Дэлхийн хөлбөмбөгийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээний эргэн тойрон дахь маргаантай үйл явдлууд

On and off the field, it has been a FIFA World Cup laced with talking points, controversy and widespread suspicion. In many ways, this is not abnormal: when a team loses a major game, frustrations are often turned towards referees and competition organizers.

Yet the scale and intensity of the displeasure and conspiracy theories has escalated during the knockout stages of the competition. Some have been outbursts without any evidence at all, a heartbroken nation kicking and screaming in the immediate aftermath of defeat, and some stem from well-founded concerns about the processes of the decision-makers involved.

What is clear is that FIFA’s approach to transparency and governance often gives succor to those most inclined to push unevidenced conspiracies and allows even those of us who largely view the world through logic to question how, exactly, decisions have been taken and the motivations behind them.

Here, The Athletic sets out 10 of the highest-profile controversies that have dominated the build-up to the tournament and the competition itself.

(N.B. We have limited the cases here to those which directly involve FIFA and its running of the sport, which may mean that some highly controversial but sensitive cases pertaining to matters of law are not included).

Pre-tournament

Cristiano Ronaldo can play

Cristiano Ronaldo avoided a suspension for the World Cup, despite the Portugal forward being sent off in the penultimate World Cup qualifier against the Republic of Ireland on November 13, when he elbowed defender Dara O’Shea.

Ordinarily, the three-match ban for the offence would have ruled Ronaldo out of Portugal’s final qualifier and opening two matches of the World Cup. Indeed, FIFA’s disciplinary committee extended the one match ban to three games, such was the perceived severity of the offence.

But then… it was suspended. The committee ruled it would be suspended “under a one-year probation period”, meaning he would avoid missing any further fixtures provided he did not commit “another infringement of a similar nature”.

This was made possible by Article 27 of FIFA’s disciplinary code, which allows the world governing body to “suspend” punishments when it deems necessary. The wording is vague, meaning it can use discretion when suspending punishments.

FIFA even factored in that Ronaldo had never been sent off before in his 226-game international career — which ordinarily plays no part at all in disciplinary decisions.

The decision appeared to fly in the face of usual disciplinary protocols. In FIFA’s Disciplinary Code, Chapter 2, Article 14(i) states: “Players and officials shall be suspended for misconduct as specified below … at least three matches or an appropriate period of time for assault, including elbowing, punching, kicking, biting, spitting or hitting an opponent or a person other than a match official”.

The sense of mischief only increased because, one week before the decision was announced, Ronaldo, a five-time Ballon d’Or winner, had attended a black-tie dinner at the White House in Washington D.C., accompanied by the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, FIFA president Gianni Infantino and dozens of billionaires and business leaders. Ronaldo plays his club football in Saudi Arabia with Al Nassr.

For FIFA, the appeal of having Ronaldo able to play has been obvious in the ticket demand for games involving Portugal. For group stage games, the numbers across multiple resale sites — cited by TicketData.com — showed that the get-in price, or cheapest available ticket was the third highest across all teams in the tournament, with only Mexico and Brazil driving a higher get-in than the average $1,932 price to see Ronaldo play.

FIFA had precedent for using the rule book to accommodate global superstars. During Infantino’s increasingly frantic and faltering attempts to raise interest in the Club World Cup before its expanded launch last summer, he found a way to shoehorn Lionel Messi into the tournament.

Controversy rating: 8/10

The Trump Peace Prize

On November 5, FIFA announced that the world governing body for football would introduce a new award. It would be called: “FIFA Peace Prize — Football Unites the World”.

In a statement published on the FIFA website and on president Infantino’s Instagram account, Infantino said: “In an increasingly unsettled and divided world, it’s fundamental to recognise the outstanding contribution of those who work hard to end conflicts and bring people together in a spirit of peace. Football stands for peace, and on behalf of the entire global football community, the FIFA Peace Prize — Football Unites the World will recognise the enormous efforts of those individuals who unite people, bringing hope for future generations.”

FIFA said the award would be handed out annually, but the first prize would be presented by Infantino during the World Cup draw in Washington D.C. on December 5.

So, had FIFA deliberated over a careful process to select the most appropriate winner of this prize? Here’s what we do know. Infantino’s announcement shocked the FIFA Council of 37 members, which is chaired by himself, eight vice-presidents, and 28 other members elected by the member associations. Multiple sources familiar with the process, all of whom wished to remain anonymous to protect relationships, said the Council and FIFA’s vice-presidents were not consulted or involved in the creation of a FIFA peace prize and that it was not discussed at the prior FIFA Council. They had no input into the selection criteria for deciding a recipient. Some found out via a media release.

Trump is awarded FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize by Infantino (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The award was announced on the same day Infantino spoke at the America Business Forum in Miami, where U.S. president Donald Trump also spoke. Trump, who missed out on this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, despite seemingly campaigning to win it, suddenly had a replacement prize instead.

The FIFA Peace Prize was then awarded to Trump during a World Cup draw held at the Kennedy Center in D.C., a location which secured the event despite FIFA having planned for it to take place in Las Vegas. FIFA then closed out the draw by having the Village People play Y.M.C.A, Trump’s chosen anthem at his political rallies.

Controversy rating: 9/10

FIFA seeds World Cup draw to keep best teams apart

For the first time, FIFA operated a new tennis-style seeding system for the World Cup, designed to ensure that the two highest-ranked teams in the competition could not meet one another before the final.

Previously, there had been an open draw whereby the best teams could collide at any point in the knockout stages. However, when FIFA designed the draw last winter, it manipulated the seedings in a way that ensured Spain, the highest-ranked FIFA team, would be on the opposite side of the bracket to Argentina, who was second ranked, while France who was placed third, would be on the opposite side to England. It is a trick that has often ensured maximum eyeballs for tennis, with the world’s best often kept apart until the end of the competition, which is good for ticket sales, broadcast audience and sponsors. There will be plenty of fans who like to see the best teams meet up in the latter stages.

In a statement in November, FIFA said the change was established “to ensure competitive balance”.

The new pathway system meant that, should the top four teams win their groups, they could not meet until the semi-finals, which is exactly what has played out. It is the first time since FIFA began ranking teams in 1992 that the highest ranked four teams have all made it to the semifinals. This has been by design and to a certain extent, is rigged to give the best possible opportunity of this outcome.

While it clearly favors the highest-ranked sides, giving them a clearer run to the semi-finals, it appears to disadvantage some of the aspirational teams in the tournament.

A side such as Norway, for example, played two top-15 teams in the group stage (France and Senegal), and two top-six teams in the knockouts (Brazil and England). It has clearly benefited Argentina, which has not played a team ranked higher than 19th to progress to the semi-finals, while England has not played a top-10 team. France did play one top-10 team — Morocco — while Spain has had the trickiest route by rankings in the knockout stages — facing Portugal and Belgium.

Controversy rating: 7/10

In-tournament

FIFA’s hydration breaks

For the first time at a World Cup, FIFA formally introduced mandatory three-minute hydration breaks in the first and second halves of games, effectively carving the matches into American-style quarters.

Coaches can make interventions during a half, and allow for momentum shifts within games which may not ordinarily materialize. Most importantly, players can be hydrated in boiling hot temperatures at some games played at open-air venues. According to Infantino, the decision was “purely a sporting matter”, claiming FIFA gains “absolutely nothing” from them financially.

The catch, however, is that the hydration breaks were implemented universally, even at temperature controlled stadiums, which allowed broadcasters around the world to sell commercial inventory for both halves of games.

While it is true FIFA will not directly benefit, it presented a potential value-add for FIFA’s sponsors, many of whom ran commercials on FOX Sports during World Cup games, while the precedent of hydration breaks will likely end up in the prospective broadcast rights packages when FIFA next goes to market to promote its tournaments.

It represented a material change to the structure of football matches, without much consultation to the wider football world. Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa said the concept of football in quarters rather than halves “adds nothing and takes away a lot” while England’s Thomas Tuchel believes the added intervals change the “identity” of the games.

“For the neutral watchers on TV, it’s not great,” Netherlands defender Virgil van Dijk said. “So, if it’s really hot, obviously it would be good to put them in, but I think you have to look at it in every game separately.”

It is hard to imagine they will not return for a women’s World Cup in Brazil next summer, which will be played in hot temperatures, or the 2030 edition, which will largely be played in the summer heat of Spain, Portugal and Morocco. After that, they may then simply feel part of the furniture.

Controversy rating: 7/10

‘VARgentina’ eliminates Egypt

You do not need to spend long on X in this tournament to see memes of Infantino dressed in an Argentina jersey, or AI videos of Infantino taking a babyfied version of Messi for walks. In short, there is a growing conspiracy which claims FIFA is rigging the tournament for Argentina, for which there is no actual evidence, but there have been plenty of highly-contested decisions.

The suggestions of FIFA favoritism towards Argentina were there in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

When Portugal lost against Morocco in the quarterfinal of the World Cup, key players Pepe and Bruno Fernandes took issue with the fact an Argentine official, Facundo Tello, was in charge of the match. Fernandes said: “I don’t know if they’re going to give the trophy to Argentina. I don’t care, I’m going to say what I think and screw them. It’s very weird that a ref officiates us from a country still in the competition. Clearly they’ve tilted the field against us.”

Argentina had their own issues with referees. When they lost a 2-0 lead against the Netherlands and required a shootout to win the match, Messi and goalkeeper Emi Martinez challenged the ability of Spanish referee Antonio Mateu Lahoz.

Messi said Lahoz was “not up to the task.” Martinez added: “Hopefully we don’t have that referee anymore because he’s useless.”

In this tournament, there have been three particularly controversial moments. Following Argentina’s group stage win over Algeria, the Algerian Football Federation (FAF) filed a complaint with FIFA regarding the refereeing decisions.

Its concerns centered around Messi’s tackle in the 30th minute, in which he caught Algeria captain Aissa Mandi on his right calf and Achilles tendon with his studs up. The incident took place while the game was 1-0 to Argentina, with Messi going on to score a hat-trick in a 3-0 win. Algeria took issue with two further incidents involving challenges on their players in the game which went unpunished.

Messi escaped after stepping on an opponent’s calf (Tom Weller/picture alliance via Getty Images)

When Argentina played Egypt in the round of 16, the conspiracies exploded. The Egypt team was infuriated by the refereeing decisions of Francois Letexier as it exited in a dramatic 3-2 defeat, after which star forward Mostafa Ziko claimed the trophy is “directed towards Argentina”.

Coach Hossam Hassan claimed his side was wrongly denied a second goal at 1-0, following a video assistant referee check for a foul, and that Egypt ought to have been awarded a penalty before Enzo Fernandez scored Argentina’s third.

In his post-match press conference, Hassan said: “There seems to have been pressure on the Argentinian side on the referee that has brought about this outcome.

“Life is unfair. The world is unfair. OK, but why isn’t there any fairness in sports? I’m not convinced by this outcome and by the way things unfolded in this match.”

Speaking to broadcaster beIN Sports, Hassan added: “Perhaps they wanted to keep the world champions in the competition? Perhaps they wanted (Lionel) Messi to stay in the running? In football, there are sometimes external factors that go beyond the technical aspects. The world champions benefited from support at every level.”

Egypt goalscorer Ziko told Canadian broadcaster TSN after the game, via a translator: “It was not fair from the referee. It was really not fair, that was very clear. He wasted all of our efforts with his decisions. We were leading 2-0 and we cannot do anything, it’s all up to God.

“We are so sorry (to the people of Egypt). I am so sorry. We wanted to make you all happy. It was not in the cards. It was the referee. The cup is directed towards Argentina.”

Messi celebrates after levelling a dramatic game but Egypt called foul on decisions (Tom Weller/picture alliance via Getty Images)

The Athletic’s in-house refereeing expert, former Premier League official Graham Scott, later wrote: “The decision to disallow Egypt’s goal is incorrect. (Marwan) Attia’s challenge on Lisandro Martinez in the build-up to Ziko’s 67th-minute effort was normal contact and should be regarded as such, rather than considered a foul.

“It was also almost 100 yards from goal, and Argentina had every opportunity to regroup and defend — no wonder Egypt felt aggrieved that the eventual goal was disallowed after a VAR review. If we look at the incident, there was some contact, both foot-on-foot and a fleeting hold of the shirt, but there was no offence worthy of a VAR call-back committed here.”

FIFA referees’ boss Pierluigi Collina hit back against the Egyptians, speaking to FIFA’s platforms. He said: “Constructive discussion about decisions will always be part of football, but unfounded allegations have no place in our sport.

“Nobody can question the integrity of the FIFA World Cup match officials. When this happens, it may provoke reactions that lead to threats against them and their families. This is not right.”

Controversy rating: 9/10

‘VARgentina’ eliminates Switzerland

On Saturday night, Argentina advanced to the semifinals by beating Switzerland 3-1 after extra time. However, Argentina once again benefited from a dramatic VAR intervention.

And once more, it provoked a significant backlash from Argentina’s opponents. Switzerland midfielder Remo Freuler described the decision to use VAR to send off his team-mate Breel Embolo as a “disaster”, while team captain Granit Xhaka said the video reviews to adjudicate such offences can “kill” a game.

Switzerland head coach Murat Yakin said the situation was “extremely hurtful” and he felt his side had been “punished by a referee mistake”.

In this instance, it appeared the officials had accurately applied the rules — but the rules had been changed before this World Cup.

Five minutes after Switzerland drew level with Argentina in the second half of the game, forward Embolo was shown a second yellow card for simulation — after the Video Assistant Referee had intervened to overturn a yellow card given to opponent Leandro Paredes.

At first glance, it appeared that midfielder Paredes had tripped Embolo, with Portuguese referee Joao Pinheiro pulling out a yellow card for the Argentinian.

The VAR team, headquartered at the International Broadcast Center in Dallas, then intervened. Looking at replays, which appeared to show that Embolo had initiated the contact, it was recommended Pinheiro review the incident. As the images played out, it emerged that the referees were studying the replays for “mistaken identity” — i.e. that the wrong player had received a yellow card.

After review, Pinheiro withdrew the booking for Paredes and showed one instead to Embolo. Given the Swiss player had been booked in the first half, that meant a red followed.

The irony is that if the referee had not shown a yellow card to Paredes, the incident could not have been reviewed on the merits of Embolo’s dive alone. It required a card to be shown to Paredes to trigger the protocol of “mistaken identity”.

The rules say that “if the referee penalizes an offence but has clearly misidentified the player who committed that offence, only the identity of the offender can be reviewed”. A similar situation took place when the U.S. played Paraguay in their opening World Cup game and Miguel Almiron received a yellow card for simulation after the referee had initially booked the American defender Tim Ream.

While it is indisputable Embolo dived, the incident was nowhere near the penalty area — where players ordinarily seek to gain the advantage — and it was the type of offence that would usually pass by many times within a game, which left the Swiss players feeling the punishment to be disproportionate.

Freuler said: “It’s just a disaster. I don’t know what this referee is doing here. I don’t know, I don’t understand why they call it for a situation like this, because there were many fouls, made also in the first half, maybe he has to also to call them for a yellow card. So I don’t understand. How can a VAR change a game with this situation?”

Xhaka added: “The rules are the rules, and we can’t change the rules, but it’s a decision where you kill the game.”

Controversy rating: 2/10

Balogun freed to play for the U.S.

Arguably the most shocking moment of this tournament came when, on the morning before the U.S. were due to play Belgium in Seattle, The Athletic revealed that American forward Folarin Balogun had been declared eligible to play despite receiving a red card in the round of 32 match against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

FIFA’s decision came after an intervention involving president Trump, government officials, U.S. Soccer and an extensive legal team, leading to allegations of political overreach having a material impact on the possible outcomes of World Cup matches. FIFA subsequently released statements claiming the decision was made by an independent disciplinary committee, but has still not explained why the decision was suspended, with no FIFA acceptance of a refereeing mistake.

Belgium formally objected to the decision to suspend his one-game ban, saying it had “no alternative but to challenge (Balogun’s) eligibility for the upcoming match”.

FIFA’s appeal committee, however, rendered the request submitted by the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) as “inadmissible”. It did so on the grounds that “the RBFA is not a party to the proceedings and, as such, has no standing to appeal the decision,” a statement from FIFA said.

In response the RBFA acknowledged receipt of the decision before indicating “further actions” were still open to the federation and, even after beating the U.S. 4-1, the Belgians outlined their intention to continue to fight the matter.

FIFA found itself under fire for much of the past week, not helped by Trump immediately leaping onto Truth Social, and thanking FIFA “for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!”

Balogun is dismissed from the field after a review. He was then cleared to play following a call by Trump (Charlotte Wilson/Getty Images)

Trump, speaking from the Oval Office at an unrelated event, was asked about his role in getting the ban rescinded, and said within a long answer full of tangents: “I did (call Infantino), I asked for a review, because I didn’t think it was a foul.”

He later added: “If they wouldn’t allow the top player, maybe the best, maybe among the best players on the (U.S.) team, to play, I think it would’ve had a big stain (on the World Cup). And I related just that feeling — I didn’t tell him what to do, I can’t tell him what to do. And I don’t believe he made the decision, I think it was a committee that made the decision.”

Trump said he asked for the decision to be reviewed — but denied he had anything to do with the decision. There is, however, an undoubted weight on any organisation when the world’s most powerful man picks up the phone and the outcome continues to raise questions.

In the Oval Office, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told Trump: “On behalf of all Americans, thank you for getting rid of that ridiculous red card.”

Trump reacted with a smile. Cruz continued: “It was spectacular. There was a reason the FIFA trophy sat here for as long as it did”. This was an allusion to the World Cup and Club World Cup trophies residing in the Oval Office over the past year as part of Infantino’s charm offensive for Trump, which has included renting office space from the Trump family in Manhattan, the Peace Prize and encouraging people to support Trump during a conference appearance in Miami in November.

Statements of concern came from UEFA, Conmebol (which was offended by Trump’s insinuations about Brazilian referee Raphael Claus, who sent off Balogun), and European federations including Norway, Germany, Italy and Switzerland.

It triggered a wave of appeals elsewhere in the tournament, as teams were under the impression that decisions made on the field could not be challenged within a World Cup. France appealed a yellow card given to Michael Olise against Paraguay — which was rejected — and England made representations to FIFA about Jarell Quansah’s red card against Mexico — only to see his ban increased to two games, despite the generous treatment afforded to Balogun.

Controversy rating: 9/10

Did a Skycam help England beat Norway?

Alf-Inge Haaland, the father of Erling, made his views clear on social media, crediting England’s quarter-final win to Jude Bellingham’s two goals — and the referee.

On this occasion, here came a controversy few could have foreseen.

In the lead-up to England’s equalising goal in a 2-1 win, footage from U.S. host broadcaster Fox appeared to show goalkeeper Orjan Nyland’s goal kick hit the camera that is suspended on wires above the field during Saturday’s quarter-final in Miami.

This appeared to trigger a change in possession, with the ball dropping to England midfielder Elliot Anderson. Anderson passed to Anthony Gordon, who fed Bellingham to score.

Norway coach Stale Solbakken was visibly annoyed with referee Clement Turpin at half-time. Nyland pointed upwards towards the camera in protest, as did Erling Haaland.

“Just before the goal, the ball hits the cable with the camera on it, causing it to change direction and fall shorter than it should have,” Norway assistant coach Kent Bergersen told TV2 at half-time. “The referee should have spotted that.

“There’s nothing we can do about it now. We’ll just have to grit our teeth and get on with it.”

FIFA claimed that the ball chip technology — used in every game of the tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico — did not indicate that the ball touched anything in mid-air and, according to its data, there was no peak on the sensor.

FIFA sources said that there are 16 antennas tracking the signal in HardRock Stadium, which are mounted on the catwalk level under the roof and were active as the ball travelled through the air. They added that the footage from the Skycam of the goal was broadcast, and does not shake while showing that footage, indicating it was not struck.

Before England’s goal in minute 45+2 against Norway, the sensor in the Connected Ball showed no peak in the ‘heartbeat of the ball’ when in the air, and therefore no evidence that the ball touched the overhead wire and changed the movement of the ball. pic.twitter.com/gYf9ukfveT

— FIFA Media (@fifamedia) July 11, 2026

FIFA said that in this incident the ball signal, the ‘heartbeat of the ball’, was available at all times (as it can be seen in the video). It said the very slight ‘wave’ the viewer can see in the video is the ball travelling through the air.

The Norwegians were not convinced. Solbakken said: “Well he (the referee) said that he didn’t see it himself and they he didn’t get any message that it actually happened and that’s a good explanation and since FIFA says there was no touch, no signal from chip in ball then he can’t do anything about it. But the ball fell straight down, just in front of the bench … so it did touch it!”

The “outside interference” section of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game indicates that if an “other object” enters the field of play during the match, the referee must stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) if it interferes with play”.

Controversy rating: 7/10

Attempts to reschedule Mexico vs. England

Just over 48 hours before a ball was due to be kicked at the Estadio Azteca, it emerged that FIFA was considering moving England’s round-of-16 fixture against Mexico forward six hours due to concerns about the weather.

At the time, FIFA sources highlighted a possible risk of flooding in Mexico City as a reason to consider switching it from a 6pm to a 12pm kick-off, yet The Athletic’s weather expert, Aaron Mentkowski, reported that the forecast reflected a typical summer day in Mexico City, with afternoon showers and thunderstorms to be expected.

The Athletic subsequently revealed that while the weather may present some delays, the primary motive for the last-gasp attempted change of schedule stemmed from safety and security concerns for supporters of both teams in Mexico City.

The English Football Association only found out about the discussions through media reports, and both they and the Mexican federation were furious about the disruption to their plans, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer making clear his displeasure, not only to the impact of England’s preparations but for fans who may have missed the game due to the change of kick-off time.

Speaking to local radio station Grupo Formula, and reported by the BBC, Mexico coach Javier Aguirre described the proposed change as a “kick in the stomach”.

“We have to change everything,” he said. “It’s not that (Mexico’s preparation) is completely ruined but almost, because you have to swallow six hours that you had programmed.”

The attempted change followed four Mexico supporters dying during the celebrations after the national team’s round-of-32 win over Ecuador on June 30, with local authorities understandably wanting to avoid a repeat of the fatal events.

A scheduled 6pm kick-off would allow for a day of drinking and congregating in a party-like atmosphere that would flow into the match, adding to fears of consequences for what followed after the game, with night-time activities more challenging to police, which is why 12pm was perhaps better-suited.

But moving the game forward was decided against following protestations from the impacted federations, with England’s adjustment to altitude a particularly significant factor. The match was delayed by an hour due to a thunderstorm, but that is not overly abnormal in the context of a North American World Cup where the weather has been inconsistent.

Controversy rating: 6/10

Algeria and Austria send Iran out

Algeria played Austria in their final group stage game, with both teams knowing that a draw would send each other through from their group and eliminate Iran, which was hoping to qualify out of group G as one of the best third-placed sides.

It prompted a pre-game discussion of the Disgrace of Gijon 44 years earlier in which West Germany and Austria effectively stopped competing in the second half and the 1-0 scoreline let both sides progress.

Two articles relating to the Disgrace of Gijon were shared by Iran staff in the media WhatsApp channel, suggesting they feared the same would happen in Algeria’s game against Austria in Kansas City.

A flurry of goals and attacking play appeared to dispel that notion until after the final hydration break when, with the score at 2-2, both sides relented.

The ball was largely rolled around the midfield, in a sequence of play that called into question the integrity of FIFA’s 48-team format, which is more likely to throw these scenarios up.

Then, out of nowhere Riyad Mahrez scored what looked like a winner… only for Austria to race up the other end and equalise through Sasa Kalajdzic’s header.

“It was a bit awkward, to be honest,” said Mahrez. “The ball arrives in front of the ’keeper and I have to score — I have to try to score.

“And the good thing is — well, the good thing for them (Austria) — is that they score and they qualify. We both qualify, and that’s the most important thing today.”

Iran was out. Austria coach Ralf Rangnick denied any conspiracy.

“When you have a 3-3, nobody can assume that it was an agreement, especially after what we saw during the last 90 seconds,” said Rangnick.

“Most people anticipated a 0-0 or 1-1, and now it’s 3-3. If Alfred Hitchcock had written such a drama, I probably would have said he was completely mad.”

Controversy rating: 7/10

Additional reporting: Dan Sheldon