Ferran Torres finally gave Spain the goal it needed in the 106th minute. It should have been the moment that settled the story of the biggest men’s World Cup yet. Instead, a championship won in extra time had to share the headlines with a confrontation after the final whistle. That was the 2026 World Cup in miniature: excellent football, followed far too often by an argument about something that should never have overshadowed it.

Canada, Mexico and the United States pulled off a tournament of unprecedented scale. FIFA counted 48 teams, 104 matches, 308 goals and more than 6.8 million attendances across 16 stadiums. Those numbers explain why the event mattered. They don’t settle whether the officiating inspired confidence or whether ordinary supporters could afford to be there. On balance, it was a success. That’s a verdict on the whole tournament, not a pass for everything that happened in it.

Expansion worked best when the outsiders made it count

Cabo Verde made the strongest early case for a bigger World Cup by holding the eventual champions, Spain, to a goalless draw. The debutants drew all three group games, advanced, and lost 3–2 to Argentina in the round of 32. A place in the tournament gave them the opportunity. What made it worthwhile was what they did with it. FIFA’s group-stage reports capture the difference between making up the numbers and making a favourite work for every point.

From a Jamaican perspective, the Caribbean’s return to the picture came with mixed feelings. Haiti and Curaçao both made it, but neither got out of its group. Curaçao earned a point against Ecuador; Haiti scored twice in a 4–2 defeat to Morocco. Jamaica fell one match short, losing 1–0 after extra time to Congo DR in the March playoff. A bigger tournament gives the region more ways in. It doesn’t take away the work it takes to qualify or to stay competitive once you get there.

The knockout rounds delivered

Paraguay sent Germany out on penalties. Morocco did the same to the Netherlands and later beat Canada 3–0. Norway knocked out Brazil, then lost to England. All three hosts made the round of 16, but none went further: Mexico lost 3–2 to England, and the United States lost 4–1 to Belgium. There was enough jeopardy in the knockout rounds to justify the extra stage. The format’s trade-off was volume: a longer tournament asks for more of everyone’s attention, and not every match can make the same claim on it.

Spain beat France 2–0 in one semi-final; Argentina beat England 2–1 in the other. England’s astonishing 6–4 win over France for third place was almost the opposite of the final. At the New York New Jersey Stadium, Spain and Argentina were scoreless through 90 minutes before Torres settled it. Spain earned its second title through control as much as flair, conceding only once in eight matches. FIFA named Rodri the best player, awarded the Golden Glove to Unai Simón and the young-player award to Pau Cubarsí. France’s Kylian Mbappé took the Golden Boot with ten goals. Final report · Tournament awards.

Favouritism allegations deserved answers, not a shrug

Argentina’s route to the final gave critics plenty to talk about. Egypt saw a goal ruled out after a video review, had a later penalty appeal turned down, and complained about the officiating after losing 3–2. In the next round, Switzerland’s Breel Embolo was sent off for a second caution for simulation after a video review. As Reuters reported, FIFA refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina rejected allegations of bias over the Egypt match. And football’s lawmakers later said the Embolo dismissal was wrong, according to the Associated Press.

A documented mistake is not proof a result was fixed. It is a reason to insist on better explanations. When the technical case for an intervention isn’t clear to the people watching, telling them to trust the technology won’t restore confidence. FIFA should explain the decisive calls in plain language and be as willing to acknowledge a mistake as it is to defend a correct decision.

The conduct after the final was disgraceful

The post-final confrontation was a different matter from any disputed call. The conduct of the Argentina players and staff involved was disgraceful. Losing a World Cup final hurts; it doesn’t excuse turning the winners’ moment into a confrontation. FIFA’s August 21 disciplinary decision imposed a ten-match suspension on Leandro Paredes and seven matches on Nahuel Molina. It also sanctioned other Argentina personnel and Spain’s Gavi. In a separate set of tournament incidents, FIFA handed the Argentine association fines totalling US$321,000, with part of the sanction suspended, for breaches that included team misconduct and discriminatory behaviour by supporters. The decisions were subject to appeal.

Those findings concern specific conduct and named parties. They aren’t an indictment of every Argentina player or supporter, any more than the disputes over refereeing erase the quality it took to reach the final. But the scenes after the whistle were a low point, and Spain deserved to celebrate without becoming part of another disciplinary case.

A success that FIFA shouldn’t grade on attendance alone

The tournament found worthy champions and gave debutants a stage large enough to make the established teams uncomfortable. It also made attending a match an expensive proposition for many. The Associated Press reported that general-sale prices reached US$8,680 for the final. Better heat protection for players also made sense, even if mandatory hydration breaks in every match, regardless of conditions, divided fans.

The bigger World Cup is worth keeping. The best case for it wasn’t a record on FIFA’s balance sheet. It was Cabo Verde refusing to budge against Spain, Norway taking down Brazil, and a worthy final that stayed alive until deep into extra time. The next edition should keep that wider stage, explain its officiating better, and make it easier for the people who give the tournament its atmosphere to get through the gates.