Vlastní gól za 3,9 miliardy dolarů. Británie v globálním souboji o talenty

Index ověření faktů: 58/100 — The article's central claim — the UK lost ~$3.9bn as tighter immigration rules drove a fall in international students — is fully supported and correctly cited to Businessday NG, but nearly every other substantive claim is interpretation or explicitly-labeled hypothesis that the single-headline source does not establish.

• UK lost roughly $3.9bn as tighter rules drive international students lower — Matches the Businessday NG headline verbatim in substance and is cited to it.
• The $3.9bn is tied directly to the fall in international students that followed tighter immigration rules — The causal link (tighter rules → fall in students → loss) is exactly what the headline asserts; cited.
• Immigration crackdown was pitched as a way to bring net migration down — Political framing not present in the source, which is only a headline about the $3.9bn figure.
• The cost lands on universities, host towns, and tuition earnings — Plausible and consistent with international students being an export, but the source provides no breakdown of where the loss falls.
• International education is an export industry (students pay fees, rent, living costs in the UK) — Standard economic framing, generally accurate, but not stated or sourced in the headline material.
• The loss was 'chosen'/deliberate as the price of a political result — Interpretive editorializing; the source makes no claim about intent or trade-offs.
• The main beneficiaries are the US, Canada and Australia — Article explicitly flags this as a 'moderate confidence' hypothesis; the source does not track where deflected students enrolled.
• The Businessday NG report quantifies the loss but does not track where students enrolled instead — Accurate characterization — the source indeed only provides the aggregate figure, an honest scope disclosure.
• Britain's stated ambition is a science-and-services economy competing on skills — Outside context not supported by the source.
• Second-order effect: graduates stay, staff research, found companies, become taxpayers — General reasoning about talent retention, not established by the source.
• Students are the easiest cohort to deter because they choose among countries rather than flee toward one — Analytical assertion with no support in the single-headline source.