also the distinct possibility that he doesn't move at all, which would mean that sanity prevailed. Thomas Tuchel hinted at it after Sunday's Ligue 1 opener for PSG. Of course, if he stays it will be curious to see what the reaction of Les Parisiens fans will be. On Sunday night, during PSG's 3-0 win over Nimes (Neymar was nowhere to be seen), he was invited -- via banners and chanting -- to get the hell out of the club.

Will it be the sort of thing that gets forgotten after a few good performances and some winning runs? You hope not, but you fear yes, just as you hope that if Florentino Perez or Josep Bartomeu break the bank one more time for this guy, they will be held to account.

There's nothing wrong with spending big if you think you have the right guy: Kylian Mbappe is Exhibit A, B and C here. But to do it out of ego, in the waning weeks of the transfer window, while ripping up the script, smacks of irresponsibility. This is a good time to remind Florentino and Bartomeu that they don't own their clubs. They are presidents with a responsibility for stewardship.

Breaking down Man United vs. Chelsea

Frank Lampard is playing with house money this season. As one of the more analytical and reflective football men out there, you could picture him in the summer playing the scenario game.

Best (realistic) case?

The combination of youngsters, loan diaspora and holdovers coalesce around his brand of football (which, lest we forget, is far closer to his predecessor's than any Chelsea manager since Andre Villas Boas), Chelsea break into the top three, go deep in the Champions League and he gets a big, fat transfer budget next summer.

- Ogden: Pulisic must hit ground running at Chelsea
- Gab and Juls podcast: Man United papering the cracks?

Worst (realistic) case? The kids' inexperience costs Chelsea dear, the likes of Mason Mount, Reece James and Tammy Abraham offer further evidence of the gulf between the Premier League and the Football League, there's a massive Hazard-shaped hole that Christian Pulisic can't come close to filling and they slip down the table, missing out on the Europa League.

But guess what? Between the transfer ban, the Hazard departure and the fact that he finally tapped into Chelsea's vaunted Academy, there are enough mitigating circumstances there that he gets a pass. And he has another go in 2020-21, except with a full year of Premier League experience under his belt and a chance to actually acquire players next summer.

It's worth bearing all of this in mind when evaluating Chelsea this season, in particular the opening 4-0 smackdown at Old Trafford. Despite leaving N'Golo Kante (who was unfit) on the bench and being without Antonio Rudiger, not to mention the long-term injuries to Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Callum Hudson-Odoi, they hit the woodwork twice and looked bright and sharp on the ball for most of the first half. But Kurt Zouma's sloppy tackle gave United a penalty, which Marcus Rashford converted, and as the saying goes, goals change games.

United were able to play on the counter and they did it very well, though again the second and third goals were the result of individual errors by Cesar Azpilicueta (not something you can chalk up to youthful inexperience) and the fourth was a deflected effort to crown a fast break that began with Zouma on his back and Luke Shaw and Harry Maguire asking the referee to stop the game for what they thought was a head injury.

In other words, a healthy dose of misfortune, individual errors and happenstance, though that doesn't gloss over the fact that there is plenty of work for Lampard and Chelsea to do. The individual blunders loomed large but there was also a serious lack of balance in the side, which isn't surprising when it's the first game of the season and more than half your starting XI were either elsewhere or on the bench last season.

As for United, Aaron Wan-Bissaka and Maguire hit the ground running and gave Ole Gunnar Solskjaer the perfect platform upon which to counter-attack. For all the venom he gets from some quarters, Paul Pogba popped up with two assists (one of them as delightful as you're likely to see this weekend). And yes: When it comes to flat-out pace, United have plenty.

The test, of course, will come later, as Jose Mourinho (not that he has an axe to grind or anything) pointed out on TV: What happens when they face teams who park the bus? Speedy strikers are great if they have space in which to run but when the opposition sit deep, you need either creativity (that's on you, Paul) or the physicality to punch it in (and both big Belgians are gone).

That's where Solskjaer will earn his bacon, and in that sense he faces a far more daunting task -- at least as far as 2019-20 is concerned -- than Lampard.

Enough complaining about VAR already!

There were no VAR screw-ups in its first weekend of Premier League life. Of course, this doesn't mean there was no controversy, mainly because -- despite the fact that it has been around for nearly three seasons and fans, players and media would have seen it in the World Cup, Champions League knockouts and FA Cup -- some observers seemed to act as if they were seeing it for the first time (witness the Raheem Sterling offside) and others seemed unaware of the changes to the Laws of the Game that came into effect on June 1 (Leander Dendoncker's disallowed goal in Wolves' win over Leicester).

- VAR in the Premier League: Big decisions explained

My colleague Dale Johnson has written about this at length if you want to go granular, but put in its simplest form: offside is offside and it doesn't matter how close it is. It's frustrating to have to repeat this. And while, I'll grant you, offside VAR is more of a by-product of why video replay was brought in to begin with (which was to correct major, aka clear and obvious, errors), the fact that we have the technology to apply it to offside calls more accurately than human assistants means there's no reason not to use it.

Whatever you think of the margin of error that exists at the junction of frame velocity, human velocity and the brains of VAR operators, it surely is more accurate than a sprinting linesman asked to look in two directions at once while determining the exact moment boot strikes ball.

I've heard some suggestions that it would be better to only use VAR on blatant offside errors. OK, fine. So how do you judge what is blatant? And, while we're at it, when it's that close, even the very best human assistant referees are left to guess. With no VAR, Sterling might have been flagged offside or he might not. It would have been a coin flip.

Does that really sound more reasonable?

The Wolves incident actually has nothing to do with VAR but simply with a rule change that came into effect on June 1. If you handle the ball, even accidentally, and then gain an advantage from it that allows you to score a goal, that goal gets disallowed. Why? Because IFAB figured it's against the spirit of the game to score with the help of an arm or hand and they want to standardize officiating, with more consistency. Making refs decide on the spot what is accidental and what is not when a goal is scored is, according to them, unnecessary. Which sounds reasonable enough, though it was somewhat jarring for Wolves fans on Sunday.

In the Dendoncker goal, the Belgian midfielder struck a ball that hit his teammate, Willy Boly, on the arm. It was clearly accidental and had it just rolled away, everything would have been fine. But the ball sat up for Dendoncker to hit cleanly into the back of the net, and that's why it was disallowed.

Would the goal have stood if there had been no VAR? Not unless the referee didn't see the ball hit Boly's arm. In which case, it's a good thing there is VAR.

There will undoubtedly be mistakes and blunders, either with the VAR protocol or technology or implementation this season. But Week 1 went smoothly and whatever "controversy" arose feels mostly down to folks needing something to talk about.

Once the VAR novelty wears off, hopefully by the start of September, we can all move on.

Can Juve resolve squad issues before it's too late?

It's rare that you get a manager speaking with the sort of honesty we heard from Maurizio Sarri over the weekend, when he admitted Juventus need to shift six players between now and the end of the transfer window or risk having to cut them from their Champions League squad. A lot of the focus has been driven by the transfer window, with speculation about the likes of Paulo Dybala, Gonzalo Higuain and/or Mario Mandzukic moving or, in midfield, Sami Khedira or Blaise Matuidi. But there ought to be a bigger concern: How did we get here?

Juventus can count and they knew that because they have just one homegrown player in the squad, perpetual third keeper Carlo Pinsoglio, they can only register 22 players. So what kind of planning is it to find yourself in mid-August being forced to give guys away?

This situation is aggravated by the fact that most of the players they want to shift are older and with hefty contracts. What's more, with the Premier League window closed, there are only so many potential destinations and there won't be any late-August panic buys from mid-table English sides.

It's pretty basic stuff. You hope that sporting director Fabio Paratici has some sort of plan up his sleeve, one that won't cost the club too much money. Otherwise, for all his success in landing the likes of De Ligt, Adrien Rabiot and Aaron Ramsey, he will have dropped the ball big time.

Is Man City's squad deep enough?

Manchester City raced out to a resounding 5-0 victory at West Ham in Week 1 of the Premier League season and most have them as favourites to three-peat as champions. Rightly so, perhaps, but you wonder if they aren't a little bit thinner than you'd like them to be in central defence.

At centre-back, Vincent Kompany is gone and, effectively, City's fourth central defender is Eliaquim Mangala, who hasn't actually played at all in 18 months (and was nothing to write home about before that) and won't be stopped from leaving should the right offer appear. Nicolas Otamendi is a year older and coming off a Copa America. John Stones had a poor season last year. He may bounce back, he may not.

The next option, presumably, is dropping Fernandinho into defense, but he's 34 and has had injuries. Plus, if he's at the back, he's not in defensive midfield, which leaves only Rodri and Ilkay Gundogan (whose injury record isn't great) in the middle of the park.

You can only assume Guardiola has a ton of faith in some of the teenagers populating the development squad, like Eric Garcia and Joel Latibeaudiere. Otherwise, a rough patch of injuries and suspensions could cost them dear.

Bayern get their man (and it's not Sane)

Having missed out on Leroy Sane, Bayern seem set for a Band-Aid solution to the wing by bringing in Ivan Perisic from Inter on loan. If the reported numbers are correct -- $5m loan fee, plus a $25m option to buy -- it's a cheap-and-cheerful way of adding some experience and quality in a guy who already knows the Bundesliga well.

It may be one of those rare moves that helps all those concerned.

Perisic wasn't part of Antonio Conte's plans at Inter, and from their perspective, getting his wages off the bill and a little bit of money back makes sense. He's been frighteningly inconsistent but has his moments and perhaps Bayern, a far more stable club than Inter, can ensure he gets some continuity to his performances. He ought to seize this opportunity with both hands, because this is what you call landing on your feet after falling off a skyscraper.

As for Bayern, if he performs the way he did most of last season, no biggie: They can just send him back in the summer.

One minute, the stadium was abuzz with chatter. West Indies were very much in the game - their death bowling had limited India to under 300 and with Nicholas Pooran and Roston Chase in the middle, they looked like they had it under control.

Then wickets fell like a pack of cards. Pooran. Chase. Carlos Brathwaite. Kemar Roach.

The crowd started to clear. It was an all too familiar feeling. It was an all too familiar sight. West Indies are almost always close, but somehow, almost always short.

"They say in the islands that the West Indies know how to lose," Gerald Ramkissoon, former chief curator and current maintenance head at Queen's Park Oval said. "Same old, same old West Indies," was the take of Ian Ramsey, part of the pitch staff at Queens Park Oval.

The team has been struggling for a while - they last won a bilateral ODI series in 2014, against Bangladesh. But experts and fans had renewed hope before the World Cup, particularly given a drawn series against England leading up to the event. The general perception was that the squad had the tools - with their deep and exciting batting line-up and the in-form pace attack - needed to succeed. Now, it was all about execution.

That's exactly where they failed, close to winning several matches but not going over the line. They were 15 runs short in their run chase against Australia, a heart-breaking five against New Zealand, and 23 against Sri Lanka. Those three results going their way could have meant a semi-final spot for the team.

"Again, we were in front today and then we found a way to give away our wickets, so it's just a matter of us now learning from our mistakes and trying to dig deeper," West Indies coach Floyd Reifer said after the defeat to India in the second ODI, which put them 1-0 behind in the three-match series with one game to go.

Captain Jason Holder has been saying that their main batting focus is taking time with the new ball, understanding the conditions, and then scoring runs at a steady pace. But that approach runs contrary to how many West Indies batsmen usually play - the slam-bang T20 style. And that's the style that has resulted in the batsmen, particularly the middle order, making careless shot choices.

Ramkissoon reminisced about the time when West Indies had someone like Shivnarine Chanderpaul, whom bowlers would spend hours trying to dislodge.

"T20, especially CPL, Big Bash and IPL changed everything," Ramkissoon said. "Don't get me wrong, the current team, Pooran, (Evin) Lewis and (Shimron) Hetmyer, they have the ability and the game to take West Indies far, but it's about how you approach cricket, how you play the game."

Both Ramkissoon and Ramsey feel that the relative lack of experience in the line-up is crucial. "(Kieron) Pollard should have been in this series. He played in the IPL, he knows how most of the Indian players work, he was in good form - he would have helped players on the field, bowled and batted, we call him the triple threat in Trinidad," Ramkissoon said.

With Gayle's looming retirement, there is also the gaping hole that is West Indies' opening spot. Evin Lewis seems more or less set at the top, but without a solid partner, West Indies will struggle to build the foundation that Holder is keen on.

These are just some among a number of issues West Indies need to address sooner rather than later. After all, among the fans, the cricket public, and even the local press, there is continuing hope for the glory days of the 1970s and 1980s to return one day. If it is within reach, as some feel, the players need to do what they can to grab it.

A wider pool of contracted players, extending to the domestic level for the first time, and a significant pay hike for centrally contracted New Zealand women players are among the key features of the new Women's Master Agreement. When finalised, the agreement will replace the previous Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which was signed in 2016, and expired on July 31 this year.

Under the new agreement, reached in principle between New Zealand Cricket and the New Zealand Cricket Players Association, the number of contracted players will be 79 across three levels, up from 15 under the previous MoU, while the total player payment pool will comprise $4.136 million over three years, an annual payment of $1.38 million. The player payment pool in the previous MoU was $1.575 million for three years.

The number of centrally contracted players increases to 17, from 15 over the last three years, with pay ranging from $64,000 to $40,000 annually (inclusive of a retainer payment, retirement fund contribution and promotional payment). Players can also each earn up to $16,000 in match fees. Thus, a centrally contracted player could earn up to $80,000 annually (up from a maximum of $48,000 in the last MoU). In addition, centrally contracted players can participate in overseas T20 leagues in Australia, England and India, when not committed to international or Super Smash fixtures.

Under the new agreement, eight centrally contracted Development Players will earn a minimum of $7,500 for participating in NZC High Performance Programmes and two domestic competitions.

In the first-ever domestic contracts structure, 54 players (nine for each of the six major associations) will be on domestic competition agreements worth $3,250. The agreements will compensate players for their availability for the Super Smash and Hallyburton Johnstone competitions. Non-contracted players selected to play in a domestic competition will be paid an assembly fee.

According to a statement from the NZC, the model of the Women's Master Agreement sought to provide a starting point for the eventual semi-professionalisation of the domestic game. The aim was also to help reduce the financial barriers for the players' continued involvement in the women's game, while retaining their ability to maintain their involvement in other vocations - an issue that emerged as a priority following discussions between the players and the NZCPA.

The new agreement was welcomed by the players. Amy Satterthwaite, the senior women's captain, said the investment in domestic and developing players was an important step forward for the game in the country.

"I know people tend to focus on the White Ferns' contracts but the investment in domestic and developing players is an important step forward for women's cricket in New Zealand," she said. "This is an agreement that recognises the need to grow the game at grassroots and domestic level in order to produce White Ferns who excel on the world stage.

"This means all White Ferns can now ply their trade as full-time professional cricketers as well as having the flexibility to participate in overseas leagues - which is a huge leap forward for all involved. With the ICC Women's World Cup 2021 on the horizon, this will mean a great deal in terms of upskilling and training, and providing the best possible environment for preparing ourselves and the team."

Batsman Suzie Bates hoped the new agreement would make the game more attractive for aspiring players. "From what I can see, it provides a great framework and starting point for the eventual semi-professionalisation of the women's domestic game in New Zealand - and that's probably the most important point in the entire agreement," Bates said.

The next head coach of the senior India men's team is expected to be chosen on Friday from a shortlist of six: the incumbent, Ravi Shastri, as well as Tom Moody, Mike Hesson, Phil Simmons, Lalchand Rajput and Robin Singh. The BCCI's Cricket Advisory Committee, headed by Kapil Dev, will convene in Mumbai to conduct the interviews before making their decision.

The three overseas coaches are likely to join the committee members over video conference, while Rajput and Robin, team manager and fielding coach during India's 2007 World T20 win, are likely to be present in Mumbai for the interviews. Besides Kapil, the CAC comprises Anshuman Gaekwad, the former India opener and coach, and Shantha Rangaswamy, the former India women's team captain.

Confirming the updates, a senior BCCI official was quoted as saying by Press Trust of India, "These six will give presentation for head coach before CAC. It has been learnt that these six have been short-listed for interview with the CAC."

While the names of Moody, who has rich coaching pedigree in international cricket [Sri Lanka] as well as in the franchise circuit [Kings XI Punjab and Sunrisers Hyderabad in the IPL, for example], and Hesson, formerly head coach with New Zealand and Kings XI, have been doing the rounds, Simmons is seen as a late entrant.

The former West Indies opener was until June the head coach of Afghanistan. In the past, he has also had stints with West Indies, with whom he won the World T20 title in 2016, and, most notably, Ireland. Hesson, meanwhile, served as head coach of New Zealand for six years, the highlights being their memorable run to the 2015 World Cup final and a home Test series win over England in 2018. He has also been linked with the Bangladesh men's team, who are without a coach since letting go of Steve Rhodes after the World Cup.

There have been suggestions from the BCCI that Shastri is most likely to continue, something that has the backing of India captain Virat Kohli, who publicly expressed his support for Shastri at a press conference before flying out for the tour of the USA and the Caribbean late last month.

"With Ravi bhai, all of us have a great camaraderie, everyone in the team shares mutual respect [with him]. And we have done really well together as a group," Kohli had said at the time. "Yeah, we will definitely be very happy if he is continuing as a coach, but as I said it is upon the CAC to seek my advice or opinion if they want. Right now, I haven't been contacted at all. And I don't know what is going to happen with the process."

Shastri and the rest of his support staff - Sanjay Bangar (batting coach), B Arun (bowling coach) and R Sridhar (fielding coach) - are automatic entrants into the process. All of them are on an extended 45-day contract that will come to an end following the two-Test series in the Caribbean.

While Arun has been favoured, like Shastri, to retain his job, Sridhar could be up against Jonty Rhodes for the fielding coach's position. Meanwhile, Bangar's position as batting coach will be challenged by the candidatures of Pravin Amre, Vikram Rathour and J Arun Kumar.All three have been associated with coaching at the domestic and IPL level.

Amre is presently batting coach of Delhi Capitals, while Rathour, who served as member of the selection committee until 2016, and Arun are with Himachal Pradesh and Puducherry respectively.The support staff is likely to be picked by MSK Prasad, the men's selection committee chairman.

GLENDALE, Ariz. -- It doesn't matter to Arizona Cardinals rookie quarterback Kyler Murray that he won't run his offensive scheme in its entirety during the preseason.

He believes the Cardinals will still be ready Week 1 against the Detroit Lions because of how well he knows the system because he's been running a version of it every season since eighth grade.

"I know it'll work against teams," Murray said. "It's hard to prepare for what we will do when the season comes."

Murray implied that the Cardinals ran parts of their offense in their first preseason game against the Los Angeles Chargers. But, he emphasized, the Cardinals did not create a game plan last week. That'll change a bit this week, coach Kliff Kingsbury said. Arizona will plan a bit for what the Oakland Raiders, whom the Cardinals host Thursday night, will do, Kingsbury said Monday.

"Not a ton but enough to go out there and be able to execute at a high level," Kingsbury said.

Murray, who'll play more than one series against Oakland, expressed his "confidence" in the offense, especially when it's being run full bore.

"I think when we get out there full speed moving around, it'll be good," Murray said.

How does he know?

"Just because I've been in it for so long," he said. "I know what it looks like. I know how it works. It's tough to stop. At any level I think it'd be tough to stop."

NAPA, Calif. -- After Antonio Brown lost his grievance against the NFL over wearing his old helmet, the Oakland Raiders receiver should return to the team's training camp soon. Brown has also been dealing with frostbitten feet suffered in a cryotherapy mishap in France last month. He has not been with the Raiders since being limited in a practice and leaving early on July 30.

Brown took to social media on Monday to address the decision.

View this post on Instagram

"While I disagree with the arbitrator's decision, I'm working on getting back to full health and looking forward to rejoining my teammates on the field. I'm excited about this season appreciate all the concerns about my feet ?!" #AlwaysAFight #Represent #itsbiggerthanme

A post shared by Boomin (@ab) on Aug 12, 2019 at 1:45pm PDT

It is considered "very unlikely" that Brown will appeal the decision, a source told ESPN's Adam Schefter.

Brown prefers to wear his older helmet, believed to be a 10-year-old Schutt Air Advantage model, which is no longer made by the company and, thus, no longer certified by the National Operating Committee for Standards and Athletic Equipment. He has tried the new certified helmet out and believes it protrudes out and interferes with his vision as he tries to catch the football.

On Friday, Brown had a two-hour conference call with an independent arbitrator to argue why he should be allowed to wear his older helmet, which he is thought to have been using his entire career. The arbitrator for the grievance call was joined by league officials, player representatives and NFLPA representatives in Philadelphia, a source told ESPN.

Brown argued that his helmet made him feel safe and, save for an illegal hit from Vontaze Burfict in the 2016 playoffs, kept him healthy, a source told ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. The arbitrator was sympathetic but issued what was described by a source as a "very kind denial."

Brown is looking into whether he could find a version of his preferred-style helmet that is less than 10 years old to see if that would be acceptable, a source told Fowler. But it is not clear that even if he could find one and get it certified by NOCSAE, that the NFL would sign off on it because the technology is outdated.

Raiders coach Jon Gruden said he supports the player, who opened camp on the non-football injury list and has participated in one pre-practice walkthrough, on July 28, before being limited on July 30. The Raiders have held 11 practices and one exhibition game.

Brown was a mainstay during the Raiders' offseason program.

"He has a strong feeling about what he's worn on his head, and we're supporting him," Gruden said after Saturday's exhibition against the Los Angeles Rams. "We understand the league's position as well, so we're in a tough spot, and we hope Antonio is here soon because he's exciting to be around. I'm excited. I've got some plays for him. I hope we can start calling them."

Brown, acquired by Oakland in a trade for a third- and a fifth-round pick in March from the Pittsburgh Steelers and promptly given a three-year, $50.125 million contract, has reportedly threatened to retire if not allowed to wear his helmet.

"I have a lot of confidence that he's one of the premier competitors that I've ever been around," Gruden said. "And I've got a feeling he would play with no helmet -- that's how much he loves to play. But I'm not going to put words in anybody's mouth. We're going to support him, and whatever his decision is, we'll stand by it. But we're confident that he's going to be a huge factor for the Raiders for years to come."

Other NFL players not happy to change helmets include Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers, as well as a "handful" of Raiders players, per a league source, although none had threatened to retire like Brown.

Former NBA player Sebastian Telfair has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for illegal gun possession, Brooklyn's district attorney announced Monday.

Telfair, 34, was convicted in April of one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, which stemmed from an arrest in January 2017. Police found firearms including a semi-automatic rifle, ammunition, a ballistic vest and marijuana inside a vehicle Telfair was driving during a traffic stop in Brooklyn.

"This defendant exercised his right to a jury trial and was found guilty of possessing an illegal firearm," district attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement. "The mandatory prison sentence he received today is required by law and he has now been held accountable for the unlawful conduct."

Telfair was a first-round draft pick in 2004. He started with the Portland Trail Blazers and spent time with the Boston Celtics, Minnesota Timberwolves and other teams before ending his career in China in 2014.

Telfair was also arrested in 2007 after a traffic stop when police found a loaded handgun in the vehicle. He pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced to three years of probation in that case.