“It’s unacceptable for an Argentine referee to referee our
game. After what happened yesterday, with Messi talking, all of Argentina was
talking, and the referee comes here to blow the whistle. I’m not saying that he
comes here conditioned ... but what did we play the second half? We weren’t allowed
to play the second half. I can bet that Argentina will be champions.”
Pepe, afater the quarterfinal between Portugal and Morocco,
First and foremost, I extend my congratulations to Qatar for orchestrating one of the most remarkable FIFA World Cups in history. Despite the overwhelming pre-tournament scepticism and criticism, Qatar has decisively answered its detractors, demonstrating that a successful tournament can be organized with meticulous planning and that it is possible to combat widespread negativity through tangible results rather than empty rhetoric.
The tournament culminated in an exhilarating final, with Lionel Messi and his Argentina team emerging victorious. That final, dramatic spectacle, is likely to be remembered as one of the greatest in the 92-year history of the event. Yet, despite the undeniable brilliance of Messi and his teammates, there remains an element of doubt in my mind regarding the legitimacy of their triumph — a doubt that casts a shadow over what would otherwise be a crowning achievement for both Argentina and the tournament itself.
As a lifelong Brazil supporter and a fan of Cristiano Ronaldo, my perspective may understandably be met with resistance, particularly from Argentina's passionate fanbase. However, my stance is rooted in reason and analysis, and while acknowledging that difficult truths are often hard to accept, I must assert that Argentina's victory in Qatar raises certain questions that remain unresolved.
Argentina's World Cup campaign began with an unexpected setback against Saudi Arabia, but before the shock of conceding two goals could fully settle in, an incident involving a penalty award raised immediate concerns among neutral observers.
A closer inspection of the moment in question reveals a clear sequence where Leandro Paredes appears to push a Saudi Arabian player, resulting in both players tumbling to the ground. The question, then, is why the referee chose to award a penalty in such a scenario. It’s evident that Paredes pulls the Saudi player towards him, and the subsequent fall, while unfortunate, hardly seemed to affect the flow of the game. It’s a typical collision that occurs frequently in football, yet the decision to award a penalty remains perplexing.
Despite the dubious nature of the decision, Argentina were granted the penalty, and Messi, as expected, converted it. However, Saudi Arabia’s spirited response, which saw them fight back with two goals to secure an unlikely victory, seemed to rattle the foundations of the tournament’s hierarchy. This unexpected turn of events may have prompted a reassessment of officiating, ensuring that no further controversial incidents marred the competition.
Argentina’s next match, against Mexico, was set against a backdrop of historical dominance. Much like Nigeria’s perennial struggles against Argentina, Mexico had never managed to defeat the Albiceleste in a World Cup. The match appeared to be heading toward a goalless draw, until, once again, the referee became a central figure in the unfolding drama.
Let us examine Messi’s breakthrough goal against Mexico, a moment that raised eyebrows for more than just its significance. In this instance, the referee’s actions appeared almost choreographed to ensure Messi had a clear path to goal. In the image above, it is evident that the referee, in a seemingly deliberate motion, sidestepped the ball hurtling towards him, thereby clearing the way for Messi to take his shot without obstruction.
Additionally, Julian Alvarez’s positioning played a pivotal role in the sequence. Positioned directly in front of Mexico’s goalkeeper, Guillermo Ochoa, Alvarez obstructed his line of sight, forcing Ochoa to guess where Messi would place the shot. What’s more, Alvarez was offside at the time, yet no free-kick was awarded. Ochoa, recognizing the circumstances, refrained from protesting, as it had become clear to him — and perhaps to many others — that the referee was favouring Argentina. At the time, the fans seemed too blinded by the moment to perceive the broader implications of this decision.
In Argentina’s crucial match against Poland, the awarding of a penalty once again raised questions about the integrity of the officiating. Messi had already headed the ball, which had gone out for a goal kick, and there was minimal contact between him and Polish goalkeeper Wojciech Szczęsny, a mere graze to Messi’s face. This hardly seemed to qualify as a foul, nor did it affect the play in any meaningful way. Yet, in a moment that appeared to be more about momentum than justice, the referee chose to award a penalty. It seemed as though, in the wake of Messi’s earlier miss, the referee felt compelled to provide Argentina with a chance to regain their rhythm.
Szczęsny’s accidental touch of Messi, though inconsequential, became the catalyst for the penalty decision. However, Messi’s miss from the spot only added to the sense that Argentina’s fortunes in this match were being shaped by more than just their own play. Poland, for their part, offered little resistance, their lack of movement both on and off the ball raising doubts about their intent and contributing to the sense that the match was unfolding in a way that seemed anything but natural.
In the first quarterfinal of the tournament, Brazil’s hopes were dashed by Croatia in a dramatic penalty shootout, but the match’s outcome was heavily influenced by controversial officiating decisions. Brazil was denied a clear-cut penalty — a decision that many felt was an undeniable error by the referee. Throughout the match, several fouls committed by Croatian players went unpunished, further fueling the sense that the officiating was not impartial.
Neymar had given Brazil the lead with a moment of brilliance, but the match took a dark turn due to a combination of defensive lapses and individual mistakes. Marquinhos, who had been solid throughout the tournament, was culpable for the last-minute equalizer — his failure to defend adequately allowed Croatia to level the score, sending the match into extra time. In the ensuing penalty shootout, Marquinhos, tragically, missed the decisive spot-kick, sealing Brazil's exit from the tournament and handing Croatia a place in the semifinals.
The match, though filled with moments of brilliance, was marred by questionable officiating and individual errors, leaving Brazil’s exit feeling more like a missed opportunity than a deserved defeat.
It’s important to remember that Marquinhos, a player for Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), tends to remain in the shadows compared to his more flamboyant teammate, Neymar. While Neymar’s mistakes are often scrutinized and dissected by the media, Marquinhos, by contrast, remains largely under the radar — a low-profile figure whose errors, though crucial, don’t receive the same level of attention or criticism.
With Brazil, widely regarded as one of the tournament's most formidable teams, making an unexpected and painful exit, it seemed as though the tournament’s hierarchy was determined to ensure that Argentina’s path to the semifinals was secured, no matter the cost. The sense of urgency was palpable, and it appeared that the powers at play were willing to pull every string necessary to ensure Argentina’s progression, perhaps as a means of maintaining the tournament’s narrative and keeping the momentum in favour of the tournament's perceived favourites.
In the quarterfinals, Messi and his Argentina team faced a formidable opponent in the Netherlands, a team known for their resilience and tactical discipline. From the outset, the match followed a familiar pattern — Argentina was awarded an early penalty.
A closer examination of the first penalty, which was given for a challenge on Acuña, reveals a decision that has sparked considerable debate. Upon rewatching the incident, it becomes clear that the nature of the challenge and the subsequent award of the penalty is open to interpretation. While some might argue that it was a legitimate foul, others could contend that the contact was minimal and insufficient to justify a spot-kick at such a critical juncture. The penalty decision set the tone for a match that would be marked by intense scrutiny of the referee's choices and their impact on the flow of the game.
Upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the player in question didn’t even attempt a convincing shot on goal before diving into the box after minimal contact. The nature of the contact was far too soft to warrant a penalty, yet the referee still awarded the spot-kick.
While one might view this as merely a single penalty decision, it’s essential to consider the broader implications. The timing and manner in which the decision was made seemed to shift the momentum firmly in Argentina's favor. This wasn’t just about awarding a penalty — it was a strategic move by the referee, whether intentional or not, to provide Argentina with an advantage they would seize with both hands. The penalty served as a catalyst, setting the tone for the rest of the match and reinforcing the sense that the referee’s influence had a significant bearing on the game’s direction.
Despite Argentina’s initial advantage, they nearly faltered as the Netherlands, showing remarkable resilience, equalized with the ferocity of cornered tigers. In the face of mounting pressure, Argentina's best hope was to force the match into a penalty shootout, a scenario that worked in their favor, given the Netherlands' history of faltering in such high-stakes situations.
However, the match was not without its further controversies. During regulation time, Messi was involved in an incident where he deliberately handled the ball — a clear offense that, under normal circumstances, would have warranted a red card. Yet, remarkably, the incident went unnoticed by the referee. This was not the first time Messi had handled the ball in the tournament without facing consequences, but it was perhaps the most glaring example of how, throughout this World Cup, Messi appeared to be afforded a level of protection that went beyond the norm. It seemed as though, whether by design or circumstance, Messi was being supported in ways that went unnoticed by many, contributing to the growing sense that the tournament’s narrative was being shaped in his favor.
Then came a striking moment when Messi forcefully kicked the ball towards the opponent's dugout — yet, once again, no action was taken by the referee. This incident only added to the growing sense of inconsistency in officiating. Frenkie de Jong, after the match, expressed his frustration, saying, “Messi takes the ball with his hand and the referee just lets it go. It was truly scandalous.”
In the semifinal, Croatia entered with their trademark fighting spirit, determined to challenge Argentina. However, it quickly became apparent that no matter how hard they fought, their efforts were futile. Once again, the referee’s decisions seemed to tilt the balance in Argentina’s favor, gifting them the momentum they needed.
One of the pivotal moments came when Julian Alvarez clearly mishit his shot, only to theatrically attempt to draw a penalty by making contact with the Croatian goalkeeper. His execution was flawless, and the referee awarded the penalty. Luka Modrić, visibly upset, later remarked, “I want to congratulate Argentina, I don’t want to take credit away from them. They deserve to be in the final. But that first penalty wasn’t a penalty, and it destroyed us.”
The controversy surrounding the penalty did not go unnoticed. Gary Neville, on a TV show, stated, “There’s no way that’s a penalty. They didn’t even check the VAR. I have no idea why. It’s not a penalty.” Ian Wright echoed his sentiment, while Roy Keane agreed, saying, “I agree with the lads, that’s not a penalty for me.” Former FIFA referee Felipe Ramos Rizo added, “The goalkeeper’s feet are always on the floor, he never tripped him. The contact is inevitable. Not a penalty.” Iker Casillas, in agreement, said, “Totally agree with Felipe.”
As the tournament progressed according to this seemingly predetermined narrative, Argentina advanced to the final, where they faced the defending champions, France. Despite numerous setbacks due to injuries, France had performed admirably throughout the tournament and, many felt, deserved to win a second consecutive World Cup.
But once again, under the floodlights, controversy reigned. Argentina were awarded yet another penalty, and once again, the decision raised eyebrows. Angel Di María, after a seemingly innocuous challenge, fell to the ground, and the referee pointed to the spot. But where was the physical contact? How could this be deemed a penalty? The decision was puzzling, leaving many to question whether the tournament’s narrative was being shaped by forces beyond the field of play.
Despite the controversy surrounding the penalty decisions, the referee awarded the spot-kick, which in turn gave Argentina a significant momentum boost.
Now, let’s address the counterclaim: “If the tournament was rigged for Argentina, why did France receive two penalties?” The two penalties awarded to France were, in fact, clear-cut and indisputable. There was no ambiguity in the decisions — the referee had no choice but to award them. Rewatching the match, it becomes evident that these penalties were legitimate, and any suggestion to the contrary fails to hold up under scrutiny.
One common counter-argument is that “the second penalty for France should have been a free kick to Argentina because the French player handballed the ball before Mbappé received it.” This claim is entirely misplaced. Upon closer examination, it’s clear that the French player did not handle the ball. Instead, he headed it backwards to Mbappé, making any assertion of a handball incorrect.
Further controversy arose when Messi scored Argentina’s third goal, as some argued that the goal should have been disallowed due to substitutes entering the field of play. According to FIFA’s official rules, this would indeed be a valid concern. The rulebook states that if, after a goal is scored, the referee realizes before play restarts that there was an extra person on the field, the goal must be disallowed if:
- The extra person was an outside agent who interfered with the play.
- The extra person was a player, substitute, substituted player, or team official associated with the team that scored the goal.
In this case, the presence of extra personnel on the field could have led to the goal being ruled invalid, had the referee deemed their presence as interference. This aspect of the game adds another layer of complexity to the already contentious series of decisions throughout the match.
According to FIFA’s official rules, a goal must be disallowed if an extra person on the field interferes with play, or if that extra person is a player, substitute, substituted player, or team official associated with the team that scored. However, in this case, the referee, Szymon Marciniak, and his officiating team deliberately overlooked the incident, allowing the goal to stand despite the presence of an extra individual on the pitch.
While, in theory, France could have lodged a formal complaint regarding this oversight, it is unlikely that such a complaint would have altered the outcome of the match. The rules are clear, but the practical application of those rules in the heat of the moment is often subject to interpretation, and in this instance, the decision was made to let the goal stand.
As the match progressed to penalties, Argentina’s reputation in shootouts remained intact. Emiliano Martínez, Argentina’s goalkeeper, displayed a series of psychological tactics that some observers found unsettling, with his actions bordering on unsporting behaviour. However, these antics went largely unchallenged, as the collective bias towards Messi and Argentina seemed to overshadow any critical examination of Martínez’s conduct.
In the end, Argentina triumphed once again, securing another World Cup under circumstances that many viewed as controversial. The match, filled with contentious decisions and questionable officiating, left a lingering sense that the tournament’s outcome was shaped by forces beyond the field of play.
Thank You
Faisal Caesar
