​Argentina are throwing everything they have at defending their World Cup crown, and they have needed to do so. After expectations had run high that La Albiceleste would sweep aside Cape Verde and Egypt in the early knockout rounds, they were forced to battle tooth and nail for two hard-fought 3-2 wins. Yet the victory over Egypt carried an extra sting, as the African side urged FIFA to remove the officials who oversaw their last-16 defeat from the tournament. Egypt have alleged bias in favour of Argentina and preferential treatment toward their star man, Lionel Messi.
Following the game, Egypt’s coach Hossam Hassan claimed the team had been “treated unfairly” and had experienced “injustice.” Hassan went further, suggesting some form of bias within FIFA. “Perhaps they wanted to keep the world champion in the competition. Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running,” he told BBC Sport as it examined the conspiracy theories circulating around whether everything is being arranged for Argentina to prevail.
Hassan’s frustration after Tuesday’s 3-2 defeat is easy to grasp. The Pharaohs led 2-0 with 11 minutes remaining, on the brink of a historic first-ever quarter-final appearance. But Argentina’s late surge changed everything, as they clinched the win in stoppage time. Egypt insist there was more at play than a couple of refereeing calls going against them. They attribute their exit to “serious refereeing mistakes” and “double standards” by French official Francois Letexier and his team.
One flashpoint came with a VAR intervention that ruled out Mostafa Zico’s superb goal. They also contend that Argentina’s eventual winner should have been disallowed, and that they ought to have been awarded a penalty instead. Zico’s goal was chalked off when Marwan Attia was penalised for stepping on the foot of Lisandro Martinez at the start of the move. Although the decision was controversial, Egypt were still leading 1-0 and did score a second nine minutes later. It remains impossible to prove that the game would have followed a different arc had Zico’s strike stood.
Egypt feel there were two potential penalties they could have had, one before Enzo Fernandez scored the decisive header. Hamdi Fathy went to ground, claiming he was held by Alexis Mac Allister, a call that replay angles did not clearly confirm. Mohamed Salah also believed he was tripped by Julian Alvarez. While there were similarities between the Martinez and Salah incidents—both involved contact that could be construed as a foul—there was not enough to warrant a definitive penalty call in either case. If Salah had been beyond the penalty area, a VAR review would have focused on a possible foul rather than awarding a penalty.
Controversial? Certainly. But it remains far from conclusive evidence of a broader conspiracy designed to prop up Messi or Argentina. Egypt’s call to remove officials from the tournament has sparked debate, but it does not provide verifiable proof of a coordinated plot to ensure Argentina’s success. For now, the debate continues to rage, with supporters on both sides pointing to a handful of contentious decisions that swirled around the decisive match.
As the tournament progresses, interest in how refereeing decisions are handled will endure, particularly when high-stakes matches feature a charge of bias or favoritism. Whether there is any truth behind the whispers of a grand scheme or whether the controversy rests on a combination of near-misses and borderline calls remains to be seen. For Argentina, the path to defending their title will likely include further intense battles where edge-of-seat drama, tight decisions, and the thorny question of officiating will again be in the spotlight.