Argentina's comeback, the controversy, and the debate that divided football
A two-goal deficit. A missed penalty. A captain dragging his team back into the game. Then came the controversy.
It had everything a World Cup knockout match could ask for.
A two-goal deficit. A missed penalty. A captain dragging his team back into the game. Then came the controversy.
Argentina's thrilling 3-2 victory over Egypt on Tuesday (7 July) has become one of the defining matches of the tournament, not only because of the football but because of the arguments it sparked. From Cairo to Buenos Aires and across social media, fans, former players, refereeing experts, and journalists have spent the hours since the match ended debating whether VAR got the biggest decision of the night right.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
For nearly 80 minutes, however, none of that seemed likely.
Messi had missed an early penalty. Egypt were clinical, disciplined, and by the 79th minute held what looked like a commanding 2-0 lead. Argentina's World Cup campaign appeared to be slipping away.
Then, almost inevitably, came Messi.
First, he created Argentina's opener. Minutes later, he swept home the equaliser, transforming the mood inside the stadium. Argentina completed the turnaround with a dramatic late winner, producing one of the greatest knockout comebacks in the country's World Cup history.
Yet by the time the celebrations began, attention had shifted elsewhere.
The defining talking point came from the 67th minute when Egypt thought they had restored their two-goal cushion. Mostafa Mohamed Zico found the net, only for VAR to recommend an on-field review. Referee Slavko Vinčić eventually ruled that an earlier challenge on Lisandro Martínez during the build-up was a foul, disallowing the goal.
Within minutes, the match had become football's latest battleground.
Egypt's fury
For Egyptian supporters, the disallowed goal changed everything.
Social media was flooded with frustration. Many argued that VAR had gone too far back in the attacking move to identify the foul, while others questioned why similar incidents involving Argentina were not reviewed with the same scrutiny. Before long, criticism of inconsistency gave way to allegations of favouritism and, for some, outright conspiracy.
Egypt head coach Hossam Hassan made little effort to hide his disappointment.
"We haven't seen respect or fair play," he said after the match, questioning several officiating decisions and suggesting pressure from the Argentine side had influenced the referee. He insisted Egypt deserved to progress and described the outcome as unfair.
Forward Mostafa Mohamed Zico was equally emotional, repeatedly calling the referee "unfair" before claiming the tournament had been "rigged".
Egyptian-American media personality Bassem Youssef also questioned the consistency of the review process. While praising Egypt's performance, he argued that similar incidents in Argentina's favour had not received the same level of VAR attention.
Others suggested Fifa had a commercial interest in keeping Lionel Messi in the tournament, arguing another Argentina-France final would generate the greatest global attention.
Football fan Asif Zapata was among those who shared that view. He said he believed Fifa President Gianni Infantino would see another Argentina-France World Cup final as the tournament's most commercially attractive outcome, considering the global impact of the 2022 final.
Zapata stressed that it was simply his own interpretation of events, but argued that it could explain why Argentina appeared to have benefited from marginal decisions.
Those claims, however, remain speculation and have not been supported by any evidence.
The other side of the argument
However, Argentina supporters viewed the same incident very differently.
Sports journalist Shams Rahman argued that much of the criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Laws of the Game rather than the decision itself.
Under IFAB's (International Football Association Board) VAR protocol, every goal can be reviewed for an attacking offence during the build-up, including fouls, handballs or offside offences. The laws do not specify that the offence must occur within a certain number of seconds before the goal or within a specific distance from the goal.
Shams argued that because Argentina never regained possession, Egypt's attack remained one continuous phase of play. If the challenge was deemed a foul, the goal could legally be overturned regardless of where it occurred.
Supporters defending the decision also pointed to previous examples.
Earlier in this World Cup, Uzbekistan had a goal ruled out against Portugal after VAR identified an attacking infringement during the build-up.
Similar incidents have occurred in domestic competitions, where goals have been cancelled after reviews found fouls committed much earlier in attacking moves.
Journalist Azad Majumder dismissed suggestions that Fifa manipulated results for commercial reasons.
"If Fifa were driven only by commercial interests," he wrote, "why didn't they have the referees roll out the red carpet for Cristiano Ronaldo? Saudi money and the world's biggest Instagram following sound like a marketer's dream."
He argued that Argentina's comeback reflected footballing quality rather than outside influence, adding that Enzo Fernández simply outperformed his counterparts in midfield.
The Messi factor
While much of the post-match discussion revolved around officiating, Messi's performance remained central to the story.
After missing the penalty that could have put Argentina ahead early, the captain responded by creating one goal and scoring another, refusing to let his team's World Cup end.
Former Barcelona and Spain midfielder Thiago Alcântara once described what it feels like to share a pitch with Messi.
"It's hard to explain playing with him because he's so good that it's frustrating," Thiago said. "You're trying to participate in the game, but you're not in the game, you're in Messi's game."
Zlatan Ibrahimović saw the same hunger after Argentina's victory.
"He became an animal, and nobody could catch him," Ibrahimović said. "You can see how emotional he is and how much it means to him. He already won a World Cup. He has won everything. But he still wants it, and that's impressive."
Argentine centre forward Julián Álvarez also praised his captain, saying the squad were delighted to continue supporting a player who "keeps proving that he is a great legend."
Messi himself admitted afterwards that missing the penalty had left him devastated.
"I cried because I was really frustrated because of the penalty I missed," he said. "We didn't want to go home, and we couldn't let it end like that."
Even the experts disagree
Perhaps the biggest reason the debate continues is that respected refereeing experts have reached different conclusions.
Former Premier League referee Graham Scott argued that the challenge on Lisandro Martínez amounted to normal physical contact and fell well below the threshold required for VAR intervention
In his view, Argentina had sufficient time to reorganise defensively before conceding, meaning the goal should have stood.
Former Fifa referee Mark Clattenburg reached a similar conclusion.
While acknowledging that VAR protocols allow attacking fouls to be reviewed, he argued the incident itself was not sufficiently clear to justify overturning the referee's original decision.
He also questioned the consistency of officiating throughout the tournament, noting that referees had generally allowed similar levels of physical contact.
Others disagreed.
Former Fifa referee and rules analyst Dr Joe Machnik defended both the review process and the final decision.
He explained that IFAB's protocol allows officials to trace a scoring move back to its origin as long as possession remains uninterrupted. Since Argentina never regained control of the ball, he argued that the review was entirely consistent with the law.
That split among experienced referees explains why the debate has endured. The laws permit intervention in such situations, but whether the challenge warranted overturning the goal remains a matter of interpretation.
One match left two very different memories.
For Argentina, it was another unforgettable comeback inspired by Messi.
For Egypt, it was an exit defined by a decision they believe changed the game.
The football ended after 90 minutes. The argument over it is likely to last much longer.
