This World Cup has been the most talked-about to date, although much of the debate was far from accurate. Social media and artificial intelligence have facilitated the spread of absurd theories, obscuring what is evident and, perhaps, most important.
FIFA: Political Submission and Corruption
The most relevant aspect has been the grotesque submission of FIFA, embodied by its president Gianni Infantino, to the dictates of the United States and President Trump. Awarding the FIFA Peace Award to an international aggressor was a tragicomic act. Likewise, unreservedly accepting the limitations imposed by the U.S. government—one of the three host nations—on a legitimately competing team, Iran, constituted a major scandal. It is absurd and immoral that the Iranian national team was unable to stay in the U.S., forced instead to set up camp in Mexico and travel back and forth to compete.Added to this is the case of Omar Artan, an African referee appointed by FIFA who was denied entry to the country and forced to return home without fulfilling his professional duties. Similarly, several Latin American and African national teams (including Senegal, South Africa, and Uruguay) were treated with rudeness and subjected to delays by U.S. immigration officials.It is also evident that FIFA has introduced rules reflecting an “Americanization” of football. Such is the case with mandatory hydration breaks, which seem tailored more for commercial advertising than for protecting player health. Meanwhile, the extended halftime show during the final match, while not entirely new, mimics the American Super Bowl. It disrupts the flow of the match and holds little to no artistic value given the context in which it takes place.Political influence reached an extreme when Trump directly pressured FIFA to rescind the red card issued to American player Folarin Balogun. FIFA quickly complied; the Disciplinary Committee reviewed the case in record time—a rarity for the organization. Technical merits aside, political pressure exerted so overtly by the host country’s president is unprecedented. All of this further tarnishes FIFA’s image as an institution plagued by political compromises and corruption at its highest levels.
Conspiracy Theories on the Web
FIFA’s political concessions have fueled the conspiracy theories flourishing online, echoed by commentators, politicians, and footballers across the political spectrum. It was claimed, for instance, that there was a deliberate attempt to ensure Argentina won the cup. The sending-off of Swiss player Breel Embolo during their match against Argentina gave significant momentum to these claims.That ejection, triggered by a second yellow card, followed a VAR review. The footage showed that Argentine player Leandro Paredes, originally penalized, had not committed a foul; in fact, Paredes made no contact with Embolo when he fell. Upon reviewing the video, the referee concluded that the Swiss player had dived and issued him a yellow card. Having already been booked, he was sent off. While almost all refereeing decisions leave room for debate, linking this incident to a grand conspiracy is foolish. Some argue this red card enabled Argentina’s victory, but even if that were true, it does not validate a conspiracy theory.Conversely, some Argentine fans viewed the red card given to Enzo Fernández in the final as unfair—driven by a desire to see Spain emerge victorious. Yet even if there were a grain of truth to that, Spain’s tactical superiority was so pronounced that Fernández’s presence would have hardly altered the outcome.
Politicization and Sports Sympathy
The hyper-politicization of certain commentators targeting Argentina is striking, particularly their focus on the team’s lack of players of African descent. There is no evidence of exclusionary policies within the Argentine Football Association. The country’s small Black population is rooted in historical factors: following the “Freedom of Wombs” law in 1813, many slaveholders chose to sell enslaved people to other markets—primarily Brazil—before losing their investment. The few who remained integrated into the broader population. In fact, genetic studies indicate that up to 10% of Argentines carry African ancestry in their DNA. With recent immigration from West Africa, it is very likely that we will see Black players representing Argentina in the near future. Furthermore, domestic Argentine football routinely features Black professionals from across Latin America. Nor is the national team a stranger to other forms of diversity: Argentine football has featured prominent Jewish players, such as Juan Pablo Sorín, captain of the 2006 World Cup squad, which was managed by José Pekerman, who is also of Jewish heritage.Undoubtedly, racial prejudice exists in Argentina—as it regrettably does worldwide—often manifesting within law enforcement and the judicial system. However, there is also a strong progressive movement across vast sectors of society, and racism is a crime punishable by law. While legal frameworks alone are insufficient, they remain a vital tool in the social struggle. Crucially, there is zero evidence that the national team discriminates racially when selecting its roster.
Geopolitical Alignments Should Not Mislead Us
It is well known that the current Argentine government aligns closely with the United States and Israel. This stance breaks with decades of Argentine diplomatic tradition, which emphasized non-alignment, opposed foreign intervention in sovereign nations, and recognized the rights and statehood of the Palestinian people.Much like in the U.S., a broad movement exists within Argentina opposing Israel’s military operations in Gaza as well as land expropriations, deaths, and detentions in the West Bank. These groups advocate for Palestinian human rights, property rights, and self-determination, and are frequently led by figures of Jewish descent. Prominent progressive figures within this community include the Governor of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof, and left-wing leader Myriam Bregman, both of whom command high public approval ratings in national polls.It is understandable that many Palestinians and left-wing observers worldwide favored Spain, owing not just to their quality of play, but to the Spanish government’s vocal condemnation of the crisis in Gaza. However, that does not justify blaming Argentine players for the policies of their country’s reactionary leadership. Curiously, while many Palestinian children rooted for Spain, many still proudly wore Argentine jerseys featuring Messi’s name.It is disappointing that this nuance is overlooked by prominent international progressive figures, such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani or former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. While they certainly have the right to root for Spain, their arguments against the Argentine team seem biased, unfairly projecting the government’s deplorable positions onto the players. Such takes do not reflect the intellectual rigor both typically bring to other political analyses. Support for a national sports team cannot and should not be dictated by the policies of the administration in power.
Conclusion
Governments and policies are temporary; nations, their cultures, and their people endure. Societies are never politically monolithic. Football must remain a unifier and a shared passion for the public—shielded from the manipulations and interests of those in power