World Cup 2026: UK government backs calls for Fifa to investigate Argentina over Falklands banner; Tuchel takes blame amid criticism of tactics – live

From 15m ago

Downing Street backs calls for Fifa to investigate Argentina players over Falklands banner

Downing Street has backed calls for Fifa to investigate whether Argentina players broke rules by waving a banner in support of their country’s claim to the Falkland Islands at the World Cup.

No 10 echoed remarks made earlier by Business Secretary Peter Kyle that the governing body should “thoroughly” probe the behaviour of the defending champions after they beat England 2-1 in Wednesday’s match in Atlanta.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are. Our commitment to the Falklands will never waver.”

The official said any potential action is a “matter for Fifa”, but asked whether the Prime Minister agrees with his Cabinet minister that there should be an investigation, they replied: “I would echo that position.”

Asked whether Downing Street agrees with Kyle’s characterisation of the behaviour as an “egregious violation” of the rules, she added: “Any action taken is a matter for Fifa, I’ll leave it for them. I’d point you to the business secretary’s words this morning.”

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has called for the Argentina players seen holding the banner to be suspended for Sunday’s final against Spain. Article 34.3 of the tournament’s rules prohibits the display of any political messages or slogans by players before, during or after a match.

Argentina were fined by Fifa after holding up a banner with the same slogan after a friendly against Slovenia in 2014.

Share

Key events

24 million people watched England defeat on BBC

England’s World Cup semi-final defeat to Argentina drew a peak audience of 24 million people on the BBC on Wednesday evening.

PA reports it was the highest-rated live television event of the year, with an average audience of 22.1m on BBC1 and the BBC iPlayer, and the biggest live television audience for a live event since 2021, when England lost to Italy in the Euro 2020 final.

The World Cup final will be broadcast live by both the BBC and ITV on Sunday evening. Gabby Logan will front the BBC’s coverage of the final, with Chapman returning to the UK to lead Radio 5 Live’s coverage of the final day of the Open Championship golf.

Share

Downing Street backs calls for Fifa to investigate Argentina players over Falklands banner

Downing Street has backed calls for Fifa to investigate whether Argentina players broke rules by waving a banner in support of their country’s claim to the Falkland Islands at the World Cup.

No 10 echoed remarks made earlier by Business Secretary Peter Kyle that the governing body should “thoroughly” probe the behaviour of the defending champions after they beat England 2-1 in Wednesday’s match in Atlanta.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are. Our commitment to the Falklands will never waver.”

The official said any potential action is a “matter for Fifa”, but asked whether the Prime Minister agrees with his Cabinet minister that there should be an investigation, they replied: “I would echo that position.”

Asked whether Downing Street agrees with Kyle’s characterisation of the behaviour as an “egregious violation” of the rules, she added: “Any action taken is a matter for Fifa, I’ll leave it for them. I’d point you to the business secretary’s words this morning.”

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has called for the Argentina players seen holding the banner to be suspended for Sunday’s final against Spain. Article 34.3 of the tournament’s rules prohibits the display of any political messages or slogans by players before, during or after a match.

Argentina were fined by Fifa after holding up a banner with the same slogan after a friendly against Slovenia in 2014.

Share

Hearts and Scotland goalkeeper Craig Gordon has announced his retirement at the ripe old age of 43. The final appearance of his career came in Scotland’s World Cup warm-up win against Curaçao in May, and his last club game was for Hearts against Celtic in January.

In a post on Instagram Gordon said: “Everyone has dreams. Mine were probably no different to most kids’, to play for my club and my country, Heart of Midlothian and Scotland. Improbable? Perhaps. Impossible? Absolutely not. Hard work, sacrifices, setbacks, step by step dreams become reality, from supporting Hearts to playing for Hearts. I’m not much of a singer, but I’ve improved a little after 84 renditions of the national anthem. The biggest names at the biggest stadiums on the biggest stages. I’ve savoured every moment of it.”

Share

Martin Belam

Hello. I very quickly adapted my to do list today from “Noon-2pm be very smug about it” and instead added “Noon-2pm host continued England post mortem on live blog”. The highlight for me last night in the end was probably the spontaneous booing every time Gianni Infantino was on screen in the place I was watching it, rather than any of the football. I’ve seen that all before.

Share

On the tiredness point, I also wonder if the game-model might’ve taken note of that. England set up to overpower their opponents, despite having games in Mexico City and Miami, after a sapping English league season, and the toll was obvious.

Anyhow, that’s me done for now; here’s Martin Belam to hang with you for the next little bit.

Share

“Benny from Germany here,” says Benny Blaenkner. “My maiden time to feel gutted for an England exit in a major tournament. Isn’t that something? On the Tuchel subs, some German tactics nerds comment they have hardly ever seen a more knackered team in a major game of football after the last hydration break. Making the point it was simply inevitable to throw at least a few fresh players in, sit deep and hope for the best.”

I agree England were tired, but Tuchel had available to him fresh players who’d keep the ball – Mainoo – and offer a threat in behind – Rashford. It just didn’t need to be six defenders on the pitch, serried on the six-yard line.

Share

Share

Also going on:

Share

“I don’t know how much credit to give to Argentina, to be honest,” confesses Felix Wood. “I know that sounds mealy-mouthed, but I don’t feel this was them being mentality monsters. They didn’t need to be. England didn’t just go defensive, they sat in their box. This wasn’t a Ghana-style immaculately coached shutting off of all passing lanes, this was a stand in a line and see if a team can score. Fernandez had had three previous shots not closed down from that sort of range. At some point he was going to beat Pickford. Argentina had done exactly that corner routine twice before. Argentina had been allowed to cross the ball in multiple times from exactly that area and had hit both posts and Pickford had made two really good saves. Against Norway, Tuchel was angry because England weren’t repetitive enough; well. against Argentina they allowed the same two patterns of play over and over and over again. What did they expect?”

I said this yesterday, but I really didn’t like Tuchel’s post-Norway interview. First, the mentality never to give up is not the same as the mentality to play your game under pressure; and second, he blamed the players, seeming not even contemplating the possibility that the principal reason for their under-performance was that he’d platformed them ineffectively in an unbalanced team, which he then made worse with poor changes.

As for Argentina, they seized upon England’s weakness and the deliveries into the box were very good.

Share

When you look at the England squad and seek to identify its best players, all of them – literally all of them – are attackers. So, though it feels like sitting back is the conservative option, actually it’s the risky option because you’re excluding from the game the players you most want involved in it, in order to rely on the weakest aspect of the team. That is a massive gamble, and one taken with no supporting evidence.

Share

Oh man, imagine what a vibe this was.

Share

“We have to give some credit to Argentina,” reckons Chris Holmes. “A lot of the criticism for Tuchel and the England players suggests that it was a conscious decision for them to retreat and hold on after they scored last night. Argentina played a cagey game for the first 50 minutes or so, perhaps not wanting to commit too much until they had to, but the increased urgency after the England goal was what changed the game. England had no answer to the change in pace and the fresh substitutes they brought on. There were several times when Pickford and the defence had the ball but were pressed by a swarm of blue shirts and just couldn’t play out. Their attacks also increased in accuracy. Compare England’s opportunities to cross throughout the game (with the exception of the goal) and they rarely found a white shirt. Once Argentina started moving the ball about with more speed, they found Argentina players in the box on numerous occasions, despite the extra defenders England brought on. I think it’s easy to be critical of England for how they played in the last third of the match but we have to give a lot of credit to Argentina who ultimately changed their approach and England didn’t have the quality to stick with them. No shame in that, they’re the world champions for a reason.”

I agree we have to credit Argentina, who showed the confidence and aggression of a proper football team, but to know it was a conscious decision for England to defend, we need only look at the substitutions. As soon as they were made, the game, which was leaning that in that direction, could only take that direction, and really, it’s the simplicity of the errors that is galling – and again, England aren’t my team, but watching the waste has got me going. If you’re going to defend the box and hope to hold out – a tactic that doesn’t suit England’s players – you still need an out-ball and an attacking threat. If you’ve a couple of players on halfway, the opposition need to respect that, but once you pull everyone back, they’re not going to respect you at, and nor should they.

Share

Share

I wouldn’t mind*, but England’s defence isn’t even any good. I’m not sure there’s any that’s ever existed that I’d fully trust to keep a clean sheet when offering an opponent unrestricted access to their penalty area for half an hour. But Spence-Guéhi-Stones-James isn’t exactly Tassotti-Baresi-Costacurta-Maldini, and once England opted not to contest possession, Argentina no longer had to earn passage upfield – something they’d struggled with not just earlier in that game but in others too – and could commit men forward knowing there was no counter-attacking coming, something that, pre-match, they feared. And worst of all, it meant that they could continually feed Messi, perhaps the greatest lock-picker of all time, allowed to work him on to the ball until he made something happen.

*I absolutely would mind

Share

Thing is, with Southgate I can almost understand it: he spent his career as player and manager with underdogs and led England in that spirit. Tuchel, though, has worked with elite clubs whose culture is to attack yet, as England manager, his conservatism has defined his squad, the question now how on earth his players can ever trust him again.

Share

“Slightly unfair to criticise Gareth Southgate,” writes Andrew Milne, presumably of something said before I took over. “By the end of his tenure, he was making brave substitutions including hooking Harry Kane for Ollie Watkins in the later knockout rounds of the last Euros in Germany.

The England players struggled under pressure reverting to type in falling back. Whilst understandable (albeit still questionable given some of the players’ experience), what was disappointing was that the manager followed suit. He wouldn’t have slung on defenders and permitted his club teams to play that way, so why did he do it with England? It seemed that Tuchel like the side wilted under pressure last night.”

What happened against Argentina wasn’t Southgate’s fault, obviously, but I doubt I was the only one who, when the damage was being done, recalled his reaction to taking the lead against an Italy side there for the taking in the Euro 2020 final.

I did also blame Southgate in significant part for the 2018 semi-final defeat – he ought to have realised Croatia wouldn’t play as badly in the second half, just as England were unlikely to be as dominant as in the first, and he was passive as that happened. Still, I don’t think they could possibly have beaten France in the final so the damage wasn’t dreadful, just as their defeat to France in Qatar in what was, for mine, the highest-level game of the competition, is something that can happen, especially if your captain lashes a penalty over the bar, and i Euro 2022 they were beaten by a better side.

But the Italy game is one they ought to have won and yesterday belongs in that category, the team hamstrung by the manager’s negativity.

Share

Updated at 06.14 EDT

Gosh, I bet Nick is has some sentiments to express. Tune in to find out.

Share

Share

Finally, in attack, neither Eberechi Eze and Madueke are first-picks for a side that can struggle to create in open play – with good reason. Neither are able to change the pace of a game in the way that Palmer can, nor do either have his goalscoring threat, likewise Foden and Gibbs-White. It’s true the first two hadn’t had good seasons, but nor had the Arsenal duo.

Share

In midfield, I have no idea why Tuchel took Kobbie Mainoo. Not because he didn’t need him, he did – he ought to have been brought on against Ghana when England needed a small-space specialist, against Norway too, and absolutely in the Argentina game, when composure and ball-retention were paramount.

This isn’t even a reflection of Mainoo’s abilities, though they are excellent, more that he was the only midfielder in the squad with soft feet under pressure, able to take the ball on the back foot, carry it forward and look after it. But when Henderson was sent on ahead of him against Panama, it was clear that the manager wasn’t going to use him and, because he left Adam Wharton at home, he didn’t have the option of a snappy, line-breaking passer.

Share

Updated at 07.18 EDT

On the other side of the defence, Luke Shaw and Lewis Hall are better defenders than those taken ahead of them, and also offer the balance of a natural left-footer on the left while, in the middle, in no world is Dan Burn superior to Harry Maguire – on which point wasting a squad-spot on Jordan Henderson, like Burn admired for his personal qualities, sent a message that the rest of the squad were mentally weak, so needed cajoling by players who didn’t earn their selection on the pitch.

Share

Similarly, Trent Alexander-Arnold is no one’s idea of a top defender. But he offers unique attacking abilities for when you’re chasing a goal, at which point it doesn’t matter if you lack nous or speed on the turn. Now, I’m not saying he’d have supplied a late equaliser, but leaving him out set a tone.

Share

Tuchel seemed to have one idea of how to play – which the evidence suggests he couldn’t communicate effectively to his players, but even if he could it wasn’t an especially good one – when tournaments generally offer a variety of different challenges that demand agility in response. In 2006, for example, Italy took, used and got contributions from six strikers, wheres Tuchel picked players and their closest analogues, hence Noni Madueke was preferred to Morgan Gibbs-White, Phil Foden and Cole Palmer.

Share

The cravenness, by the way, did not begin with Anthony Gordon’s goal. The squad Thomas Tuchel selected was itself an expression of misplaced confidence and unnecessary conservatism, omitting game-breakers and mavericks to deny variety and unpredictability, so let’s start there.

Share

Hello there mateys, has everyone recovered? I can’t lie, I don’t even support England and woke up with my head hot; them and Portugal, brilliant talent wasted by craven management, the experience of watching them an exercise in emotional regulation. Let’s debrief!

Share

It ended unhappily and unsatisfactorily for England, as tournaments tend to: but it’s worth keeping in mind that a semi-final defeat by the reigning champions is a more than decent effort from Tuchel and his coaching team.

Daniel Harris is here to take you through the next bit.

Share

Updated at 05.55 EDT

A few BTL comments here. Please keep them coming. You can also mail us with your thoughts on England 1-2 Argentina, or anything World Cup-related.

Are you going to the final? Let us know.

I think it was Bellingham who reacted late to close down Fernándes, but perhaps it was both Anderson and Bellingham who should have been more alert.

Share

Updated at 05.26 EDT

Robert Kitson

Look, most people were awfully good about it. Our waiter at a restaurant near Plaza de Mayo shook our hands warmly and said nice things about Jude Bellingham. On the metro ride back from the fan zone there was no massive gloating either, just bright-eyed kids in Lionel Messi shirts swept along by the nationwide euphoria. ‘Vamos, Vamos Argentina!’ they sang, barely able to believe their team were once again in a World Cup final.

And to be a stray English bystander in a city totally awash in sky blue and white was … a rare privilege. Some of us currently over here covering England’s rugby union tour have been lucky enough to visit a few iconic sporting cauldrons, but to be in Buenos Aires in the aftermath of Argentina defeating England at a football World Cup is right up there.

From train drivers triumphantly honking their horns at every underground platform to people dancing in the streets and old ladies waving flags from balconies high above the traffic, it made even a frenzied cricket World Cup fixture between India and Pakistan feel like a garden fete. “Tell them you’re Scottish,” advised my Argentinian friend, concerned for our welfare in the event of an English victory. In the event there was no need for any such subterfuge.

Share

Updated at 05.23 EDT

Robert Kitson, our rugby correspondent, is in Argentina …

Share

The debate about playing style and general fatigue is an interesting one. Pre-tournament, Tuchel said this before one of England’s friendlies:

“I think there is a value in recovering the ball high, even if it brings risk, and even if it’s highly intense.

“But I think there’s also a high value in having the ball, and moving the ball and not chasing the ball. In the last tournaments it was very, very important to not chase too much.”

From where I was sitting, England ran themselves into the ground for an hour in Atlanta with their intense pressing. And it worked well … until it didn’t. They were no longer capable of maintaining the same intensity. That is arguably on the manager, more than the substitutions or any perceived waving of a white flag.

Share

Updated at 05.34 EDT

Another email! (There are many …) This one from Adrian, entitled: “The fixture load’s fault?”

“Saka and Rice exhausted, Reece not fit, Stones not fit, Rice having injections for months on end. Then a bunch of games in excessive heat after the typically long attritional Premier League and Cup calendar.

“Isn’t this an argument to reduce the Premier League to 18 teams at least? Are we putting sufficient blame on the workload players must endure, a drum Klopp and others have been banging for years.”

Share

Updated at 05.08 EDT

“Tuchel’s tactics certainly weren’t “unfathomable”; he decided their best chance was to shut up shop and ride it out,” emails Mike. “It worked against Mexico, after all. He brought on Dan Burn because England seemed to have collectively forgotten how to defend crosses. You could as easily characterise this as a collective bottle-job by the players on the pitch, but maybe it’s easier to blame the German than Our Brave Boys?”

Also in praise of Tuchel: could another manager have brought that kind of performance from Djed Spence, who was outstanding off the bench against Norway, and even better starting against Argentina? Morgan Rogers on the right can also be seen as a success, well given his assist for Gordon’s goal. Would this sort of stuff have happened under Steve McClaren or Sam Allardyce?

Share

Updated at 05.49 EDT

Compare and contrast these two emails about England. Was it Tuchel, or was it the players?

“I think the Southgate comparisons are unfair. On Southgate,” writes Peter.

“Croatia, Italy and Spain were superior to England in central midfield. Over the course of a match, that will usually make the difference.

“This was different. England were not struggling. The retreat was entirely deliberate. Other options were available. Tuchel made mistakes and should own up to them.”

And then this, from Ryan: “Our players were lethargic and lost control of the game: we are lucky it wasn’t 4-1.

“We were just not good enough, it’s a simple as that, and the manager is taking the brunt of the blame as per usual. But our players stopped pressing and chasing and blocking and marking, they were not aggressive enough, the game was lost by the team.”

I agree with that: I don’t think Tuchel can shoulder all the blame for the way the team shut down after going in front.

Regarding the point about Croatia being better in midfield, as I wrote in this piece in 2024, Southgate’s set-up for that 2018 semi-final was conservative from the start: it was about containment rather than trying to dictate.

The Euros final against Italy was all about Roberto Mancini unloading his bench while Southgate persevered with the same exhausted players. At least Tuchel used his bench, but you can clearly argue against the way he did so.

Share

Updated at 05.37 EDT

Sid Lowe

On the way out of the dressing room in Arlington, Luis de la Fuente gathered his “family” and delivered one last message before the World Cup semi-final against France. He had long known what he was going to say, if not exactly how – it’s what he has been saying for 50 days and more. “I’ll tell them that this is a unique stage, the kind of moment that may never be repeated again, and that we have to be ourselves,” he had suggested 18 hours earlier; now that idea crystallised in a line. “We’re facing one of the best lineups in the world,” the Spain coach told them, “but we’re the best team in the world.”

By the time they made their way back in again, a voice was heard above the shouts, another line to encapsulate it all, to define this. It belonged to Marc Cucurella and it said: “What a fucking recital!” A call came in to De la Fuente, King Felipe on the phone saying pretty much the same thing, if a little more politely. On went the music, Jamaican (Bam Bam) blasting out, pizza was passed around, and they bounced about. Some did, anyway. Some just sat there taking in what they had done. “It was written: we started in Atlanta and we end in New York,” Dani Olmo said, but a semi-final is not supposed to be like this.

Share

Updated at 04.48 EDT

Given the fact that England were the better team for an hour or so in Atlanta, do we make Spain favourites for Sunday’s final? Coming up, a piece on the European champions, by Sid Lowe.

Share

Click here to read article