Wait, replaying the game in my head. Should the Argentine not have been carded in the Third minute for an elbow to the back of the head? I thought in the moment that was a clear red.
British PM (for the moment) Keir Starmer has demanded that FIFA sanction and heavily fine the Argentine FA and the individual players who displayed this sign: If they had taken my suggestion, it would actually be true today, but as it is, signs notwithstanding, the Falklands remain British.
From Kicker: A quote from one German-English commentator. ...and this may be why Bellingham got angry.
No excuse for Bellingham’s behavior, but the background is that the player Jude love tapped was going around all the England players talking smack. The rest of the Argentinians were having a group hug team moment, but he was absent and stirring the pot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/white-house-defends-argentina-team-221259810.html The White House has defended the banner Argentina players help up because "free speech" exists in the USA. They seem to have a weird understanding of free speech. I, for one, remember V-Army being threatened with all sorts of sanctions over the Nee protests from 2003-2005. We sure didn't have "free speech" when we displayed a giant "FIRE GREG" banner in front of the press box or dropped pink slips onto the player tunnel three different times. Today's capos don't have the freedom to swear into the megaphones. (The benefits of being a smaller group back in 2000!) Again, when there's rules that people agree in order to voluntarily join an organization and/or enter a building/property... free speech only applies to government penalizing anti-government speech. Is it really so hard of a concept to understand? You'd think employees of the federal government would understand the basic tenants of the Constitution.
https://abcnews.com/Sports/wireStory/slovenian-slavko-vini-referee-world-cup-final-fifa-134842037 A Slovenian ref will be in charge of the World Cup Final. You'd think they'd want a neutral confederation, right?
True, but when they agree to represent FIFA, there's terms and conditions which may or may not be exempt from penalty. Should they be exempt, then (IMO), it's a potential slippery slope.
Donald Trump doesn't represent FIFA. He represents (unfortunately) a country. And that country has freedom of speech, even if it's unpopular. (For now, anyway.) So as the President, if he's defending their right to free speech -- and curse you for making me type this -- he's correct. He's defending free speech in the realm he's responsible for. FIFA, on the other hand, is responsible for setting rules in terms of what's responsible and acceptable at events they are in charge of. If they decide that this was out of line (or if they DON'T), they're also correct, because they're making rulings in the realm that THEY'RE in charge of.
As someone else said, what would the reaction be if Spanish players held up a "Free Palestine" banner?
I don't know, and I don't care. It's FIFA's event, and they have their policy, but I'm not even going to pretend I know enough about it or the historical precedents involved to make judgements on specific messages.
Trump struggles to stay out of any pr opportunity. His comments are more to draw attention to himself and away from other more serious issues than the topic at hand. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cjej3y1jgdpo
And playing a match for 3rd place in the World Cup is ridiculous. Both teams have checked out and I don’t blame them. Although I think England should let Mbappe score a few more goals to take the Golden Boot from Messi.
I read somewhere that this is kind of like having the losers of the AFC and NFC Championship Games play each other the night before the Super Bowl.
If the NFL did it, people would (probably) spend the money on the tickets. What would be worse? Implementing the idea or people choosing to spend the money to see their team win a bronze? As hockey says, and I'm sure you're aware of the saying, "it's better to win the bronze than to lose the gold".
I've actually NEVER heard that saying. And I don't agree with it. I'm a math guy, and I understand that 2nd > 3rd. Although I get the sentiment -- a bronze medalist leaves town having won their last game instead of losing it. As for the NFL 3rd place game idea... fans do seem to buy a lot of tickets for teams that are awful or have been eliminated from playoff contention all the time. So if it was a home game for one of the teams instead of neutral site, I could see a fair number of tickets being sold. I personally wouldn't. I mean, if the Chiefs lost the AFC title game, do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Mahomes sees the field the next week?
Mbappe brace!! He's got the all-time World Cup goals lead, and he's in charge for the Golden Boot. This has been bizarre. The clearest example of a Game of Two Halves I've ever seen.
I'm astonished that I'm saying this about a team that was up 4-0, but I can't believe England isn't losing.