FIFA reacts following allegations that the World is favouring Argentina

Argentina achieved a dramatic collapse in Atlanta, winning 3-2 as it was at 2-0 disadvantage. Cristian Romero's goals, Lionel Messes and Enzo Fernandez sent Lionel Scalon's team to the quarterfinals, but the match was accompanied by serious controversy.

Egypt's Stoli reacted harshly to certain arbitrator decisions, which they claimed directly influenced the final outcome.

The Egyptian Football Federation issued a harsh statement calling for the removal of the main judge and all arbitrator team from the rest of the World. According to them, match officials had made the <x0 gross errors” and had refused to review certain crucial views.

One of the most controversial moments was the cancelled goal of Mostafa Zikos. The net was canceled after the VAR intervention, which identified a foul to Lisandro Martinez at the start of the action.

Egypt also claimed penalty in the extra minutes, arguing that Mohammed Salah was fascistd by Julian Alvarez in the area, just before the goal of victory scored by Enzo Fernandez in the 93rd minute.

These episodes sparked numerous accusations on social networks and the media, where some fans and analysts raised claims that the tournament is favouring Argentina to lead it to its fourth world title.

Following these reactions, FIFA Chief of arbitration Pierre Colline came out with a public statement, dismissing the charges as groundless.

The constructive definitions of decisions are always part of football, but baseless accusations have no place in our sport. No one can question the integrity of World Cup match officials. When that happens, it may provoke reactions that lead to threats against them and their families. That's not fair”, Collin said.

He stressed that the arbitration sector at FIFA works independently and is not influenced by anyone, not even by FIFA President Gianni Infantino.

No one can claim that FIFA arbitration can be influenced by someone. match officials make fair decisions and, like players and trainers, always try to do their best”, he added.

Collin also stopped at the two main incidents that angered Egypt.

According to him, after every goal, FAR controls the offensive phase leading to the net. If a goal-changing foul is identified, then THE VAR can recommend the review judge on the monitor.

He explained that in the case of Egypt's cancelled goal, Marwan Attia clearly stepped on Lisadro Martinez's leg, which according to FIFA constituted foul.

A foul is a foul. It doesn't matter whether it seems clear or not; whether the judge has not seen it in the field, FAR can intervene”, Collin said.

As far as penalty claim against Mohammed Salah, Colline explained that the referee and VAR considered contact with Julian Alvarez as normal football contact.

According to him, on that occasion the defender first touched the ball and then had regular contact with the opponent, which does not constitute foul.

“Of course, there will always be a subjective element in some decisions, but we are pleased with the way this principle was applied throughout the” tour, Collin concluded.

Argentina will now face Switzerland in the quarterfinals on Sunday, while the winner of this match will play in the semifinals against couple England's winner Norway on 15 July.

Pollemics, however, do not seem to be easily extinguished. FIFA has publicly defended arbitration, but Egypt's anger and charges of favouring Argentina have opened a major debate on VAR, transparency and belief in World decisions. /Periscopi/