The 2026 World Cup comes under the microscope

A month and a day of 2026 World Cup action, spread across 100 matches, leaves plenty to talk about.

Saying goodbye at the World Cup is never easy. No other competition can do what the this one does: captivate an entire nation and make every moment on the field matter. It happens with title favorites and newcomers alike. Until this edition, and particularly since the introduction of VAR, officiating and technology had largely helped keep the focus on the players. But at this 2026 World Cup, refereeing has become a central talking point, drawing criticism from nearly every corner. Whether he intended to or not, Donald Trump has played an active role in this discussion by throwing the spotlight on FIFA’s system. Since the arrival of the U.S. president on the scene, everything seems to carry a second layer of meaning - that is simply the reality.

Head of refereeing Pierluigi Collina has consistently defended his officials, including their performances in Saturday evening’s two quarterfinals. One defense came via social media regarding England vs Norway; the other concerned Argentina vs Switzerland, where he praised what he described as the correct use of VAR on the play that led to Breel Embolo’s red card. The Swiss, however, complained about what they viewed as repeated simulations by Argentine players that went unpunished, while Embolo’s action was penalized.

Support for refereeing decisions from within FIFA remains virtually unwavering, as demonstrated by the second assignment handed to American referee Ismail Elfath. He came under heavy scrutiny for the physical approach he allowed Uruguay to take against Spain, yet was later selected to officiate Brazil vs Norway. Referee appointments themselves have also raised eyebrows. Some struggled to understand why a French referee was assigned to an Argentina match, while an Argentine official was placed in charge of a France game.

Whenever FIFA is officially asked about refereeing controversies, the standard response points to the frustration of defeat. Still, it is striking how many contentious situations have surfaced during this World Cup, particularly now that every match is win-or-go-home. During the group stage - and especially on the opening two matchdays - controversy was largely absent, perhaps with the exception of a Brazil goal against Scotland that was disallowed because of an alleged foul by Vinícius Júnior, one seen only by the referee. Everything has intensified over the past two weeks. Earlier incidents also included a possible yellow card for Lionel Messi that was never shown, along with two seemingly clear penalties that were not awarded: one for Ghana against England and another for Senegal against Norway.

In many cases, when controversy takes center stage, emotions inevitably follow. That dynamic was evident after Iran had a stoppage-time goal against Egypt ruled out, a decision that ultimately eliminated them from the tournament. It marked the beginning of a broader debate, though the ruling was ultimately shown to be correct despite the razor-thin offside margin. Before that came the application of the so-called “Vinícius Rule”, when Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón was sent off for covering his mouth while speaking. The same happened to Ecuador’s Piero Hincapié, though not to other players who had done likewise. FIFA later clarified that those incidents did not occur during confrontations that could reasonably have suggested insulting language was involved.

The most intense debate has emerged around the use of technology itself. A supposedly slight touch of the ball by Igor Matanović - picked up by the technology - prevented Croatia from forcing extra time against Portugal. The Croatian forward denied making contact, visual evidence left room for doubt, but the sensor delivered the final verdict.

Also in the round of 32, VAR disallowed a German goal because of an alleged obstruction on the Paraguayan goalkeeper, applying a new interpretation designed to offer greater protection to goalkeepers. Had the goal stood, Germany would have advanced, as the play occurred in the closing moments of extra time.

That same round produced the mother of all controversies. FIFA - or more precisely, its independent disciplinary committee - chose not to sanction Folarin Balogun following a leaked phone call from Trump to Gianni Infantino, a conversation later confirmed by the U.S. president himself. Afterward, and given the seriousness of the situation, everyone had their say. UEFA called for justice. Belgium did the same. FIFA’s president spoke, as did the head of the disciplinary committee. Yet the most damaging consequence was the lingering sense that the foundations of the game had been shaken.

Egypt vs Argentina opened what could be called a structural debate - the suspicion that tournament favorites receive favorable treatment. It is a deeply rooted perception among fans, fueled by gestures from Infantino and other officials that, taken out of context, can easily feed conspiracy theories.

It was the round of 16, and Egypt protested what it viewed as inconsistent standards being applied to two incidents they believed were nearly identical. To many observers, they did indeed look remarkably similar. VAR intervened to have a goal by the Africans overturned, but a comparable sequence leading to a goal by Enzo Fernández was allowed to stand.

England vs Mexico at the Azteca Stadium became one of the most heated refereeing affairs of the tournament, featuring multiple VAR reviews - all ultimately deemed correct. Jarell Quansah was sent off, Mexico was awarded a penalty after review, and there was also a highly unusual restart following Harry Kane’s goal that sparked fury on the Mexican bench.

The match also produced a rare rules-related anecdote. The referee ultimately awarded possession to England during a Mexican kickoff after ruling that Mexico had failed to execute the restart properly.

In the quarterfinal between Spain and Belgium, there were two apparent handball incidents - one in each penalty area. Both were reviewed by VAR, which concluded that neither warranted a penalty. Belgium head coach Rudi Garcia, whose side was eliminated, argued otherwise. Spain boss Luis de la Fuente, whose team advanced, remained silent.

The night of maximum tension was still to come, arriving with the two matches that closed out the quarterfinals. Norway left the United States proud of its tournament run, but bitterly frustrated by the officiating in its match against England. It was surprising to see Clément Turpin, widely regarded as one of the world’s best referees, appear so uncertain, and it is fair to say he received little help from the VAR team. At one point he awarded England a penalty, only to be instructed by the video officials to reverse the decision.

The controversy began with a Norwegian goal being disallowed because of a foul by Erling Haaland on Elliot Anderson after a shove inside the box. On the surface the call appeared clear and obvious, though similar contact has often been ignored in other matches. England’s first goal, scored by Jude Bellingham, also came after allegations that the ball had struck the support structure of the spidercam system before the play continued. The ball sensor indicated that no contact had occurred, but Fox reported that its camera registered movement consistent with an impact. Another detail that drew attention was the composition of the VAR team, which was led by Jérôme Brisard - the same official involved in the controversy surrounding Argentina vs Egypt.

Get closer to the game! Whether you like your soccer of the European variety or that on this side of the pond, our AS USA app has it all. Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more. Plus, stay updated on NFL, NBA and all other big sports stories as well as the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.

And there’s more: check out our TikTok and Instagram reels for bite-sized visual takes on all the biggest soccer news and insights.