The World Cup round of 16 match between Egypt and Argentina in Atlanta was perhaps both the most controversial game of the tournament and the most politically significant.
After a 1-0 win over the defending champions, Egypt controversially had its second goal disallowed and its request for a video review of Argentina’s goal was rejected.
Fans and pundits complained that video review (VAR) was used unevenly and Egypt’s 3-2 defeat was unfair.
Egyptian manager Hossam Hassan said the game was “unfair” and suggested FIFA wanted Argentina and its global superstar Lionel Messi to advance in the tournament.
The Egyptian Football Association filed a formal complaint on Wednesday.
Lost in the game’s controversial ending is perhaps a much more important story – how the Egypt-Argentina game turned into the final milestone of the Palestinian struggle.
Positions on Israel and Palestine are increasingly seen as indicators of political and moral integrity, while the Palestinian cause becomes a visible political dividing line in sports.
Nowhere in recent sporting memory has this been clearer than in the Egypt-Argentina match.
Ahead of the game, Hassan used his platform to highlight the plight of the Palestinians.
Following Egypt’s first-ever victory in a World Cup playoff match on July 3, Hassan waved the Palestinian flag on the field and then dedicated the victory to Palestine during a post-game press conference.
He then used a pre-game press conference on Monday to make an impassioned speech about the suffering of Palestinians.
In his speech, Hassan said that anyone who does not have compassion for the Palestinians “is not a human being.”
Politics surrounding Israel and Palestine also affected the fan experience.
During the match, Palestinians in Gaza waved Egyptian flags and cheered for the Egyptian team.
Meanwhile, Egyptian and Argentine fans in the stadium traded flag blows, with Argentine fans raising the Israeli flag and Egyptian fans holding the Palestinian one.
Political difficulties
The appearance of the Israeli flag among Argentine supporters was remarkable and symbolically significant, especially given Argentine public opinion and politics.
Poll data shows that the Argentine public as a whole has become sharply critical of Israel, but the government remains vehemently pro-Israel.
Argentine President Javier Miley’s relationship with US President Donald Trump, who has taken responsibility for hosting the World Cup in North America, is also important.
Miley and Trump are reported to be very close, with the American leader calling Miley his “favorite president” and the Argentine head of state offering open and explicit support to his American counterpart.
It is important to note that both leaders are very supportive of Israel.
Miley recently said he is “proud to be the most Zionist president in the world,” and Trump has repeatedly called himself “Israel’s best friend.”
Trump is also close to FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
Infantino lobbied to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025.
Later that year, Infantino created a new award, the FIFA Peace Prize, and promptly presented it to Trump.
The closeness of their relationship was demonstrated during the World Cup.
Earlier this week, Trump and Infantino teamed up to overturn the red card issued to American striker Folarin Balogun, who was initially suspended for the United States’ round of 16 match against Belgium.
Trump has publicly said he called Infantino and asked him to lift the suspension.
The incident does not prove interference in Egypt’s match against Argentina, but it does strengthen the view that access and political influence can influence FIFA’s decision-making.
Infantino has also been accused of trying to whitewash Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, while FIFA has been criticized for refusing to impose sanctions on Israel after moving quickly to suspend Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.
Palestinian lens
The Egypt-Argentina match took place against this broader political backdrop.
Without the political drama – and without the specter of Palestine – the controversy surrounding the match might have remained largely confined to football. Fans could simply discuss refereeing decisions and VAR protocols.
But this match took place at a special historical moment: the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, unprecedented global condemnation of Israel and widespread international support for the Palestinian cause, including in sports.
For millions of football fans, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, Gaza has become an exemplary example of a global order in which power shapes not only results, but also the rules by which results are considered legitimate.
Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and destroyed much of the Gaza Strip, all with the support of the most powerful country in the world, which shields Israel from accountability and actively seeks to undermine the rules-based order.
It was through this Palestinian-driven political lens that the Egypt-Argentina match was interpreted.
Egypt’s disallowed goal, Argentina’s unjustified fouls and the referee’s refusal to use VAR after a clear foul on Egypt’s Mohamed Salah in the penalty area were interpreted as a repetition of a familiar pattern: the stronger side gets the benefit of the doubt while supposedly neutral institutions appear to apply their rules unevenly.
This does not necessarily mean that FIFA conspired to ensure Argentina’s victory. But power and bias do not always require a premeditated, deliberate plan, and the widespread reaction to this coincidence cannot be separated from a broader crisis of trust in institutions that claim neutrality but operate in conditions of deep inequality.
For the millions of football fans who support the Palestinian cause, the sting of the Egypt-Argentina match is unlikely to subside quickly.
But the image of Hassan waving a Palestinian flag or using the world’s largest sports stage to talk about Palestinian suffering won’t help either.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of Al Jazeera.