Play Verseo
Random Article
Categories Finance

Argentina Celebrates World Cup Victory Over England While Milei Auctions Off the Country

  • 2026年7月17日
  • Estimated read time 15 min read
  • 0 comments

The 2026 World Cup has certainly been a rollercoaster of a tournament. It’s marked by controversy, moments that feel almost dystopian, and suspicions of foul play. Yet, it has undeniably captured our attention.

As I conclude my coverage of the 2026 World Cup (though I plan to explore the significant rise of sports gambling in the US), I know some of you who aren’t football fans can finally take a breath.

On Wednesday night (European time), Argentina showcased a blend of the most exquisite and the more unsavory elements of their unique brand of football. This included, of course, quite a bit of “shithousery,” a term from British slang that represents the strategic use of cunning tactics and gamesmanship to outsmart opponents and gain an unfair edge.

Meanwhile, England demonstrated their characteristic performance on such grand occasions (even under the guidance of a German coach): they choked. If the word “England” began with a consonant instead of a vowel, we could almost fashion a football equivalent to TACO.

After taking an early lead in the second half, England opted to engage in relentless defense for the next 30 minutes against one of the world’s deadliest attacking sides. Both the coach and the players essentially handed Messi—widely regarded as the greatest footballer of all time—and his squad, notorious for late-game heroics, the freedom to bombard their goal repeatedly.

Football analyst Adam Cleary points out that England’s loss stemmed from “some of the most damaging late-game substitutions I’ve ever witnessed at this level.” Messi offers a different perspective, attributing the defeat to mentality. After their goal, England had only 12% of possession while Argentina dominated with 88%. This statistic marks the lowest possession rate for a winning team for over 60 years in World Cup history.

The entire situation brings to mind timeless lyrics from Pink Floyd’s “Time”:

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way,

The time is gone, the song is over, thought I’d something more to say,

Home, Home again…

This narrative resonates with the long-suffering fans of England.

In summary, England, especially its German manager, can only hold themselves accountable for the outcome. Nonetheless, the referees did seem to favor Argentina throughout the tournament—a pattern that has emerged time and again.

Anything Goes…

In the match’s third minute, Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernández set a rather grim tone by applying a closed fist to the back of Elliot Anderson’s neck, an act that surprisingly didn’t even merit a yellow card, let alone a red.

Critics have noted that strikes to the back of the head, referred to as rabbit punches, are prohibited in boxing, MMA, and across combat sports due to the high risk of severe injuries. Yet, during this match, such a foul went completely unaddressed. Shortly after, Fernández also halted an England counterattack with a foul on the edge of the penalty area, again without punishment. Ironically, he would go on to score Argentina’s equalizer.

This pattern has been evident throughout this World Cup. Argentina has committed the most fouls—primarily in midfield—which disrupt the rhythm of their opponents’ play yet has not received a single red card. Strikingly, the team has not conceded any penalties and has also had the highest number of opponents’ goals disallowed.

In addition, Argentina benefited from the second-highest number of favorable VAR decisions in the Round of 16, just behind co-host Mexico, and stands among only 10 countries that haven’t faced unfavorable VAR interventions while reaching the final.

While the interpretation of football rules often contains subjective elements, the absence of VAR checks for Argentina’s fouls raises questions about fairness. As noted by Yahoo Sports, “of all the teams that reached the quarterfinals, only Argentina didn’t have a single foul reviewed by VAR, while enjoying the highest number of favorable reviews for their fouls by a considerable margin.”

In Argentina’s first game against Algeria, Messi stepped on an opponent’s Achilles tendon with his studs showing — a foul that usually warrants a straight red card. Yet, in this instance, no card was issued nor was VAR invoked. Many observers have suggested that FIFA wouldn’t risk banning the tournament’s biggest star, as such a move would have dreary marketing implications.

One of the most contentious moments occurred during the round-of-16 match against Egypt when VAR officials disallowed a stunning second goal from Egypt due to a soft foul committed far from the action.

According to a report from the NY Times’ Athletic:

The Athletic’s refereeing expert, former Premier League official Graham Scott, later stated: “The decision to disallow Egypt’s goal is incorrect. (Marwan) Attia’s challenge on Lisandro Martinez during the build-up to Ziko’s 67th-minute goal was normal contact and should not have been regarded as a foul.”

“It was nearly 100 yards from goal, and Argentina had every opportunity to regroup and defend. It’s no surprise that Egypt felt aggrieved after the VAR review disallowed their goal. If we assess the incident, there was slight contact—foot-on-foot and a brief hold of the shirt—but no offense worthy of intervention by VAR.”

What makes the disallowance against Egypt even more frustrating is that a similar incident occurred during the group stage match between Argentina and Denmark. Argentine midfielder Alexis Mac Allister committed a more straightforward foul leading up to Argentina’s first goal, yet no VAR check followed despite Danish protests.

Many viewers questioned why an MLS referee was assigned to this match, especially when Messi, the league’s star player, was in action, as observed by British-American MLS commentator Roger Bennett.

Numerous supporters suspect that uneven enforcement of rules and VAR checks played a critical role in Argentina reaching yet another World Cup final. Given FIFA’s controversial history and their willingness to bend regulations—such as facilitating US player Folarin Balogun in evading a suspension as directed by Donald Trump—these speculations are easily comprehensible.

It’s also essential to note that the Argentine Football Association is reportedly under Federal Bureau of Investigation scrutiny for alleged fraud and money laundering in the United States.

In the era of VAR, the inconsistent application of rules, particularly concerning yellow and red cards, can tip games in a team’s favor. Naturally, these privileges manifest effectively only in a tournament as demanding as the World Cup if the team involved is both highly skilled and competitive, which Argentina undoubtedly is.

One undeniable fact: while this tournament has been riddled with contentious refereeing and VAR incidents, Argentina has been at the center of more controversies than any other team. In the New York Times‘ list of the ten most significant controversies thus far, two are linked to Argentina, now nicknamed “Vargentina” by many.

Even US audiences are beginning to sense that the scales of justice may be tipped in favor of Argentina and its superstar from MLS.

The manner in which Argentina celebrated their victory against England was also a focal point. Immediately following the match, the Argentine team displayed a banner featuring the provocative slogan, “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” (The Falklands are Argentine).

In doing so, Argentina violated a fundamental rule banning “banners, flags, flyers, apparel and other paraphernalia of a political, offensive, or discriminatory nature” from the stadium. This act has sparked outrage in the UK, with officials calling for an investigation by FIFA and the potential sanctioning of the involved players.

The topic of Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas remains a sensitive issue for many citizens. A 2021 survey indicated that over 80% of Argentines support the nation’s claims. Many cling to a non-binding 1965 UN resolution that recognized the sovereignty dispute and encouraged negotiations between Argentina and the UK.

Recollecting my own experience crossing from Bolivia to Argentina two decades ago, I recall seeing a massive billboard declaring: “Las Malvinas son Argentinas.” It was one of many I encountered during my travels.

The Argentine constitution from 1994 also includes a segment asserting the nation’s sovereignty claims over the Malvinas, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands, emphasizing their integral role in Argentine territory. The document states that recovery of these lands and their “full exercise of sovereignty” is a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people.

Notably, Argentina’s President Javier Milei appears indifferent to these sentiments. In response to the fallout from the banner incident, he admonished the players.

“We must refrain from resorting to outdated nationalist slogans,” Milei stated. “I understand it’s challenging, but the Malvinas will be reclaimed through wise diplomacy, not through cheap nationalistic gestures.”

The Market’s Open

Although Milei’s statements about the Malvinas attract attention, it is his government’s actions during Argentina’s latest World Cup craze that deserve the spotlight. Just a day after the England match, the Argentine senate began debating Milei’s proposed bill on the “inviolability of private property.” This bill aims to repeal a 2011 law regulating the acquisition and ownership of Argentine land by foreigners.

This matter was previously addressed in our article, “‘Se Vende Todo’: Javier Milei Seeks to Allow UNLIMITED Sale of Argentine Land to Foreign Investors.”

In the 2000s, as the flow of foreign purchases of Argentine land surged, the Congress—dominated by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner—passed Law 26,737 in 2011. This law set a 15% cap on the amount of land foreign individuals or companies could acquire in any province. It also determined that no single foreign nationality could surpass 30% of this 15%, and that one foreign owner could not hold more than 1,000 hectares in any core area.

The Milei administration now seeks to erase all those restrictions, counting on the backing of governors from Argentina’s 23 provinces to push the bill through. Indeed, they aim to permit the unlimited sale of Argentine land to foreign investors. According to El Diario (translated):

“The Land Law is to regional economies what the Glacier Law is to mining,” stated Sturzenegger at a conference organized by the Argentine Rural Confederations, assuring that, should the limits on foreign ownership be lifted, over $15 billion in new capital would flow in. The Minister of Deregulation argued that removing ownership restrictions would unlock investments across multiple productive sectors in the country.

This isn’t the first occasion the government has attempted to challenge the Rural Land Law. Shortly following his inauguration, Milei issued a “Mega-Decree” proposing to eliminate Law 26,737. However, the Justice Department intervened, accepting an injunction from the Malvinas Islands La Plata Center for ex-combatants warning that abolishing the law “…poses a direct threat to the principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty.”

A study from the Earth Observatory, based on a freedom of information request, reveals that, as of 2025, 13.2 million rural hectares were held by foreigners, equating to around 5% of Argentina’s territory. The Milei administration clearly aims to increase this percentage by lifting foreign ownership restrictions.

Foreign land ownership is heavily concentrated in select regions of Argentina, points out Indymedia: the Patagonian mountain range, rich in energy and minerals, the western and northern borders, and the Littoral:

If approved, the bill will enable the handover of vital areas to foreign entities: Patagonian freshwater lakes, native forests, mineral-rich mountain ranges, districts along significant rivers or situated on aquifers that service millions of people, and sensitive border territories that could facilitate smuggling and drug trafficking. They are targeting water, mineral resources, and borders…

U.S. citizens lead the foreign land ownership in Argentina, possessing over 2.7 million hectares—accounting for 20% of the total foreign landholdings, followed by Italians and Spaniards. Together, these three nationalities possess half of the total foreign land.

Florencia Gómez, director of the Rural Land Registry until 2015, urges particular vigilance regarding proposals to repeal Article 10 of the current law, which prohibits foreigners from acquiring land near large and permanent water bodies.

“This law is part of a broader strategy together with the glacier law, super RIGI, lobby law, and corporation law. They aim to facilitate access to water bodies, rivers, and lakes for VIP tourism projects, energy production, or for large data centers like those of Peter Thiel,” she warned in an interview with El Destape.

Thiel, a prominent advocate for the privatization of sovereign land to create charter cities such as Prospera Inc in Honduras, recently moved to Buenos Aires, reportedly advising the Milei government on new policy.

Thiel views Argentina as a “laboratory” and “economic refuge” for his ventures. Forbes notes that Milei is actively seeking to attract wealthy figures to what one former official termed a “new land of freedom” for billionaires through the repeal of ownership restrictions and the launch of a citizenship-by-investment scheme.

In light of the summer months’ devastating forest fires in Patagonia, speculation has risen regarding the government’s agreement to permit the construction of Israeli settlements on the scorched land. While no solid evidence supports these claims yet, circumstantial evidence abounds.

As Argentina gears up to face Spain in the World Cup final, the administration is determined to eliminate almost all restrictions on foreign land ownership—especially jarring considering the ongoing protests by footballers and fans against the UK’s rule over the Falkland Islands. The government seems to be auctioning prime Argentine land to the highest bidder. Moreover, experiences like Honduras’ Prospera case have shown that once sovereign land is ceded to foreign entities under international treaties, reclaiming that land is nearly impossible.

Regardless of the outcome come Sunday, two realities stand out: firstly, this edition of the World Cup has already been heavily marred by controversies, as presaged at the tournament’s inception. Secondly, the impending final presents a captivating matchup. Spain remains unbeaten in normal and extra time for 37 games, while Argentina hasn’t faced defeat in a knockout tournament match since 2019. This World Cup final is also one of the most geopolitically charged encounters in decades.

On one front, Spain, among the few European countries opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza and the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, seems to enjoy Iran’s support while enduring repeated condemnation from Trump. Conversely, Argentina enjoys backing from Israel and likely Trump, both of whom need Milei to retain power despite dwindling public support.

In a recent interview, when asked about his support for Argentina, Netanyahu emphasized that it was more about Milei than Messi, saying, “Milei is a Chabadnik—he is also an incredible star. He has implemented outstanding economic reforms through free-market principles.” Most importantly, Netanyahu stated, “Milei is a great friend of Israel.”

From our previous analysis on this topic:

  1. Milei has effectively subordinated Argentina’s foreign policy to US and Israeli interests, even proclaiming himself the “most Zionist president on the planet.” His willingness to cede any national territory for the Zionist cause would come as no surprise.
  2. Milei has signed agreements with Netanyahu that grant Israeli nationals residing in Argentina full access to government benefits—including pensions, maternity leave, and disability allowances—while simultaneously slashing public spending and welfare for Argentine citizens.
  3. Credible reports indicate Israelis have been caught igniting wildfires on Patagonia’s trails. In one instance in 2011, an Israeli man was found responsible for a fire that consumed 17,000 acres of Chilean Patagonia.
  4. Before the fires raged this past summer, the Milei government reduced the budgets for firefighting by over 80 percent.
  5. The Milei administration has also unveiled plans to lift land-use restrictions, which currently prevent real estate development and intensive agricultural activities on recently burned land for up to 60 years.
  6. Historically, Patagonia was among the top potential locations for a Jewish state. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, described Argentina as a vast area with a sparse population and a temperate climate in the late 19th century.
  7. This isn’t the first instance of Argentina, and the broader Southern Cone, serving as refuge for international war criminals with fascist inclinations.

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

The Capital Spectator: Investing, Asset Allocation, and Economic Insights

US Intensifies Attack on Brazil’s Free Digital Payments for Citizens and Small Businesses

Iran Conflict: U.S. Struggles to Sustain War; Ansar Allah Closes Bab el-Mandeb; Nuclear Threat at Pickaxe Mountain

Copyright © 2026
 - Powered by Magty.