You could read all my posts. And the reporting that it has to do with misuse of a diplomatic passport. Did you know Omar Artan's name this morning? The idea that he's the best African referee (at least in FIFA's eyes) is belied by the fact that he only had one AR tied to him and he seemed unlikely to whistle any matches at the tournament anyway. And the fact that he was sent home from AFCON last year apparently due to a poor off-field choice he made. But those facts about the officiating at this tournament seems to be irrelvant to everyone. This is deranged, I'm sorry. I'm in an awkward position where I likely do not disagree in any meaningful sense politically on the relevant topics. But you have to step back, I hope, and look at what you're saying. The President sat around to conspire to ban a referee that 0.001% of followers of our sport heard of before today in order to... what, exactly? I am fighting hard to not succumb to a post-truth society. The idea that a conspiracy with no evidence should be the presumption because it fits a certain narrative is wrong.
Deranged is a bit harsh. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to look at the fact that (1) the President is harshly criticizing Somalis on a near-daily basis and (2) the only referee denied entry for the tournament is Somali and think that the two are likely connected. I’m all about avoiding conspiracy theories, but I also don’t think we have to sanewash what’s right in front of us. If the government had a legitimate reason for denying entry, I think they would have said it publicly (as they did in claiming that the Iranians who were denied were members of a terrorist group). Maybe some legitimate explanation will be forthcoming. But unless and until it does, I don’t think there’s any basis for just assuming that the President’s feelings about Somalis had nothing to do about it
Everyone is going to be located in the same central location. FIFA isn't going to make an exception for that. I mean, look, politics aside for a second, he's one referee who barely made the cut and has a quirky off-field issue already in his file. If he's at all culpable for this, no one is going to be shedding tears outside his immediate circle of friends. At least, no one should be. There are going to be referees who get sent home from this tournament for making the right calls at the wrong time. Or because their home team progresses. This is a business with a high inherent level of unfairness. Artan had an additional hurdle here, perhaps, because of his country of origin. If he was denied his dream completely and solely because of that origin, I'll be the first one to say how wrong and unfair that is. But I want to see some evidence first. And despite what many people want to believe and assert here because of other issues or other knowledge or other facts... circumstanstial evidence thus far (including the fact that FIFA didn't lift a finger) points to there being something else at play.
We're not going to reach consensus here. Maybe "deranged" is a bit harsh, but I think this stems from a worldview where people see exactly what they want to see, exactly how they want to see it. Many countries are on this president's hit list. It's a World Cup. Many players, personnel and fans from many of those countries are attending. The idea that anyone senior in our government even knew there was a Somali referee coming seems like a stretch. The idea that anyone senior in our government is closely paying attention to any of the referees seems like a stretch. These sort of things are handled at ports of entry. I'm reading here that people genuinely think there was a policy from the White House or State Department to deny a Somali referee admission just to stick it to Somalis and I cannot wrap my head around the idea that people think that jives with reality. No one is pointing to any evidence at all that any of this is true. The fact that people take this approach is making me lose a little faith in the jury trial system, to be honest. Even your use of "sanewash" here. You have an opinion and perspective about your government and U.S. immigration policy. And that's perfectly fine. It's laudible. But maybe--just maybe--that's separate from one guy that you likely(?) had never heard of until today who might have shown up at a port of entry with the wrong documents. Also, the Iranian delegation has public statements and explanations because it's a political football with competing claims from both sides. The arguments there are essentially part of an actual geo-political war. This is one guy from Somali who was denied entry; I think the fact that we've gotten anything at all is unusual and responsive to the idea that some media outlets are trying to make hay out of something they have no real information on.
How hands-on or off FIFA is or is supposed to be in the visa process would be actual information and news we could (I hope) use to make a more informed analysis about what happened here. Because my presumption has always been that FIFA holds the hands of referees for all tournaments to make sure they have the proper travel documents. I can't imagine a world where FIFA is just telling all its officiating personnel, "see you in country X in 3 months, good luck." If I'm right and he went rogue to get a diplomatic passport, that might help answer why FIFA cut him loose so easily today. But maybe I'm right and FIFA was failing in the process, which prompted him to go rogue (if, indeed, he went rogue). Or maybe the reporting is bad and he didn't go rogue. There are all sorts of possibilities. And yes, part of the "I think I need to go rogue" could stem from him hitting any sort of brick wall with U.S. authorities, regardless of FIFA help or the lack thereof. But I do think working under the assumption that he was responsible completely for his own documents is erroneous. So I'd be eager to learn what the normal process is.
I think we’re talking past each other. It’s not that the President singled out a random referee. It’s that we’re not currently letting any Somalis into the country (for reasons that nobody disputes are tied to the President’s feelings about Somalis) and they refused to make an exception for a participant in the World Cup.
So really what you meant is "I'm going to presume I'm right even if anything suggests otherwise". SMH
That is different than what you wrote a couple times. I took you literally when you wrote that "he figured he could get away with banning a referee in a way that he couldn’t get away with banning a team." But okay. Still, it's not really talking past each other because I have pointed out that Haiti and Iran are on the same list as Somalia. The idea that staff and personnel from those nations have got in (with the explicit Iranian exception for a component of their delegation) but a single Somalian referee wouldn't... I just cannot get my brain to reach the conclusion that you and others are here. In fact, it's reaching the exact opposite.
A legitimate explanation isn't forthcoming. Its here. In this thread. And you just dismissed it because it didn't fit your pre-conceived notion. I'm noy going to convince you otherwise and that's fine, but please stop pretending you're trying to be even-handed here when its clear you're not. You've made up your mind and actual reporting from a very legitimate source is being ignored. Just admit it.
I really don’t think it’s that’s hard to get there. There’s a massive difference between denying visas to players and denying visas to anyone else. And as you acknowledged, they did deny visas to like 20 Iranian staff members. In any event, I fear we’re losing the forest for the trees. Is there any reason to think allowing this referee into the country for a few weeks would have affected us in any way? And is there any doubt that he would have been admitted under any other administration? As Infantino himself said back in 2017, hosting a World Cup requires lifting country-wide visa bans for the participants. We didn’t do that here, and we should be ashamed of that
What’s the reporting? That he was using a diplomatic passport? The same reporting said he did that because he was having issues getting a visa for his normal passport.
Yes, and if you show up with a diplomatic passport and tell the CBP officer "I'm here to referee at the World Cup" he's going to bounce you back home faster than FIFA taking a new opportunity to squeeze a few more bucks out of the fans. Now I admit up thread that the Somali government might have decided to go the diplomatic passport route because they were running into walls in the State department, but barring any other information that's the general idiocy of this administration and their attempts to use the WC for political points and money. That said there's nothing particularly racist or out of line about the decision made today.
I don’t think the criticism is specifically about what happened today. It’s about the fact that we blocked him from coming into the country. Whether that happened through decisions made weeks ago in the visa process or today is immaterial
This statement is a long way from... And if you had started with your latest statement we would have saved a page of argument.
I mean, let me be clear that cases where the participants fails to get their own paperwork in order are their own fault, not the host country’s. I think that’s a poor comparison to what happened here. It’s been reported that Artan’s diplomat passport was granted in response to difficulties obtaining a regular visa from the US government. This is my reaction to. I mean, it’s hard to avoid getting political about this, but my personal perception has been that the current administration has directed lots of hateful rhetoric specifically against Somali people, far greater than they’ve directed towards almost any other nationality, including the country we’re literally at war with. I think the idea that one of the top referees in Africa is secretly a terrorist, or is justifiably on some terrorist watchlist, is extremely far-fetched compared to the alternative. And I really don’t think it is due any serious consideration without some serious evidence coming out.
To be clear after reading the ensuing discussion to the post I responded to, I don’t think the President specifically took two minutes out of his day to to say “hey don’t let this specific person in.” But it’s also not hard to draw a line from the rhetoric this administration has used against Somali people to a very reasonable hypothesis that the culture inside the State Department is one where a Somali referee would be subject to extreme and unfair scrutiny. Maybe the Haitian national team is able to get through that because they’re players and not a lowly referee. But that is the hypothesis that seems a lot more likely than believing there’s some justifiable reason for Artan to be on some terrorist watchlist or whatever. And I think the IOC really should be asking for answers because, if the state department can’t show that justifiable reason, this sort of treatment really isn’t acceptable for a nation that wants to host the world at the Olympics where everyone should be welcome unless they present a danger to others.
No, it wasn’t reported. It was offered as a hypothetical reason as to why he may have been given a diplomatic passport. I can think of a number of hypothetical reasons too that have nothing to do with politics. And no, it’s not hard to avoid getting political. You simply don’t have to fall into the trap of assuming the worst and being patient and ask what are the facts. Otherwise you just sound like a fan coming in to argue about a bad call or a mom screaming call it both ways.
I can't be "assuming the worst" when the alternate hypothesis is that one of the most promising referees in Africa is some sort of terrorist. I would say that is the worst! I simply think there's a much more likely explanation than that.
I think (besides the race angle, which I disagree strongly) this is basically my overall non-refereeing pov about this situation. @JasonMa seems absolutely correct in his analysis. 'Trump' is the emotional trigger for most people, and it is kind of right because in a hypothetical Democrat presidency I guess Artan would be in Miami right now, but Infantino is just too craven towards the US and seemingly lacking competence overall. It is very sour what has transpired, but people are being extremely injudicious in their own biases and prior assumptions with this case. Truthfully, what happened to Al-Mirdasi before the WC eight years ago (an affair in which @MassachusettsRef, contrary to basically everybody else on a certain other platform, was spot on from the start) and what happened to a Ugandan referee, Charles Masembe, before France '98 are/were much greater injustices - but alas. I do feel like this about the refereeing element of this saga. FIFA are now paying the price for the deliberate ambiguity of the referees' list: 'Somalian fourth official is excluded from the WC due to visa issues' does not have the same ring to it (even if, for me at least, it is still the principle that matters). The practical consequence of Artan's exclusion is more-or-less scant; if Claus did not win promotion from reserve in Abu Dhabi, then the matches in Miami will have a main referee acting as reserve, and everything else will carry on as was. This comes from Artan winning the CAF-awarded 'best referee of the year' award in 2025. It is not the same as being 'Africa's best official'. If you study the selections carefully it was quite clear to me, even before FIFA made the final list, that Artan was no6 in the ratings of the African candidates for the WC. For this reason, I predicted that he would be a main referee at the tournament. However, FIFA decreased the originally indicated slot allocations for Asia (down to 4) and Africa (down to 5). Artan is only 32yo and has lots of time to develop, but the comment here by FIFA should be more than explicit. I have been beating the drum on this topic for a long time: the difference between the popular consideration of this referee (in Africa) and his actual merit on the field is actually quite large. You have to understand the nuance around Artan, and I was convinced that FIFA thought it too, and was ultimately proved right. The reason he is so popular (and 'popular' is a fair term, I think) in African football is because he is a young referee who looks fearless and unfazed when handling matches. You have to remember that this against the background that both corruption, and the perceived prevalence of corruption, is a huge problem in the African continent. So, with the whole Artan thing, FIFA were always on hiding to nothing: had he entered the United States (as he should have been able to!(!!)), he would have been the fourth official for 3-4 games before going home, and while clearly that would not have made the headlines this affair has, the same people who are most outraged about the visa events would obviously have accused FIFA of being anti-Somali, pro-Trump etc for "demoting Africa's best referee to fourth official". Again, I don't want to be overly harsh on a 32yo, but the chance to finish higher in FIFA's informal ratings were actually ample for Artan. There is always a referee from sub-Saharan Africa at the WC (Diramba failed the fitness in '94 but besides that going back all the way to even 1970, you will see this is true), and when Issa Sy evidently managed to work himself out of the preferencial slot, an opening appeared for Artan. However, I don't really think he ever managed to convince fully at the U20 WC and his last AFCON was simply quite bad. I have no idea whether the Mundials thing counted against him that much (the tournament was so badly managed that it isn't clear if he was planned for future assignments or not), but the AFCON game in which he did wear the Adidas footwear is extremely instructive in my mind: Gabon-Iv.Coast. The players in this match, mostly based in Europe and quite established, did not buy into the 'fearless young referee' factor which clearly helps Artan in African club competitions, and basically spent 90min taking the p**s out of him - diving for freekicks to try and wind up opponents, dissenting and undermining the referee, and Artan didn't really know what to do. The game was not a full-on disaster, but it was not well-handled by any means at all. FIFA, who have their many faults in refereeing organisation but chose referees for this World Cup mostly extremely well, correctly decided to select another referee as the flagbearer for sub-Saharan Africa (Atcho from Gabon). It is fair to say that Atcho is far from the best official at the 2026 WC, but I've seen him do well in a number of matches recently, such as an all-Moroccan semifinal in the African Champions League, which I think would have defeated Artan. Following everything closely, that FIFA chose the Gabonese official over the Somalian (contrary to most onlookers' expectations) is very instructive for how FIFA viewed the latter. Artan was selected not even with one, but with no accompanying crew for this WC, and was clearly slated to be a reserve referee. One can wonder whether the mass outrage would be the same if this fact was widely-known (and, it 'should' be, but it obviously wouldn't), as opposed to trying to points score against a WC/politician on whom people were dead set anyway. And, sorry for the long post, but I do actually fundamentally agree with everything that critics are saying (orange man bad, Infantino very bad, this WC organisation bad). But: the facts are, the facts.
The fact that you remember what I said about the Al-Mirdasi situation 8 years ago and I don't is a reminder that you operate on a different level. Or are younger. But probably both!
It might not have been in the article linked above, but the BBC did report this last night: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cnv9drg0qzgo
Foolish from the Somalis. Misusing diplomatic passports. I expect all Somali arrivals on diplomatic passports will be very carefully scrutinised now. An obvious attempt to bypass border controls is bound to lead to rejection. Shame for the ref and he will have been doing what he was told.