We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST UPDATE | 10 Feb
THE PHILADELPHIA EAGLES ended the Kansas City Chiefs’ bid to win an unprecedented three straight Super Bowls as they ran out 40-22 winners in New Orleans.
The Eagles defence dominated and pressured Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes throughout the evening, sacking him a career-high six times and intercepting him twice.
Opposite number Jalen Hurts was named the most valuable player after he threw for 221 yards and two touchdowns, as well as scoring one himself, as the Eagles avenged their defeat to the Chiefs two years ago.
Eagles running back Saquon Barkley broke the NFL season rushing record, including the post-season, beating the record of the Denver Broncos Terrell Davis.
No team had previously won back-to-back titles and returned to the Super Bowl, but the Chiefs rarely looked like completing the treble and a fourth win in six years.
The Eagles were denied a promising field position on the opening possession when AJ Brown was adjudged to have fouled cornerback Trent McDuffie after catching a 30-yard pass from Hurts on fourth down.
They went close again midway through the first quarter, but having been ruled down a yard short they opened the scoring when Hurts was driven over from close range.
Hurts looked to stretch the advantage early in the second quarter, but his attempted pass was intercepted by Bryan Cook.
The Chiefs, dogged by a couple of early penalties and their traditional slow Super Bowl start, struggled to make inroads and their offence spent little time on the field with their first three drives ending in punts.
The Eagles stretched their advantage midway through the second quarter, Jake Elliott added a 48-yard field goal after being moved back five yards by another penalty.
Mahomes’ difficult evening continued as he was sacked for a second time on the first down after the score.
It got worse on the next play, Cooper DeJean intercepting his pass and returning it 38 yards for a touchdown on his 22nd birthday, Elliott adding the extra point to make it 17-0.
Mahomes was sacked again as the Chiefs again failed to respond and were forced to punt.
Worse was to come for the quarterback, linebacker Zack Baun intercepting him deep in Chiefs territory and the Eagles took full advantage with Hurts finding Brown for another touchdown.
More penalties dogged the Chiefs’ final drive of the half as they reached the break 24-0 down – the second-highest half-time deficit in the Super Bowl – after a mere 23 yards of offence.
The second half started in much the same fashion, the Eagles sacking Mahomes again as the Chiefs were once more forced to punt. The Eagles were stopped near the Chiefs line, but Elliott was able to stretch the gap with a field goal.
That lead grew even further after another stalled Chiefs drive, Hurts finding DeVonta Smith from 46 yards for another touchdown.
The Chiefs finally got on the scoreboard just before the end of the third quarter, Mahomes finding Xavier Worthy to get them into Eagles territory and then connecting with the same player from almost on the sideline. The two-point conversion attempt failed.
Another Elliott field goal stretched the gap to 37-6 and he struck again from 50 yards after the Chiefs defence once more sacked Mahomes and recovered the ball.
A seven-yard touchdown catch by DeAndre Hopkins and a 50-yard effort from Xavier Worthy late on, both with two-point conversions, gave the scoreline a less lopsided appearance.
Off the field, Taylor Swift received a very different reception to last year at the Super Bowl as she watched boyfriend Travis Kelce and the Kansas City Chiefs play the Philadelphia Eagles.
The pop superstar, who was cheered loudly when she showed up at the big game in Las Vegas a year ago, was instead booed by the heavily pro-Eagles crowd when shown on the video boards inside the Superdome during a break in the first quarter.
Taylor Swift confused by the boos ☹️ pic.twitter.com/zzstUEmDfp
— RBT (@SamuelBrownRBT) February 9, 2025
Sitting next to rapper Ice Spice, Swift gave a bit of a side-eye and wrinkled her nose when she realised the booing was directed at her.
US president Donald Trump mocked Swift after the singer was booed during the Kansas City Chiefs defeat to the Philadelphia Eagles.
Trump – who became the first sitting US President to attend the Super Bowl in the showpiece in New Orleans – left the game shortly after half-time.
However, he could not resist posting a social media dig at Swift.
“The only one that had a tougher night than the Kansas City Chiefs was Taylor Swift,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.
“She got BOOED out of the Stadium. MAGA is very unforgiving!”
Trump had earlier shared a post from a different account mocking Swift, which contrasted Trump’s reception by Super Bowl fans with that of the singer.
Trump was given loud roars of applause when he was shown on the giant screen inside the stadium, saluting while singing the US national anthem.
“Trump gets massive cheers at the Super Bowl while Taylor Swift gets booed – the world is healing!” the post read.
Swift was a prominent celebrity backer of Trump’s US presidential election rival Kamala Harris last year.
Her endorsement prompted Trump to post on Truth Social: “I hate Taylor Swift.”
Written by Press Association and originally published on The 42 whose award-winning team produces original content that you won’t find anywhere else: on GAA, League of Ireland, women’s sport and boxing, as well as our game-changing rugby coverage, all with an Irish eye. Subscribe here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Probably cause they havnt a clue on what blasphemy is.
‘I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’
@Robert Murphy: Are there any women here today?
@Robert Murphy: You’re only making it worse for yourself!
@Daniel O’Connor: WORSE!? How could it be another worse?
@Noel Tate: dammit…. how could it be “any” worse.
@Robert Murphy: you could be stabbed?
Where’s the referendum to protect Ireland’s water and its services from privatisation, as promised?
@Clear And Graphic: who promised it? And second, have we not learned by now to keep such trivial things out of the constitution due to the problems they cause down the line?
@Clear And Graphic: That’s because FG/FF have buyers lined up around the corner for IW when the next down turn happens.
@Darren Bates: Yea, stupid me. I forgot that we must previously forget what FF/FG/Lab elected say when it comes to any voting times in particular.
@Darren Bates: Water is not trivial, you absolute clown. It’s probably the single most important thing on the planet
@Joe Phillips: exactly what I thought!
Slightly more accurate headline. Poll shows people likely to vote to remove blasphemy from constitution by 3-1 margin. Sub headline 30% don’t give a monkeys.
@Graham: Laws about promoting religious hatred would be more definitive and are badly needed to stop the sectarian attacks against Catholic community in social media like this one and the Irish Times comments
@Tom Molloy: “Sectarian attacks against Catholics” ? I can see that you might wish to retain the “offence” of blasphemy. I’m more a supporter of free speech. Criticism of the Catholic Church, given its history of authoritarianism, oppression and child abuse is entirely valid. Certainly other institutions and churches are also guilty of such misbehaviour. But the Catholic Church had a unique role to play In the evolution of modern Ireland. You may feel that the scales of criticism are somewhat unbalanced given that the Church has also done good work in many spheres. However, much of the abuse is relatively recent and the scale and nature of it is shocking. You will have to await the judgement of history, some decades down the road, if you want a more balanced picture to emerge.
@Tom Molloy: Awww. Poor persecuted whingey Catholic. Turn the other cheek. It’s in the manual. Look it up.
@John R: Very well said
@John R: Have a look at “recent” weekly media “breaking news” items. Philadelphia numbers were created by adding SEVENTY years of cases to create the sensational 1000 figure without mentioning that the annual number of abuse cases in their population of 3.2 million is 21000 12 of which were clerical abuse. Similar with the latest Chile story which was 150 cases over a period of 58 years in a country where the UN reports that up to half of children’s residents mistreated or abused. Even one child being abused is a tragedy.
@Martin Meyler: I also read the Koran.
@Tom Molloy: If even one child abused is a tragedy then why are you so desperate to minimise the numbers and make sure everyone knows it was ONLY
@ihcalaM: *ONLY 1000 in 70 odd years? As if that’s some sort of low number?
@ihcalaM: No, 1000 tragedies amongst hundreds of thousands of tragedies each one destructive for the individual victim.
@John R: the abuse by the church of minors is not a recent phenomena. There is historical evidence of it going back centuries.
@Graham: thanks be to jasus….
@Tom Molloy: So what? I read fantasy novels like Lord of The Rings. I don’t base my actions or philosophy on them. Because, like your Koran and Gospels, and Vedas and Book of Mormon, they’re FANTASY.
They haven’t been told whether voting to remove it is a sin or not.
The bishop of Elphin needs to pronounce on it.
How much is this referendum costing the taxpayer? Money better spent on health system I’d think.
@mike: 3 million was the figure I heard.
@mike: You’re voting for the next president at the same time to save money. But the question is, what is it costing us to keep that offence in the Constitution? Not talking about money here…
Bréad and circuses, non privation of Irish water anybody, no? I thought so.
@genejeanie: exactly!
Flying home from Indonesia now where they use these lunatic laws regularly. In Nigeria they send Atheists to psychiatric hospitals. Can’t understand why anybody in their right mind would want to keep this uncivilised piece of legislation. Ireland needs to send a clear message that punishing blasphemy has no place among countries that are not run by savage barbarians.
@Cyril Butler: Indonesia? C’mere, isn’t that the country where ya face a two year prison sentence for just having a w**k in the privacy of your own home?
I am outraged and ashamed to be Irish today.
Can anyone tell me why Irish women are in favour of keeping this outdated and oppressive law in our constitution?
It beggars belief
@Bernie Roche: Irish women aren’t in favor of keeping this outdated piece of legislation in our constitution.
The article stats that 49% want to repeal it, a third 33% don’t know so that leaves 18% against it?
@Jayme Mc Goldrick: Less than 50pc want it removed. If it was left to the women of this country we’d be stuck with this outdated nonsense.
Thankfully they have the men of Ireland to chat a bit of sense into them.
@Bernie Roche: then f#ck off.
@Commentimum: Ha ha ha. Cheers. I take it you’re one of the ones in favour of keeping it?
@Bernie Roche: ha ha ha. It’s your outrage and shame that’s hilarious. Me telling you to jog on with it has nothing to do with how I feel about. Outrage and shame!!! Is this the height of your gripe?
@Commentimum: Are you proud of the fact that the women of Ireland don’t see the sense in getting rid of this outdated and oppressive law?
@Bernie Roche: that’s not really the correct way to read these numbers. Of the 33% who “don’t know”, there are probably women (and men) who just don’t understand what this line in our constitution actually is.
If this poll is correct and public opinion doesn’t change between now and the referendum, you’d expect 70%+ vote to remove it. With men and women both within a few % of each other.
This is already a landslide victory for those who want to remove pointless laws from our constitution and move on with the 21st century.
To say most Irish women want to keep this law is just incorrect.
Also. You shouldn’t feel so poorly about your own country based on a poll run for a TV show. We’re a great bunch, really! :)
@Noel Tate: I don’t think it’s that difficult a concept to grasp to be honest, especially with Google and all that these days.
Are you saying the women of Ireland don’t have the mental capacity to figure this one out?
Outrageous!
Last person charged with blasphemy was 1855. What an inexcusable waste of taxpayers money’s
@techman: I wonder what his punishment was, was it Bell, Book and Candle. ?
@techman: not really the point. Having this in the constitution always opens the possibility of it being used against the people.
Also, a few high profile court cases which get appealed up and up again could end up costing a lot more than this referendum will. By having it on the same day as an election they will already be keeping the cost down.
Also, IMO it is a very small price to pay for removing such a barbaric rule from our constitution which no longer reflects who the Irish people are.
Jesus Christ just make up God dam minds
Lol
A significant number of people don’t give a toss about this sillyness, are we trying to win an award for the most amount of referendums in a single year. Can’t with just ignore this stupid part of the constitution , the courts do or better still just delete it.
@Joseph Dempsey: delete it is exactly what they are trying to do. That needs a referendum
@Joseph Dempsey: It needs to be dealth with , there are others who will be quick enough to use it when it suits their purpose.
@Joseph Dempsey: In Ireland to change or remove any part of the constitution requires a referendum of the people.
So “just deleting it” is exactly what they are trying to do and doing it in the lowest effort way possible by holding it on the same date as an election. That way it costs far less and also ensures a relatively high turnout.
Run a Referendum on “Family Home” at same time and upgrade the Irish Constitution to German quality. No housing crises or bubbles in Germany.
https://www.change.org/p/housing-crisis-referendum-on-family-homes
Doesnt matter how anyone votes. It’s just this government trying to look usefull, having abmisally failed to deal with all manor issues affecting people’s lives.
When is this referendum?
@Will Flynn: I believe it’s intended to take place alongside the Presidential election.
Jasus!
@Ronan Skelly: Christ almighty!
@Noel Tate: ooh oooooh, I’m tellll-ing.
@Ronan Skelly: Blasphemy. Stoneing is too good for you.
Since ‘blasphemy’ is an authoritarian control mechanism – ban it for that reason!!
Since ‘blasphemy’ is used by ALL religions, and all religions make different claims against each other – then there is no logic to ‘blasphemy – Ban it!!
Since all religions cannot prove their claims of their gods – Ban blasphemy and Ban the religions for lying, fraud and child abuse !!!
Why can’t we vote online, what an effort for something nonsensical.
@Orla Cunningham: because it would cost us €500million to set up, once all the parasites had got their cut. Then once you’d counted the votes from Moscow, Pyongyang and Lagos, you’d find that 16 million votes had been cast.
@Orla Cunningham: You’re voting for the president the same day
F- ing rediculous referendum.
How about a referendum on euthanasia?
And pronto. We’ve had referendum’s on gay marriage, now a referendum to do with slagging a guy were not sure ever existed, neither of which caused anyone any pain, and would have both been well down my list of essential topics to be put to a vote. Cop the fek on.
Ridiculous waste of money…when was the last time someone was arrested and convicted of blasphemy. More important things to spend 3mil on
ah sure the whole thing is a farce , the last FF govt that handled blasphemy could have easily been smart and just put silly levels of fines like 5c onto the law books as a workaround and then the whole thing could have gone away and not needed costly referendums wasting our time and money , but no we have to be bloody Irish and halfarse the hell outa something thats just a distraction from all the real issues and problems facing the country…
Sweet Jesus. Bring back witch burning and stoneing. Christ is nothing sacred anymore.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say