By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (August 14^th 2026)

Injustice Reigned

Egypt’s current talisman Mohamed Salah is now the fourth most prolific African goal-scorer Malawian great Kinnah Phiri (71) and the late great Zambian, Godfrey (Ucar) Chitalu (79) are above him. Salah is perched on 68. But as he was unveiled to Tranzonspor fans, he’d be forgiven for sparing himself a rueful thought.

Egypt was leading 2-0 against then world champions Argentina with minutes to go – a number of decisions had gone against the Pharaohs including the disallowing of a superb team goal by VAR for a foul in the build-up. It may have been a correct decision. The rule is as follows: When a goal is scored, VAR automatically reviews the entire attacking phase of play. If a clear and obvious foul or handball by the attacking team is found in that build-up, the referee will be advised to disallow the goal.

That raises the question of whether the attacking phase can have commenced deep in your own half. It was arguable that Marwan Attia had fouled Lisandro Martínez near his own penalty area while Argentina was attacking. Referee François Letexier did not think it was a foul and let play continue. Several seconds later and at the other end of the pitch Salah threaded the ball through to Mostafa Ziko – he scored a superb team goal.

But VAR had other ideas – exactly when and where does the attacking phase begin? Is it possible to have an attacking phase deep in your own half? And even if it was, was this a clear and obvious error -= error, possibly, but clear and obvious?

But that goal was disallowed by VAR. It was not the only controversial decision. With time running out Mohamed Salah was tripped in the area by Julián Álvarez – penalty? It was not given and there was no check by VAR. And Argentina went up the other end for Enzo Fernández to score the winner in the 12 minutes that Letexier added on. This incident seemed similar to the Attia challenge. Where was the VAR check, even if the decision remained the same?

The crucial decisions went Argentina’s way and Letexier made a mess of his duties. Hossam Hassan had crossed his arms above his head. – tat is the signal to report a racist incident to the officials, but instead of check Hassan’s claims, Letexier showed him a yellow card. What? He should have stopped the match and followed the racist incident protocol. Letexier knew it well – he was the first referee to stop a match under it, the first leg of the Champions League match between Benfica and Real Madrid when Gianluca Prestiani covered his mouth and according to Vinícius Júnior, racially abused him. Letexier signalled a racist incident and stopped the match while it was looked into. But when Hassan signalled a racist incident, after as the match was ending and after he had protested some decisions, which he felt were taken to favour the defending champions at Egypt’s expense, Letexier just yellow-carded him. It was said that Hassan made the gesture after being informed that his team had been racially abused by Argentina supporters – an offence they are not unknown for committing. On any view, it should have been looked at, and FIFA should have looked at the way that the officials and it handled it.