Argentina are still defending their world title, Lionel Messi is rewriting history once again, and Lionel Scaloni’s side have reached another World Cup semi-final. Under different circumstances, this might have been celebrated as the final glorious chapter of one of the greatest stories modern football has ever produced. Instead, almost every Argentina match is now followed by accusations of refereeing favouritism, theories about FIFA’s commercial interests and thousands of comments claiming that Messi’s route to another final has already been prepared for him.
At this tournament, Argentina have gone from being one of the most widely supported teams in world football to a side that a large section of the neutral audience actively wants to see eliminated. An important distinction must be made from the beginning: there is no evidence of a conspiracy designed to help Argentina win the World Cup. Yet football is shaped not only by facts, but also by perception, and the perception surrounding Argentina has been created by a sequence of controversial incidents, each one reinforcing the suspicions produced by the last.
The first signs of serious resentment appeared during Argentina’s difficult 3-2 victory over Cape Verde in the round of 32. Late in extra time, as the African side prepared to take a corner, play was stopped because Nicolás Tagliafico required treatment. The defender was then allowed to return almost immediately. The incident could be explained through the application of the tournament’s new medical protocols, but for an increasingly suspicious audience, it became another example of an unusual interpretation benefiting Argentina at a decisive moment. The controversy became far more serious in the following round against Egypt. Hossam Hassan’s team led 2-0 before eventually losing 3-2 in one of the tournament’s most dramatic comebacks. Egypt were furious after having a goal disallowed because of an infringement earlier in the move, while they also believed Mohamed Salah should have been awarded a penalty shortly before Argentina scored the winner. The Egyptian Football Association subsequently submitted an official complaint to FIFA, arguing that the refereeing decisions had influenced the result.
The Egypt game changed the scale of the conversation. Before it, the complaints could still be dismissed as the usual anger of defeated opponents. Afterwards, former players, coaches and television analysts with no connection to Egypt began asking the same questions. Ian Wright highlighted what he saw as a clear lack of consistency from VAR. If the officials were prepared to go back to a relatively minor contact in order to disallow Egypt’s goal, he argued, they should have examined the challenge on Salah with the same level of care. Roy Keane was less convinced and questioned whether Salah had gone down too easily, but even that debate demonstrated the real problem: there was no longer a clear or universally understood standard. Alan Shearer, Jamie Carragher and other former internationals also questioned the consistency of the decisions, turning what might have been a one-night controversy into a wider discussion about whether Argentina were being refereed differently from everyone else.
Then came Switzerland. With the score level, the referee initially booked Leandro Paredes following a collision with Breel Embolo. After a VAR review, however, the decision was completely reversed. The officials concluded that Embolo had simulated the contact, and the Swiss forward received a second yellow card. Switzerland were left with ten men for more than an hour, including extra time, before Argentina eventually won 3-1. Once again, the discussion centred less on Argentina’s goals than on the unusual use of VAR to reverse the identity of the player being punished. Switzerland questioned whether the law had been applied fairly and whether the refereeing team had interpreted the situation correctly. It is possible to argue that Embolo exaggerated the contact. It is also possible to argue that VAR had a technical basis for intervening. But when the most high-profile use of an obscure interpretation ends with an opponent of Argentina being sent off in a level World Cup quarter-final, supporters who already believe the competition is tilted in one direction are unlikely to spend much time studying the finer details of the law.
That is the real source of the hostility surrounding Argentina. The anger is not based on one single decision so obviously wrong that it proves corruption. No such decision exists. It is based on repetition. Cape Verde are denied momentum by an unusual stoppage at a crucial moment. Egypt have a goal disallowed and a penalty appeal rejected. Switzerland are reduced to ten men following an extraordinary VAR intervention. Each incident can be explained individually. Together, they begin to form a narrative. Argentina’s disciplinary record has provided further fuel. Critics have pointed to the comparatively high number of fouls required for an Argentine player to receive a yellow card and presented it as evidence that referees are treating the champions more leniently. Such statistics do not explain the severity or tactical nature of those fouls and cannot prove bias on their own. In an atmosphere of distrust, however, numbers quickly become part of the prosecution’s case.
There is also a broader context. Messi is not simply another player at this World Cup. He is the tournament’s biggest commercial figure and is potentially playing in the final competition of his international career. His presence guarantees television audiences, ticket demand, global attention and the perfect emotional storyline. For those who believe in a conspiracy, that is enough to establish a motive: FIFA, they argue, benefits financially and narratively from keeping Argentina and Messi in the competition for as long as possible. Some former players and coaches have publicly entertained that possibility. Egypt coach Hossam Hassan spoke of external and commercial interests after his team’s elimination, while other pundits have suggested that football’s authorities would naturally prefer another deep run from Messi. FIFA has rejected such accusations, and Argentina’s players have responded angrily. Lisandro Martínez insisted that the referees were doing a good job and accused the media of deliberately inflaming the controversy.
Not all of the hostility is about refereeing. Success inevitably produces resentment, and Argentina and Messi have occupied the centre of world football for almost two decades. Supporters of Cristiano Ronaldo, Brazil, France, the Netherlands and Argentina’s other major rivals now have a common target. Some also believe that the almost religious treatment of Messi makes an objective assessment of his performances impossible. Even when he plays poorly, the story remains about his greatness. Even when Argentina struggle, their progress is presented as another heroic chapter in his career. That constant focus has created fatigue among parts of the audience. For those supporters, this tournament no longer feels like the World Cup. It feels like another global production built around one player.
Argentina, of course, are not responsible for the decisions made by referees. They do not appoint officials, operate VAR or write the Laws of the Game. Nor can their success be reduced to favourable calls. Their comeback from 2-0 down against Egypt required quality, belief and extraordinary resilience. Their victory over Switzerland was not produced by a red card alone. Scaloni’s team have once again demonstrated the qualities required to survive a World Cup: tactical flexibility, squad depth, emotional control and an ability to find decisive goals under extreme pressure. Yet in modern football, justice must not only be delivered; it must also be seen to be delivered. That is where FIFA has failed. When rules are poorly explained, new interpretations appear during the tournament and similar incidents are treated differently, suspicion fills the empty space.
Argentina could win this World Cup entirely on merit and still be remembered by millions as a team that received help. That is the greatest danger for FIFA. The organisation may continue to reject accusations of a conspiracy and may well be correct: there is currently no evidence that the tournament has been manipulated for Argentina. But FIFA cannot stop supporters from seeing a pattern when major decisions repeatedly favour the same team. Argentina have reached the semi-finals because of their talent, resilience and experience. The shadow of doubt has travelled with them. From now on, every whistle in their match against England will be judged not as an isolated decision, but as the next chapter in a story that much of the football world already believes it understands.
Published by Patrick Jane
12.07.2026