Whatever one might say about the 2026 World Cup, it has been eventful. Controversial, yes, downright dystopian at times, and quite possibly rigged, but eventful.
This will be my last article on the 2026 World Cup (though I am planning to do a post on the massive growth of sports gambling in the US), so all you non-football fans can breathe a sigh of relief.
On Wednesday night (European time), Argentina treated the world to a display of both the most sublime and some of the most ignoble aspects of its particular brand of football. That included, inevitably, plenty of “shithousery”, a British slang term — rooted deeply in football culture — that denotes the deliberate use of the “dark arts,” wily gamesmanship, and underhanded tactics to goad opponents, waste time, and gain an unfair advantage.
My native England, for its part, did what it always does on the biggest stage (even with a German coach pulling the strings): it bottled it.
After going up one-nil in the early minutes of the second half, England decided to defend for 30 minutes against one of the world’s most attacking teams, which has become a specialist in late comebacks, without any kind of outlet. Both the coach and the team gave Messi, arguably the world’s best ever footballer, and his teammates license to launch wave after wave of attack.
After scoring their goal, England had just 12% of possession against Argentina’s 88%. That is apparently the lowest by a team to be winning for at least 10 minutes in any World Cup game in the last 60 years. As the English football analyst Adam Cleary puts it, England’s defeat is primarily the result of “some of the most damaging late-game substitutions I have ever seen at this level”.
The whole painful farce brought to mind these three lines from Pink Floyd’s “Time”:
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way,
The time is gone, the song is over, thought I’d something more to say,
Home, Home again…
This is all part of a recurring theme…
In other words, the English team, and particularly its German manager, have only themselves to blame for the final result. Having said that, the referees did appear to give Argentina the rub of the green — not for the first time. In the third minute of the match, the Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernandez set the tone of the match by applying a closed fist to the back of Elliot Anderson’s neck, for which he was not even awarded a yellow card, let alone a red.
As some commenters have pointed out, back of the head punches, or rabbit punches, are illegal in boxing, MMA and across all combat sports due to the potential to cause severe and irreversible injuries. But in this instance, it didn’t even warrant a yellow card. Or a VAR check. Minutes later, the same player cut off an England counter with a trip on the edge of the area. Again, no sanction.
This has been a general trend throughout this edition of the World Cup. Argentina has committed the highest number of fouls — fouls that inevitably break the rhythm of their opponents’ play — but it is still yet to receive a single red card or concede a penalty. It has also had the highest number of opponents’ goals disallowed.
Argentina has also seen the second highest number of favourable VAR interventions, behind co-host Mexico, and is among just 10 countries to have not received an unfavourable VAR intervention despite making it all the way to the final.
Granted, there is always a subjective element to the interpretation and application of the rules of football. But when the referees are not interested in even using VAR to check Argentina’s fouls, something seems amiss. As Yahoo sports notes, “of all the teams that reached the quarterfinals, only Argentina didn’t have a single foul committed be reviewed by VAR, while also having the most fouls in its favour reviewed by a wide margin.”
Even in Argentina’s first game, against Algeria, Messi stepped on an opponent’s Achille’s tendon with his studs up. Such an offence is often a straight red but in Messi’s case, there was no card shown or a VAR check given. As many have pondered, there is simply no way FIFA would allow the biggest star of US soccer to face a one or two-match ban at the very start of the tournament.
The most controversial decision came in the round-of-16 match against Egypt when the VAR officials ruled out Egypt’s second goal, and one of the best of the tournament, due to, at most, a soft foul committed by an Egyptian player at the other end of the pitch.
From the NY Times’ Athletic:
The Athletic’s in-house refereeing expert, former Premier League official Graham Scott, later wrote: “The decision to disallow Egypt’s goal is incorrect. (Marwan) Attia’s challenge on Lisandro Martinez in the build-up to Ziko’s 67th-minute effort was normal contact and should be regarded as such, rather than considered a foul.
“It was also almost 100 yards from goal, and Argentina had every opportunity to regroup and defend — no wonder Egypt felt aggrieved that the eventual goal was disallowed after a VAR review. If we look at the incident, there was some contact, both foot-on-foot and a fleeting hold of the shirt, but there was no offence worthy of a VAR call-back committed here.
What makes the disqualified goal against Egypt even more galling is that very similar incident took place in a group stage match between Argentina and Denmark. Argentine midfield Alexis Mac Allister committed a far more flagrant foul against a Danish player in the lead up to Argentina’s first goal but no VAR check was conducted despite Danish protests.
Regarding the game against England, “a lot of people couldn’t believe that an MLS ref was given this game when the league’s pearl, Messi, was playing,” says British-American MLS commentator Roger Bennett.
Many fans are convinced that the inconsistent application of rules and VAR checks has helped Argentina reach another World Cup final. Given the long history of FIFA corruption and the lengths to which the organisation was willing to go to bend the rules to allow the US’ star player, Folarin Balogun, to dodge a one-match suspension, at Donald Trump’s direct urging, such speculation is understandable.
In most cases, the rules, while correctly applied, have disproportionately benefitted Argentina. According to the veteran Mexican sports commentator José Ramon Fernandéz, this is not the first time Argentina has benefitted in this way. Asked a couple of days ago if there are any countries that have won a World Cup corruptly, he gave the example of Qatar 2022, when Argentina beat France in the final.
“Yes. In Qatar the problem was Argentina,” he said. “Every time Messi fell, it was a penalty.”
During the age of VAR, the inconsistent application of rules and procedures, such as the awarding of yellow and red cards, can be enough to tip games with fine margins in one team’s favour. Obviously, these kinds of privileges only work in a tournament as gruelling as the World Cup if you have a highly competent and competitive team, which Argentina has in spades.
One thing is undeniable: Argentina has been more Argentina have been involved in more controversial decisions than any other team this tournament. In the New York Times’ list of the ten biggest controversies of the World Cup (so far), published three days ago, two of the biggest controversies involve Argentina, or “Vargentina” as many are now calling the team.
Even US viewers are beginning to notice that the pitch may be somewhat tilted in the favour of Argentina and its MLS League superstar, Lionel Messi…
Click here to continue reading on Naked Capitalism
Nick Corbishley 