2026 World Cup VAR review: Was Egypt treated unfairly against Argentina?

Mohamed Salah's incident in the Argentina penalty box was considered not a foul (screen capture).

JAKARTA - Before the 2026 World Cup, the video assistant referee (VAR) has always caused controversy every week, whether it's the English League, the Champions League, or the FA Cup.

The VAR controversy turned out to be a feast at the 2026 World Cup. Most recently, the big incident that was highlighted was Argentina vs Egypt on Tuesday, July 7, 2026. ESPN summarizes some incidents in the Argentina vs Egypt match.

First, Egypt's goal was annulled due to the VAR decision, which was led by Jarome Brisard. Egyptian striker Mostafa Ziko thought he had scored a stunning World Cup goal to give his team a 2-0 lead in the 62nd minute against Argentina.

However, after the VAR intervention, French referee Francois Letexier canceled it because of a foul committed by Egyptian defender Marwan Attia against Argentina defender Lisandro Martínez in the process of creating a goal.

At that time, VAR quickly recommended a review on the field for a possible foul by Attia before the goal was scored.

VAR was uncomfortable with the Egyptian's actions because he was holding Martinez's shirt and stepping on the Argentine's foot at the same time.

After seeing the screen, the referee agreed with the VAR's assessment and canceled the goal.

A clear foul by Egypt's Attia directly impacted their ability to counterattack and score, leaving Argentina at a disadvantage when in the attacking position.

The incident occurred in the upper part of the field and may have caused some debate. However, when such a violation occurs in the same phase and immediately results in a goal, the goal must be canceled.

After the referee was shown pictures showing the simultaneous grip of the shirt and the foot, it was impossible for him to stick to his original decision.

Not only that, controversy was born at the end of the match. Egypt appealed two separate offenses at the end of this match, one of which occurred before Argentina's goal in the second half of injury time.

Both offenses occurred in the Argentine penalty area. Both were checked and declared valid by VAR (no offense).

The first offense occurred when Alexis Mac Allister (Argentina) appeared to pull Hamdy Fathy (Egypt) in the penalty area. Fathy fell to the ground after the contact. However, the referee did not give any decision.

Mac Allister took a big risk when he pulled off Fathy's shirt. However, it was minimal, unsustainable, and did not affect the attacker's ability to get the ball.

Var judged that it did not meet the threshold for an impactful foul and a penalty kick.

Then, in the final minutes of the match, Mohamed Salah claimed that he had been tackled by Julian Alvarez while attacking the Argentinean penalty box.

At that time, Salah tried to get a penalty, not the offense committed by Alvarez. According to VAR, the dynamics of this contact is a clash of shoes with shoes, with Salah falling without a clear reason.

There will be a comparison with the foul given in the process of creating Egypt's goal. However, the main difference is that the previous incident involved a defender's shoe hitting the attacker's shoe.

Salah's incident, if viewed in detail, is a clash of shoes with shoes, with the momentum of the two players creating the contact.

Again, the referee felt Alvarez's actions did not meet the threshold for a foul.

VAR believed that there was no incident that met the threshold for intervention given the relative actions of the Argentine defenders.

Unfortunately, from that situation came Argentina's counterattack which then resulted in a winning goal by Enzo Fernandez. The Egyptian player immediately protested because the referee did not review VAR to cancel Argentina's goal.