Fifa’s trust problem

 Argentina need no favours to win another World Cup. Fifa’s bigger challenge is convincing the world that none have been given.

Argentina’s dramatic comeback against Egypt booked a place in the quarter-finals, but the celebrations quickly gave way to fresh debate over officiating and Fifa’s handling of key decisions. (EPA Images pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The question is no longer whether Argentina are being favoured. It is why Fifa keeps making decisions that allow millions to believe they are.

That is an awkward position for any governing body. It becomes even more uncomfortable when the team at the centre of the debate is the defending world champion led by the game’s biggest star, Lionel Messi.

Egypt’s extraordinary collapse in the last 16 should have been remembered as one of the World Cup’s greatest comebacks.

Instead, the aftermath became consumed by allegations of bias after the Pharaohs demanded Fifa remove the match officials from the tournament.

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan’s furious reaction captured the frustration that has since evolved into a broader debate about consistency, perception and trust. (EPA Images pic)

Coach Hossam Hassan went further, suggesting the governing body wanted Argentina, and Messi, to stay alive.Those are explosive claims. They also require compelling evidence.

So far, none exists.

That does not mean Fifa escapes scrutiny. The governing body’s biggest failing has not been favouring Argentina: it has been creating an environment where such accusations have become entirely predictable.

Football has never been free from controversy. Every World Cup leaves behind disputed goals, contentious penalties and refereeing decisions that divide opinion long after the trophy is lifted.

Argentina are hardly the first champions to benefit from marginal calls, nor will they be the last.

What makes this tournament different is the accumulation. One incident rarely changes public opinion. Five or six do.

Egypt’s grievances illustrate the point. Mostafa Ziko’s disallowed goal divided opinion because the foul occurred much earlier in the move. The appeals for penalties involving Hamdi Fathy and Mohamed Salah were equally subjective.

None conclusively proves Argentina received favourable treatment. They are precisely the kind of decisions that have always divided football.

Viewed individually, they remain debatable. Viewed together, they reinforce an existing narrative.

That is how trust begins to erode.

Lionel Messi remains football’s defining figure. That makes it all the more important for Fifa to ensure every decision surrounding the tournament withstands the closest scrutiny. (EPA Images pic)

When perception becomes evidence

Earlier in the tournament, Messi escaped what many believed should have been a red card. Later, Folarin Balogun was dismissed after VAR intervention following a challenge that inevitably invited comparison.

The incidents were not identical, and football rarely offers perfect parallels. Yet consistency is the currency of good officiating. When similar situations appear to produce different outcomes, questions become inevitable.

The same applies to Argentina’s disciplinary record. The defending champions have committed more fouls than several rivals while receiving comparatively few yellow cards.

Statistics alone prove nothing because styles of play differ and referees judge every foul on its own merits. Argentina also spend long periods on the front foot, forcing opponents into desperate challenges.

Even so, the figures add another layer to a debate Fifa should have anticipated.

Then came another avoidable own goal.

For the quarter-final between France and Morocco, Fifa appointed an entirely Argentine on-field officiating team. No reasonable observer should doubt those officials’ professionalism or integrity. Elite referees earn their place through ability, not nationality.

But elite sport has long understood that perception matters almost as much as reality.

Judges withdraw from cases where impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Administrators declare potential conflicts even when none exists.

The objective is not to prove integrity afterwards. It is to remove doubt before it appears.

Fifa achieved the opposite.

The tournament draw has raised similar questions. Separating the four highest-ranked nations into different quarters ensured the biggest names could not meet until the semi-finals. It also handed Argentina what many regard as the smoothest route through the knockout rounds.

There is nothing improper about the format. Fifa announced it months before the tournament began.

Back-to-back 3-2 knockout victories, first against Cape Verde, have kept the defending champions alive, yet each triumph has arrived with growing scrutiny over the tournament’s wider narrative. (EPA Images pic)

Yet governing bodies cannot ignore optics. While Spain eliminated Portugal, France prepared for Morocco and England overcame Mexico at the Azteca, Argentina’s path took them through Cape Verde, Egypt and now Switzerland.

That contrast may be coincidental. It is still enough to feed perception.

The same applies to penalties.

Argentina set a World Cup record by receiving five spot-kicks during their triumph in Qatar and again lead the tournament in 2026. That statistic is frequently cited as proof of favouritism. It is not.

Teams that dominate possession and spend more time inside the opposition penalty area naturally earn more penalties.

Numbers provide context. They do not establish intent.

The real damage

This is where the conversation should change. The real issue is no longer Argentina. It is trust.

Every avoidable controversy chips away at confidence in the competition. Every questionable administrative decision strengthens those already convinced Fifa has a preferred outcome. Every failure to explain contentious calls allows speculation to fill the silence.

That serves nobody.

Not Egypt, whose finest World Cup performance risks being remembered more for controversy than courage.

Not the referees, whose reputations are dragged into debates they never asked to join.

And not Argentina.

If Messi and his teammates defend their title, they deserve to do so without moans following every victory. Great champions should be remembered for the football they played, not endless arguments about those who officiated it.

Ironically, Argentina may become the greatest casualties of Fifa’s failure to protect public confidence. Their triumphs now arrive with an unwanted companion: doubt.

Each contentious decision simply adds another layer to a narrative built on suspicion rather than evidence.

Fifa cannot eliminate controversy from football. Referees will always make difficult decisions and VAR will continue to split opinion because the laws leave room for interpretation.

What Fifa can control is everything around those decisions.

It can avoid appointments that create unnecessary questions, communicate more openly and explain contentious decisions more clearly.

Above all, it can recognise that trust is not earned by insisting the process is fair. It is earned by ensuring the course is never allowed to look anything less.

There is still no evidence that Argentina are being carried towards another World Cup.

There is, however, growing evidence that Fifa has repeatedly failed to protect the appearance of impartiality.

For the guardians of football’s credibility, that should concern them far more than any conspiracy theory ever could. - FMT