Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Statements to the contrary
Saudi Arabian journalist Mohamed Al-Breiki has again caused controversy regarding the refereeing decisions in the match between Egypt and Argentina when he defended the referee of the match and believed that most of his decisions were correct, except for one kick.
The match between Egypt and Argentina in the 2026 World Cup Round of 16 saw widespread refereeing controversy, especially after a goal was disallowed for Egypt and a penalty was not awarded until Argentina scored their third goal.
Muhammad Al-Breiki said on Al Arabiya FM radio station. “I think that the referee of the Egypt-Argentina match was decisive, and there is no controversy about it, except for the disallowed goal of Egypt.”
He added: “All the other cases were legal, but the idea is that the inconsistency in the assessment of some kicks and the counting of those decisions has caused a lot of controversy, especially for the Argentina team.”
Despite defending the referee, Al-Breiki admitted that the decision to disallow Egypt’s goal was the most controversial strike, especially as the Egyptian fans saw the goal as correct and could have changed the course of the match.
{“type”:”power-rankings-carousel”,”data”:{}}
Read also… Jaka sent a sharp message. If we were 11 against 11, the story would have changed against Argentina.
He emphasized that the media and public outcry was not just because of the decisions, but rather because of the sensitivity of the match and the value of the opponent, noting that any decision made in a match with a team the size of Argentina comes under greater scrutiny.
The match is still the subject of much debate in Arab sporting circles after Egypt crashed out of the tournament with a 3-2 defeat, particularly with differing opinions on the impact of refereeing decisions on the outcome of the clash.
While some believe the referee was wrong on more than one kick, Al-Breiki insists the only glaring error was disallowing the Pharaohs’ goal, arguing that the rest of the decisions were within the law, even if they fueled controversy on and off the pitch.
