Football is often described as the most democratic sport in the world. Eleven versus eleven, ninety minutes, one ball. In theory, a small or emerging football nation can defeat a major football power, which is precisely why the World Cup captures the imagination of billions, because it gives people hope that history, money and reputation can all fall to performance on the field.
However, football is no longer just a game, but has become a legal system, a commercial industry, a media product, and a global political economy. FIFA not only organizes the matches, but also sets the rules, the tournament system, the classification mechanism, the disciplinary framework, the commercial and financial distribution mechanisms, and the conditions under which countries compete. These rules appear neutral on the surface, but in practical application they may give a continued advantage to those who have historical, financial, and media power.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
The match between Egypt and Argentina highlights an example of this problem. This is not related to the allegation of corruption or direct manipulation of the result, as such an accusation can only be proven with conclusive evidence, but rather by the deeper question: Does the legal and regulatory system of FIFA create an environment that makes emerging teams required not only to surpass their competitors on the field, but also to surpass the weight of the global football system itself?
Egypt was close to achieving one of the biggest surprises of the World Cup after leading 2-0, before losing 3-2 to Argentina. According to Reuters, coach Hossam Hassan criticized the arbitration decisions, pointing out that a goal was canceled after reviewing the video technology, and that a penalty kick was not awarded to Egypt before the decisive Argentine goal in the ninety-second minute. He also pointed out that most of the Egyptian national team players are active in the local league, while many competing national team players gain their experience in the major European leagues.
Here the idea of the political economy of football becomes clear. Argentina is not just a national team, but rather a global football brand with great media, commercial and historical value, while Egypt represents a model of a rising team that possesses talent and ambition, but moves within a system that was formulated, to a large extent, to serve the major football powers.
Therefore, the real legal question is not whether FIFA directs referees in the interest of the major teams – this is a claim that should not be made without evidence – but rather whether its rules and organizational and economic structure produce unequal effects that indirectly reproduce sporting dominance.
First: the legal and economic structure of FIFA
The draw procedures for the 2026 World Cup stipulate that the three host countries – Canada, Mexico and the United States of America – will be automatically placed in the first tier, while the remaining teams will be distributed according to the FIFA/Coca-Cola classification issued on 19 November 2025.
FIFA also ensures, through the lottery system, that the highest-ranked teams are distributed on different paths in the elimination rounds, thus postponing their direct confrontations to the advanced stages. This is justified by the pursuit of competitive balance, but the practical result gives the major teams a more stable and predictable path, which at the same time achieves intertwined sporting, commercial and media interests.
This problem increases with the new system, which includes 48 teams, as the first and second places from each group qualify, in addition to the eight best third-place teams. An academic study has indicated that this system produces hundreds of different possibilities for knockout paths, creating disparity between group leaders and increasing the complexity of the competition.
While the major teams, with their institutional expertise, analytical bodies, and legal experts, can manage this complexity, it represents an additional burden on the emerging teams, which not only face stronger opponents, but also face a more complex organizational and legal system.
Second: Arbitral justice between video technology and discretionary authority
The gap is not limited to the organizational structure of the tournament, but extends to the financial aspects as well. The FIFA Council announced an increase in the value of the financial distribution to the teams participating in the 2026 World Cup by 15% to reach 871 million US dollars, including preparation allocations, qualification bonuses, and additional contributions to national federations. Although this increase appears positive in principle, its practical effects tend to perpetuate disparities. Teams that continue to advance in the tournament receive greater financial returns, a wider media presence, and more sponsorship opportunities, which enhances their ability to maintain their superiority.
The same problem applies to video technology, which was presented as a means of enhancing justice, but at the same time created a new space for discretionary power. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) protocol limits the intervention of the video referee to cases of “clear and apparent error” or “unobserved serious incident” in specific decisions, such as awarding goals, penalty kicks, direct expulsions, and mistaken identification of the player, with the final decision remaining in the hands of the arena referee.
The protocol also stipulates that the match, in principle, is not invalidated due to video technology malfunctions, errors related to its use, or failure to review a specific incident. This has an important legal consequence, as the possibility of challenging the sporting impact of the decision remains very limited, even when one of the teams believes that a refereeing error was decisive in the outcome of the match. Thus, the system protects the finality of the decision more than it allows it to be reconsidered, which ensures the stability of the tournament, but at the same time raises questions about the limits of sporting justice.
Third: The absence of urgent sports judiciary
The match between Egypt and Argentina reveals another gap in the football legal system, which is the absence of an effective mechanism for urgent grievance when there are strong suspicions that an arbitration or organizational error directly affected the outcome of the match. The problem is not the possibility of the error occurring, but rather the limited legal means available to address its effects before the tournament continues and the damage becomes irreparable.
According to the FIFA Disciplinary Code, a protest may be submitted within twenty-four hours, but its acceptance remains limited to specific cases, such as the participation of an ineligible player, the unsuitability of the pitch, or a clear error by the referee. In this last case, the effect of the protest is limited to the disciplinary aspects, without necessarily extending to the sporting result of the match.
This problem becomes more complex when combining the disciplinary code and the video technology protocol. If the match is not, in principle, voided due to an error in the use of technology or failure to review a particular incident, then the affected team finds itself facing damage that may be decisive, in exchange for limited legal remedies.
Although the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) established an urgent division for the 2026 World Cup, and authorized provisional measures in urgent cases, with the decision being issued within forty-eight hours, its jurisdiction remains linked to decisions that are subject to appeal and after exhausting FIFA’s internal procedures, while most arbitration decisions related to the facts of play remain immune from direct judicial review.
Hence, the need arises to develop the legal framework for FIFA by establishing an exceptional system for urgent grievances in qualifying matches or matches with a decisive impact, provided that this door is only opened in specific cases, in which there is strong evidence of a serious error that had a direct impact on the result, with the request being submitted within a short period of time, and the presence of a real possibility of sporting damage that cannot be remedied if the tournament continues without reviewing the decision.
Fourth: Towards a more just system
This system could include the establishment of an urgent sports review room within FIFA, or in coordination with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which will consider urgent requests within twelve or twenty-four hours. Its powers are limited to exceptional cases in which it is proven, with strong technical and visual evidence, that a serious error has occurred that directly affected the outcome of the match. These powers may include issuing a binding interpretation of the arbitration decision, requesting the publication of technical recordings of video technology, stopping some disciplinary effects, or recommending, in extreme cases, replaying the match or canceling its result if it is proven that what happened was not just an error in judgment, but rather a clear violation of the rules that affected the result.
This proposal is reinforced by what is stated in the Disciplinary Code itself, as it permits, among the measures that can be taken against legal persons, the cancellation or replay of the match result, which indicates that the principle exists within the FIFA legal system, but it requires clearer and fairer regulation with regard to serious arbitration errors.
This call does not aim to weaken the referee’s authority or turn football into a series of judicial disputes, but rather aims to achieve a balance between the finality of the arbitration decision and ensuring justice. The stability of competition remains an important value, but it should not turn into absolute immunity that prevents the review of errors that may result in serious sporting, financial and historical losses.
From this standpoint, the match between Egypt and Argentina should be read as an example highlighting the need to develop football law. When a losing team presents serious evidence that the result may have been affected by a significant error, the legal question should not be limited to the end of the match, but rather should extend to verifying the existence of an independent, rapid and fair mechanism to review that error.
If FIFA is unable to provide such a mechanism, it will not only face an arbitration crisis, but also a challenge related to the legitimacy of its legal system. The role of sports law is not limited to managing the tournament, but rather extends to ensuring equal opportunities and enabling all teams to compete under rules that achieve justice as much as they achieve stability.
FIFA confirms that protecting the integrity of football is one of its primary goals, and that it adopts policies to combat manipulation and illegal influence on the results of matches. However, the concept of integrity should not be limited to combating bribery or direct manipulation, but should also include structural justice, that is, ensuring that the rules themselves do not, by virtue of their practical effects, lead to the reproduction of a permanent advantage for the stronger teams.
Conclusion
From this perspective, the match between Egypt and Argentina goes beyond its numerical result, to raise a broader question related to the future of world football: Can the emerging teams compete under equal conditions, or are they required, at the same time, to overcome the strength of the opponent, the complexities of classification, the course of the tournament, the limits of video technology, and the economic and media considerations that surround the game?
Football does not need a conspiracy in order for the competition to become unequal. Rules may be neutral in their text, but in application they produce unequal effects.
Therefore, the real challenge facing FIFA is not limited to expanding the World Cup, but rather is developing its legal system in a way that enhances transparency in video technology decisions, provides more effective mechanisms for reviewing serious errors, reconsiders some aspects of the classification and lottery system, and gives emerging teams more equal opportunities within the tournament.
The ultimate goal remains to preserve the World Cup as a tournament based on fair sporting competition, not on historical or economic superiority, so that the ability of emerging teams to change history continues to stem from their performance on the field, not from their ability to overcome the imbalances of the system within which the competition is organized.
