Argentina face the prospect of disciplinary action from Fifa after players celebrated their World Cup semi-final win over England with a banner supporting Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands.

The defending champions produced a late comeback in Atlanta, scoring twice to beat Thomas Tuchel’s side 2-1 and secure a final against Spain on Sunday.

Argentina warned after semi-final celebrations

After the final whistle, Argentina players held up a banner that read “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” — a message translated as “The Falklands are Argentine”. They also sang chants that referenced the islands and Argentine greats Diego Maradona and Lionel Messi following their previous last-16 win over Egypt.

Falklands sovereignty dispute

The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean and remain at the centre of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina.

The two countries fought a war over the islands, located about 300 miles off Argentina’s east coast, from April to June 1982. The 74-day conflict resulted in the deaths of 655 Argentine servicemen and 255 British servicemen, with three fatalities among islanders.

In 2014, Fifa fined the Argentine Football Association £20,000 after Argentina players displayed a banner carrying the same message during a friendly against Slovenia. Fifa said the gesture breached rules on political activity and team misconduct.

Villarruel highlights message online

Following Wednesday’s win, Argentina vice-president Victoria Villarruel posted on X alongside a video that appeared to show Argentine soldiers. She shared the line “The Falklands are Argentine” and said stadium access restrictions had been imposed, while adding that the islands remained part of Argentinians’ “blood and hearts”.

In the build-up to the match, Villarruel had said the semi-final was about putting “invaders” in their place. Manager Lionel Scaloni, however, had previously said he would not mix football with politics.

He said the match was a football game and that it should be approached with respect for a period of conflict in the countries’ history, while arguing that the sport should not be confused with war elsewhere in the world.

UK minister calls banner inappropriate

MP Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said the banner was “entirely inappropriate” and that he expected Fifa to investigate. He told BBC Breakfast that an inquiry was likely, given the breach of rules prohibiting political activity as part of football.

The semi-final itself was played under increased security measures due to historical tensions between the two nations. England’s run ended when Enzo Fernandez and Lautaro Martinez struck late to seal Argentina’s 2-1 victory.

Join the discussion?

16 July 2026

View full article

And here I thought political statements etc were not allowed by players during the world cup.

Silly me.

There will of course be consequences......right ?

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

There will of course be consequences......right ?

Trump will declare England the world cup winners 😋

14 minutes ago, blaze master said:

And here I thought political statements etc were not allowed by players during the world cup.

Silly me.

There will of course be consequences......right ?

A little bit woke thinking there should be penalties ? I mean, ?

Just an honest request and kick in the balls

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A little bit woke thinking there should be penalties ? I mean, ?

Read up its the rules not me.

The Argies have a legitimate grass fed beef.

6 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Read up its the rules not me.

It was two players, not the whole team, so I do not see why Argentina as a team should face any serious punishment. There is a long history of political protests in sport, and the usual consequences have been fines or individual sanctions, not punishing an entire team or changing a result.

Btw, the woke comment, was jut a joke, bad joke

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It was two players, not the whole team, so I do not see why Argentina as a team should face any serious punishment. There is a long history of political protests in sport, and the usual consequences have been fines or individual sanctions, not punishing an entire team or changing a result.

Btw, the woke comment, was jut a joke, bad joke

Those 2 players represent the team at all times.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

It was two players, not the whole team, so I do not see why Argentina as a team should face any serious punishment. There is a long history of political protests in sport, and the usual consequences have been fines or individual sanctions, not punishing an entire team or changing a result.

Btw, the woke comment, was jut a joke, bad joke

The whole team have been filmed chanting, "Las Malvinas son Argentinas", so they are all individually deserving of sanction.

3 hours ago, blaze master said:

And here I thought political statements etc were not allowed by players during the world cup.

Silly me.

There will of course be consequences......right ?

Yeah but this is Argentina innit ....

Don't count on Trump's help!

England should offer the Falkland's Islands in return for World cup final spot .

Straight swap

Just read there were serious negotiations going

on to hand the Islands back , too costly , then the Argies

jumped the gun a bit and Maggie needed a

political boost .

Could never happen today of course !

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The Argies have a legitimate grass fed beef.

The British settled the uninhabited islands 60 odd years before Argentina even existed.

Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 in an attempt by the fascist and murderous junta regime to reverse its crumbling popularity.

Edited July 17Jul 17 by JAG

14 hours ago, blaze master said:

And here I thought political statements etc were not allowed by players during the world cup.

Politics

Silly me.

There will of course be consequences......right ?

Consequences? Grow up.

If they had a banner saying "Free Palestine", "From the river to the sea" or "Hamas are freedom fighters" you'd be hailing them as brave, good people, doing the right thing etc.

Same if they had rainbow laces or whatever.

What is it with your ilk and double standards. 😄

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Consequences? Grow up.

If they had a banner saying "Free Palestine", "From the river to the sea" or "Hamas are freedom fighters" you'd be hailing them as brave, good people, doing the right thing etc.

Same if they had rainbow laces or whatever.

What is it with your ilk and double standards. 😄

I think you have me confused with someone else. You've misinterpreted my comment.

Another £20k fine against the AFA would be my guess.

Any match ban or individual player ban is unlikely imho, FIFA is already in the spotlight so will most likely choose a solution that will not affect the WC.

1 hour ago, JAG said:

The British settled the uninhabited islands 60 odd years before Argentina even existed.

Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 in an attempt by the fascist and murderous junta regime to reverse its crumbling popularity.

There is a lot more to the history than that.

There are credible narratives to support both sides of the Falklands?Malvinas conflict. Personally, I have been persuaded that the Argentinian side is better from the sense of history and fairness but the UK side beats that based on the practical reality and desires of the population that actually lives there.

Argentinian governments from the left or right are never going to give up on their claim of the islands but that doesn't mean they'll ever get them.

Yeah of course rules are rules for FIFA.

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The Argies have a legitimate grass fed beef.

No they do not. The legal issues were settled long ago. And even if Argentina did have a legitimate grievance, a football match in a foreign jurisdiction is not the place to engage in crass politicking. It was a violation of the FIFA ban on political activities and reveals an arrogant cockiness that the Argentinians have. The Argentina team is due for a serious sanction before the match with Spain.

5 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Just read there were serious negotiations going

on to hand the Islands back , too costly , then the Argies

jumped the gun a bit and Maggie needed a

political boost .

Could never happen today of course !

The initial option under consideration was a leaseback, with the UK presence maintained. The inhabitants were opposed.

The USA put tremendous pressure on the UK to avoid a conflict with Argentina after the invasion, and the UK which was militarily weak, would have considered allowing an Argentinian administrative presence had the inhabitants agreed. However, the residents wanted nothing to do with the right wing military dictatorship that owed much of its internal workings to the influence of nazis who were given sanctuary in the country. Thankfully, the UK did the right thing and did not give into a collection of sadistic thugs who thought nothing of throwing people out of helicopters or torturing children. The liberation of the Falklans also initiated the liberation of Argentina from the military dictatorship. The UK military pulled a rabbit out of its beret for this campaign and the people who served were every bit the defenders of freedom as the UK personnel who had liberated Europe from the jackboot of tyranny almost 40 years earlier.

Really? Who cares?

They played us off the park after we scored. England's players were more worried about whether they'd remembered to wear their rainbow laces and/or take a knee for that fentanyl addict.

The Argies gave zero F's. Winning mentality. No Woke nonsense. No pandering to the mob. Real men. Good luck to them, hopefully England's players will learn from this. The coach is German and made possibly the worst substitutions and tactical moves in the history of the World Cup. Clowns.

The pillock below managed to get booked and break his arm without even playing a game. They got what they deserved.

It’s not the first time they have done this, they held a white flag up in 1982 in Port Stanley, however in this case there was no writing on it.

Probably over 99 percent of Argentinians think Las Malvinas Son Argentinas..

The arrogance of the UK side thinking they're all crazy or wrong.

19 hours ago, blaze master said:

And here I thought political statements etc were not allowed by players during the world cup.

Silly me.

There will of course be consequences......right ?

16 hours ago, RayC said:

The whole team have been filmed chanting, "Las Malvinas son Argentinas", so they are all individually deserving of sanction.

The more fuss about it, the less sympathy for England. The only ones who win from this are Argentina. The rest of the world does not care, only England.

Just now, Jingthing said:

Probably over 99 percent of Argentinians think Las Malvinas Son Argentinas..

The arrogance of the UK side thinking they're all crazy or wrong.

The arrogance of making such a statement when those who live on the Falklands overwhelmingly want to be British.

16 minutes ago, sungod said:

The arrogance of making such a statement when those who live on the Falklands overwhelmingly want to be British.

I already noted the importance of that before on this topic.

There indeed is massive arrogance on both sides.

I've seen a difference though.

Argentinians are usually willing to acknowledge the UK narrative.

UK people on the other hand totally dismiss Argentinian claims as out of hand.

Why punish them. It's historical!

It's the exact same flag they flew over Port Stanley in 1982 just with writing added.

The Argies can try and take it back....no one is stopping them.