Spain’s 2026 World Cup Win Saves The Sport's Blushes

Illustration of Spain World Cup hero, Mikel Merino, lifting the coveted trophy.

A few days have now passed since Spain lifted the World Cup in New Jersey and, with my displeasure at the way the Argentina squad conducted themselves both on and off the pitch beginning to subside, it feels like a good time to look back on the tournament as a whole.

Rather than simply reviewing the football, I wanted to take a step back and examine the wider stories that surrounded the competition, particularly from a Hispanic perspective. As a website focussing on the Spanish-speaking world, this was one of the most fascinating World Cups I can remember. Seven Spanish-speaking nations qualified; Mexico became the first country to host World Cup matches for a third time; and the tournament itself was shaped as much by politics, geography and controversy as it was by the football on the pitch.

That last point, unfortunately, has become something of a theme for modern World Cups. To date, I would argue that the 2026 World Cup has given Qatar 2022 a genuine run for its money as the most controversial tournament in the competition's history.

Qatar quite rightly attracted enormous criticism for the treatment of migrant workers; the reported deaths linked to stadium construction; the anti-LGBT+ legislation; and the decision to move the tournament into the middle of the European football season. Four years later, the controversies in North America were very different, but also significant.

The Multi-Country Hosting Situation

First and foremost, the 2026 edition was the first World Cup to be hosted by three countries simultaneously, and only the second to be staged across more than one nation, following Japan and South Korea in 2002. From a Hispanic point of view, it was pleasing to see Mexico once again play such a prominent role, hosting thirteen matches and reminding the footballing world why it remains one of the sport's great host nations. Many football fans, including myself, questioned why Mexico was not entrusted with hosting the final itself, particularly given its experience of successfully staging the tournament in both 1970 and 1986, and given that it has one of the legendary stadiums in the sport, the Azteca.

The decision to spread the tournament across Canada, the United States and Mexico inevitably created logistical problems. Players often faced long journeys between matches, experienced different climates, had to adjust to multiple time zones and had limited recovery periods. Supporters encountered similar issues. Travelling across North America is very different from following a tournament within a single country, and many fans found themselves paying eye-watering prices for internal flights, hotels and tickets - not to mention more stringent visa requirements. FIFA has often spoken about making football accessible to everyone, yet for many supporters this felt like the least accessible World Cup in living memory.

As I wrote before the 2025–26 season even began, this trend towards sprawling multi-country tournaments shows little sign of slowing down. The 2030 World Cup will officially be hosted by Spain, Portugal and Morocco, but it will also begin with centenary matches in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay to commemorate the inaugural tournament held in Montevideo in 1930.

While those opening fixtures will undoubtedly create memorable occasions across South America, the wider decision remains controversial. By spreading one tournament across Europe, Africa and South America, FIFA effectively resets its continental hosting rotation. In practice, this accelerates the return of the World Cup to both Asia and North America, with Saudi Arabia poised to host in 2034, and then to back to North America in 2038, considerably sooner than expected under the previous rotation. Critics have argued that the centenary matches in Latin America provide a convenient justification for reshaping the hosting cycle for specific countries, while FIFA maintains that they are a celebration of the competition's history. You can draw your own conclusions, but at a minimum, the teams playing in the games in those countries will be at a disadvantage due to travel.

Back to the 2026 World Cup and its controversies

Before a ball had even been kicked, there were already legitimate concerns about whether the United States would fully honour the hosting obligations it had signed up to. One of FIFA's fundamental requirements is that all qualified teams, officials and accredited personnel are able to enter the host country to take part in the tournament. Those concerns first centred on Iran, whose already strained relationship with the United States created uncertainty over whether players and staff would receive visas in sufficient time to prepare properly for the competition.

Those fears only intensified when Omar Abdulkadir Artan, the reigning CAF (African Federation) Referee of the Year and the first Somali official selected to referee at a men's World Cup, was denied entry to the United States despite being appointed by FIFA to officiate at the tournament. FIFA ultimately had to remove him from the list of match officials after US authorities refused him entry, raising uncomfortable questions about whether the host nation had fully met its contractual responsibility to facilitate the participation of accredited participants.

The political irony did not stop there. For an organisation that claims to be politically neutral, prior to the competition, FIFA shamelessly awarded the United States the first ever FIFA Peace Prize, despite the country being actively involved in military action against another qualified nation. Unsurprisingly, Trump's influence over Infantino only appeared to grow as the tournament progressed, and since its completion, he has stated that he would like the FIFA President to be the UN General Secretary.

During the tournament, the US President publicly confirmed, in what many saw as a rather self-congratulatory manner, that he had personally contacted the Infantino over Folarin Balogun's automatic suspension following his straight red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was, in pretty much everyone who watches the sport regularly's opinion, a challenge that fully warranted dismissal (and the subsequent automatic suspension). Given FIFA's repeated insistence that football should remain free from political interference, it was difficult to ignore the intervention of the president of a host nation in an active sporting disciplinary matter especially as it goes against FIFA's own governance principles.

With many in the football community feeling aggrieved by the audacious, and incredulously successful, attempt to postpone Balogun's suspension, many fans took delight in Belgium eliminating the hosts in resounding fashion in the very next game.

With all of that as the backdrop, let's turn back to how each of the Spanish-speaking nations fared.

How each Spanish-speaking team did at the 2026 World Cup:

Mexico Reaffirmed Its Status as One of Football’s Great Hosts

If there was one country that emerged from the tournament with its reputation enhanced, it was Mexico.

Having previously hosted two successful World Cups in 1970 and 1986, there was never much doubt that Mexico would once again embrace the occasion. The success of its matches made it difficult not to wonder whether the country should have hosted the tournament on its own. Personally, I believe it should have.

On the pitch, Mexico also made encouraging progress. As I predicted in my preview of the 2025–26 football season, home advantage proved invaluable and Mexico were buoyed by their own fans.

For decades, Mexican football had become synonymous with one unwanted statistic: reaching the knockouts before inevitably falling at the first hurdle. This time, they finally broke that curse by defeating Ecuador 2–0 in the Round of 32, recording their first World Cup knockout victory since 1986. They were then eliminated 3–2 by England in the Round of 16, which, ironically, given the increase in number of teams at the World Cup, was the same round where they had so often fallen in previous World Cups.

Perhaps one of the nicest stories to emerge from the tournament came after Mexico’s elimination. Football supporters have long enjoyed joking about the intimidating reputation of Mexican fans, and social media was full of tongue-in-cheek comments suggesting England supporters were overly polite after eliminating Mexico because they wanted to leave the country unharmed from the cartels. The reality was rather different, with supporters from both nations praised for the respect they showed each other both during and after the match. Perhaps a lesson one or two other countries could learn from about how to handle victory and defeat.

That goodwill may yet extend beyond the tournament itself. Reports have suggested that the (English) Football Association has invited Mexico to Wembley for a friendly, as a recognition of the warm welcome England received, although no fixture or date has yet been formally confirmed.

Uruguay Had a World Cup to Forget

For a nation that has lifted the World Cup twice and continues to produce outstanding footballers despite its relatively small population, Uruguay endured a remarkably disappointing tournament.

The expanded format meant that eight of the twelve third-placed teams progressed to the knockout stages, making Uruguay’s group-stage elimination all the more embarrassing. They finished third after drawing with Saudi Arabia and World Cup debutants Cape Verde before losing to Spain, becoming one of only four third-placed teams that failed to qualify for the Round of 32.

Given the quality within the squad, many had expected Uruguay to make a deep run into the competition. Instead, they never found any momentum and departed without winning a match. Rumours have since circulated that their football association cancelled their private jet back, leaving players having to fund their own return to Montevideo.

Ecuador Underperformed

Ecuador arrived at the World Cup in the middle of something of a football-academy revolution, with the country producing an increasingly impressive generation of young players (this is something I intend to write about in the future). At this tournament, however, they massively underperformed.

A disappointing 0–0 draw against World Cup debutants Curaçao was followed by defeat to the Ivory Coast, leaving their qualification hopes hanging by a thread. A shock victory over an already-qualified Germany rescued their group campaign, but their tournament ended in the Round of 32 when Mexico beat them 2–0.

Paraguay Had an Eventful World Cup

Paraguay began the tournament with possibly the most embarrassing result a serious footballing nation could suffer: a 4–1 defeat against the United States. Losing heavily to one of the traditional powers of world football is one thing. But being dismantled by the United States, in a sport it still treats as secondary to several others, is quite another.

Paraguay responded by shutting up shop. They abandoned any pretence of playing expansive football, became far more defensive and managed to sneak through a relatively weak group.

That newly found discipline then galvanised support from the wider football community when Paraguay eliminated four-time champions Germany on penalties in the Round of 32. After a 1–1 draw, Paraguay won the penalty shootout 4–3 and suddenly became one of the tournament’s more entertaining underdog stories.

That support was short-lived. In the Round of 16, Paraguay faced France’s free-flowing side and attempted to interrupt it through countless niggly fouls. Kylian Mbappé eventually scored a penalty that gave France a 1–0 victory.

The fallout from the match was extensive and far uglier than anything that had happened on the pitch. Paraguayan senator Celeste Amarilla posted racist abuse directed at Mbappé, the French captain, on social media. She subsequently claimed that her account had been hacked, but her comments were condemned by the French Football Federation, while the Paraguayan authorities distanced themselves from them.

Mbappé later described Amarilla as a “despicable woman” who was unworthy of public office and had embarrassed Paraguay. The situation was an unpleasant end to a campaign that had, only days earlier, earned the country considerable admiration.

Colombia Underestimated Switzerland and Paid the Price

As someone with Colombian heritage, I had hoped Colombia would finally put together the kind of World Cup run their talented squad seemed capable of producing. Instead, they left the tournament with an enormous sense of what might have been.

Switzerland have built a reputation over the past two decades as one of Europe’s most organised and tactically disciplined sides. Any European nation would tell you that underestimating them in a knock-out tournament is something you do at your own peril.

Unfortunately, Colombia appeared to do exactly that.

Colombia squandered numerous chances before eventually crashing out in a very poor penalty shootout. For Colombia, it was a hugely wasted opportunity. Had they progressed, I genuinely believe their style of play could have caused serious problems for Argentina in the quarter-finals. There is no guarantee they would have won, but Colombia possessed the pace, physicality and technical ability to test an Argentina team that was not always comfortable when opponents attacked it directly.

Argentina: the Falklands banner, sporting controversy and an ugly ending

Argentina arrived in North America as defending champions, but by the end of the tournament they had become one of its most divisive teams. During the group draw, conspiracy theories surfaced claiming that FIFA wanted Argentina to reach another final. Similar accusations had circulated before the 2014, 2018 and 2022 World Cups, with supporters pointing to favourable draws and controversial refereeing decisions.

Looking purely at the draw, however, there was not anything inherently suspicious. FIFA deliberately separated the top four seeds into opposite sides of the bracket, meaning that if England, France, Spain and Argentina all won their respective groups, they could not meet until the semi-finals. Although still a relatively uncommon phenomenon in football, the new Champions League format already uses a similar principle for the two highest-ranked teams after the league phase, and it has long been standard practice in sports such as tennis. Moreover, had Brazil and Portugal won their games, Argentina could have faced them instead of supposed "weaker" opponents.

Where I believe legitimate questions arose was on the pitch. Throughout the knockout rounds in particular, Argentina benefited from a series of refereeing decisions that, in my opinion, consistently fell in their favour. Individually, each incident might be explainable. Collectively, they created a pattern that became increasingly difficult to ignore. Egypt had a goal ruled out under circumstances many considered harsh, only for Argentina's winner to stand despite what appeared to be a very similar foul in the build-up.

Switzerland were reduced to ten men after an unprecedented VAR intervention. Many regarded it as excessive, particularly when compared with several robust Argentine challenges that went unpunished. Against England, Enzo Fernández escaped an early dismissal after elbowing Anderson's head, while Argentina accumulated a number of challenges that should comfortably have resulted in yellow cards. This allowed them to dictate the physical tone of the match and interrupt momentum without punishment or jeopardy. Then in the final, Spain had a goal almost inexplicably ruled out before Argentina finally received a red card, despite several earlier challenges that, in my opinion, also merited dismissal.

Supporters will always carry biases, particularly when they feel their own team has been wronged, so with my England hat on, I cede there might be a slight sense of injustice colouring my personal view. Nevertheless, by the latter stages of the tournament, a growing narrative had emerged that Argentina were repeatedly benefiting from lenient officiating. That perception was only reinforced by the players' behaviour whenever decisions went against them. Almost every significant call resulted in players surrounding the referee, while some attempted to influence further sanctions against their opponents. The clearest example came in the final, when Lionel Messi appeared to try to persuade the referee to send off Marc Cucurella in the immediacy after Fernández's dismissal for what appeared to be little more than tapping his lips. A similar incident also happened in the semi-final when Paredes tried to get Kane sent off for cupping his mouth when speaking to the referee. It seemed like something the players were very much briefed to do.

After the final whistle, Argentina's conduct deteriorated further. Several players became involved in confrontations following their defeat, with punches, pushes and kicks directed at Spanish players. FIFA has opened disciplinary proceedings into the post-match incidents, although, at the time of writing, no outcome has been announced. Moreover, during the medal ceremony, several Argentine players also declined to shake the hand of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, while the majority of the squad turned their backs as Spain lifted the World Cup. Those scenes contrasted sharply with Spain's decision to give Argentina a guard of honour as they collected their runners-up medals.

Unfortunately, Argentina's unsportsmanlike behaviour after the final was not an isolated incident. Following their victory over France in the 2022 World Cup final, several Argentina players filmed themselves singing a chant directly aimed at the French team which was widely condemned as racist, homophobic and transphobic. Taken together, these incidents have contributed to a growing perception that one of football's most talented national teams has also become one of its least sporting.

Despite the ugly scenes after the final, Argentina's most politically charged moment came after their semi-final victory over England, when several players unveiled a banner saying "Las Malvinas son argentinas." Few people would object to players remembering relatives who fought or died in a war, and it is entirely understandable that players with family connections to the conflict, such as Enzo Fernández, feel genuine emotion about the subject. However, displaying a political message immediately after a FIFA World Cup semi-final once again crossed the line between football and politics in a competition whose own regulations emphasise political neutrality. If those principles are to be applied consistently, disciplinary action should follow.

I am not going to delve into the Falklands dispute in detail in this blog, as it deserves a detailed post of its own. For the purposes of this World Cup review, it is enough to say that, in my opinion, Argentina's sovereignty claim is tenuous at best, and far weaker than is often presented internationally, but it has developed into a source of national identity for them.

Curiously, linked to a territorial dispute with England, Spain provide an interesting comparison. Following their victory over England in the Euro 2024 final, several Spanish players also found themselves at the centre of controversy by singing about Gibraltar. UEFA investigated the incident and sanctions followed, whether FIFA will do the same for Argentina remains to be seen.

Spain's Second Golden Generation Lift The World Cup

For all the controversy surrounding the tournament, Spain’s achievement should not be overshadowed. Despite France initially blistering through the competition, Spain were ultimately its best team. And most impressively, they followed their Euro 2024 triumph by becoming world champions just two years later. They conceded a record-low one goal throughout the entire tournament and controlled matches effectively.

Their original golden generation won Euro 2008, the 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012. This side play differently, with greater defensive control and less reliance on overwhelming possession, but the results are beginning to look similarly historic. Spain have now won in consecutive major tournaments, while the wider national set-up has enjoyed remarkable success across the men’s, women’s and youth games. The women won the 2023 World Cup, reached the Euro 2025 final and claimed consecutive Nations League titles, while Spain’s younger age groups have continued reaching and winning major finals. This suggests that it may only be the beginning of the country’s second golden generation, and this time in both the men's and women's game.

Spain are also producing some of the most highly regarded managers in world football. Mikel Arteta, Unai Emery, Andoni Iraola and Xabi Alonso are all now managing major Premier League clubs, while Pep Guardiola’s influence on modern football remains difficult to overstate. Outside of England, Luis Enrique has continued that success at Paris Saint-Germain, leading the club to another Champions League title in 2026. Spanish football is therefore not only producing elite players, but an increasingly influential generation of coaches whose ideas are shaping the game across Europe.

Spain’s World Cup triumph culminated in a celebratory parade through Madrid, where the players carried the World Cup through streets packed with an estimated 1.8 million supporters.