In the hours before the World Cup final, a quiet fracture in Latin American solidarity became impossible to ignore: nations that might once have rallied behind a regional neighbor instead turned their hopes toward Spain. The grievances were many — perceived referee favoritism, political resentment of Argentina's leadership, and a documented history of racist incidents — and digital media had woven them into a coherent story of a system tilted in Argentina's favor. Where Maradona once embodied defiance against football's establishment, Messi now wore the crown of its chosen son, and that distin
Latin America's unified opposition to Argentina reveals deep World Cup divisions
Let it hurt whoever it hurts.
Mark
Why would fans in Brazil or Mexico care so much about Argentina winning or losing? Aren't they supposed to support each other?
Mimi
They used to. But something shifted. The digital age made it easier to spread stories about unfairness—allegations that referees were helping Argentina—and those stories stuck. It became less about regional pride and more about whether the system was rigged.
Mark
Do people actually believe the referees were biased, or is that just an excuse to dislike Argentina?
Mimi
Both, probably. Some critics point to specific calls. But the real fuel is something else: the perception that Messi has become FIFA's favorite, unlike Maradona, who was seen as a rebel. That narrative is powerful because it makes the team feel like it's being handed things rather than earning them.
Mark
So it's about Messi specifically?
Mimi
Not entirely. Argentina's president, Milei, is unpopular in the region. And there are real incidents—racist chants, bananas thrown at Black players. Those things accumulate. They give people reasons beyond just football to root against the team.
Mark
Did Argentina fans care about this backlash?
Mimi
Messi acknowledged it. He basically said, "Let it hurt whoever it hurts." And an Argentine fernet brand leaned into it with an ad saying "We are unbearable." There was almost a defiant acceptance of being disliked.
Mark
Did everyone in Latin America turn against them?
Mimi
No. Some people, especially younger ones, still supported Argentina out of regional solidarity. But they were swimming against the current. The dominant feeling was clear: Spain was the preferred outcome.
Der Puls
- A wave of anti-Argentina sentiment swept Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, with fans openly cheering for Spain and flooding social media with memes casting Spanish winger Lamine Yamal as 'the hope of the Brazilian people.'
- The tension centered on a widespread belief — disputed by FIFA and independent analysts — that referees had consistently favored Argentina throughout the tournament, a narrative that digital platforms amplified far beyond the reach of any official rebuttal.
- Deeper resentments compounded the refereeing debate: Argentine president Javier Milei's regional unpopularity and documented incidents of Argentine fans directing racist abuse at Black players made the prospect of an Argentine championship feel, to many, like a reward for the wrong team.
- Colombian sociologist Germán Gómez identified the symbolic rupture at its core — Maradona had been a rebel against football's power structure, while Messi is now perceived as its golden beneficiary, fundamentally reframing Argentina's success as institutional favor rather than sporting merit.
- Argentina itself seemed to sense the hostility: a fernet brand launched an ad campaign under the slogan 'We are unbearable,' and Messi acknowledged that the team's victories would 'hurt whoever it hurts,' a rare admission of how deeply the team's dominance had unsettled the region.
- By Sunday, the final had ceased to be a football match in the traditional sense and had become, as one Mexican anthropologist put it, 'very political' — a referendum on fairness, leadership, and which version of Argentina Latin America was willing to celebrate.
In the hours before the World Cup final, a quiet fracture in Latin American solidarity became impossible to ignore: nations that might once have rallied behind a regional neighbor instead turned their hopes toward Spain. The grievances were many — perceived referee favoritism, political resentment of Argentina's leadership, and a documented history of racist incidents — and digital media had woven them into a coherent story of a system tilted in Argentina's favor. Where Maradona once embodied defiance against football's establishment, Messi now wore the crown of its chosen son, and that distinction changed everything. The final was no longer merely a match; it had become a mirror in which Latin America examined what it believed about fairness, power, and who deserves to win.
The World Cup final was supposed to be a celebration of Latin American football. Instead, it became a referendum on whether Argentina deserved to win at all.
Across Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, fans who might ordinarily support a regional power were openly cheering for Spain. The sentiment spawned its own visual language — memes, jokes, images of Spanish winger Lamine Yamal in a Brazilian jersey captioned 'The hope of the Brazilian people.' Argentina, the defending champion, had become the team Latin America wanted to lose.
At the center of the backlash was a conviction that had hardened across social media: Argentina was getting help. Fans in São Paulo and Mexico City described watching referees make calls that seemed to bend the rules in Argentina's favor. FIFA and independent experts had examined the allegations and largely dismissed them, but the narrative had already taken root in the digital sphere, where it was retold and amplified until it felt like established fact.
Colombian sociologist Germán Gómez identified a deeper shift. The traditional solidarity that once bound Latin American fans had fractured along a symbolic fault line: where Diego Maradona had been cast as a revolutionary confronting FIFA's power, Messi was now perceived as FIFA's favored son. That distinction reframed the entire tournament as a system working in Argentina's favor rather than a level competition.
The opposition ran deeper than refereeing grievances. Argentine president Javier Milei was widely unpopular across the region, and the prospect of him celebrating a championship grated on fans who already resented his politics. Racism compounded the picture — Argentine supporters had sung chants mocking Black players on the French team, and FIFA had condemned an incident during this tournament in which an Argentine fan told a Black American influencer to 'cry at the zoo.' Each episode added weight to the case against the team.
Argentina seemed aware of how it was perceived. Messi acknowledged that the team's success would 'hurt whoever it hurts.' A fernet brand launched an ad under the slogan 'We are unbearable,' showing rival fans in a therapy circle complaining about Argentine passion — self-aware marketing that also functioned as a confession.
A few voices, like a 20-year-old student in Lima, maintained regional loyalty and backed Argentina as a South American nation. But they were outliers. The dominant current ran the other way, and by Sunday, most of Latin America had made its choice — not just about football, but about fairness, power, and which stories a championship is allowed to tell.
The World Cup final on Sunday was supposed to be a celebration of Latin American football. Instead, it became something else entirely: a referendum on whether one of the region's greatest teams deserved to win at all.
Across Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, fans who might ordinarily unite behind a regional power were openly rooting for Spain. The sentiment was so widespread it spawned its own visual language—memes, jokes, photoshopped images of Spanish winger Lamine Yamal wearing a Brazilian jersey with the caption "The hope of the Brazilian people." The mockery was affectionate in tone but unmistakable in intent. Argentina, the defending champion, had become the team Latin America wanted to lose.
The reasons were layered, starting with a conviction that had calcified across social media: Argentina was getting help. Francisco Santos, a 42-year-old Brazilian trading World Cup stickers at a shopping center in São Paulo, put it plainly. He said he had watched referees make calls that favored Argentina—penalties awarded, cards issued—in ways that seemed to bend the rules. "If referees are going to help you, I don't accept that," said Antonio Lopez, a 51-year-old police officer in Mexico City, even as he acknowledged Lionel Messi's genius. The allegations had been examined by FIFA and experts, many of whom found them unfounded, but the narrative had taken root in the digital sphere and grown there, nurtured by thousands of conversations across platforms where the story was retold and amplified.
Colombian sociologist Germán Gómez saw a deeper shift. The traditional "dynamic of solidarity" that had once bound Latin American fans together had fractured. Where Diego Maradona had been cast as a revolutionary confronting FIFA's power, Messi was now perceived as FIFA's favored son—the golden boy. The distinction mattered. It reframed the entire tournament as something less like sport and more like a system working in Argentina's favor.
But the opposition ran deeper than refereeing grievances. Argentina's president, Javier Milei, was unpopular across the region, and the prospect of him celebrating a World Cup victory grated on fans who already resented his politics. Rachid Sjoberg, a 29-year-old agricultural laboratory operator in Santiago, Chile, said the thought of Milei boasting about a championship win made her uncomfortable. There was also the matter of racism. Argentine supporters had sung chants mocking Black players on the French team, and there was a documented history of fans throwing bananas at Brazilian players or making monkey gestures. During this tournament, FIFA had condemned an incident in which an Argentine supporter told a Black American influencer to "cry at the zoo." These episodes accumulated in the regional memory, each one adding weight to the case against the team.
Messi himself seemed aware of the intensity surrounding Argentina's pursuit of a fourth title. "Let it hurt whoever it hurts," he said, acknowledging that the team's success would sting others. An Argentine fernet brand, sensing the moment, launched an advertisement under the slogan "We are unbearable," showing fans from rival teams sitting in a therapy circle complaining about Argentina's relentless passion for football. It was a clever bit of self-aware marketing that also served as a confession: Argentina knew how much it was disliked.
Not everyone in Latin America had abandoned regional loyalty. Valentino Tocto, a 20-year-old student in Lima, said he would support Argentina because it was a South American country. But he was an outlier. The dominant current ran the other way. Mexican anthropology professor Jorge Negroe observed that the tournament had become "very political," a phrase that captured something true: this was no longer just about football. It was about narratives of fairness, about power and favoritism, about which leaders deserved celebration and which deserved skepticism. By Sunday, most of Latin America had made its choice.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
If referees are going to help you, I don't accept that.— Antonio Lopez, police officer in Mexico City
This World Cup has proven to be very political.— Jorge Negroe, Mexican anthropology professor
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Al Jazeera ↗
Sports