By Aleyna Taber
In this year’s 23rd edition of the World Cup, it seemed that no matter which country across which tournament, the goal was to support whoever was playing against Argentina. This reached a pinnacle through an online petition which garnered 23 million signatures to vote that Argentina be permanently banned from future FIFA World Cups, more than fourfold the original goal of 5 million. Outraged fans asked: “Why should the rest of the world compete when the winner has already been decided”?
Indeed, across social media the memes of Messi dressed as FIFA’s princess have multiplied as world cup watchers have denounced blatant favoritism towards Messi and the Argentinian team by both FIFA and referees, pointing out several instances of preferential treatment. Among one of the most popular criticisms: the fact that Argentina was the only semifinalist to have not faced a single top-10 ranking national team, the highest being Switzerland ranking at number 19. The most contested match was against Egypt when Argentina won 3-2 in the final few minutes of the game, after referees cancelled a point scored by Egypt on account of a foul and allegedly refused to follow through on a potential foul on Argentina’s behalf. Egypt’s coach rebuked that his team had “suffered injustice” and the Egyptian Football Association said that these incidents during the match raised “serious concerns about the consistency and fairness of decisions that directly influenced the course of the game.”
However, bias is just one among a multitude of controversies associated with Argentina as it tried to defend its crown as World Cup champion.
A series of political controversies
One of the most polemical incidents occurred after the semi-finale against England, when the Argentinian team ran victoriously on the pitch waving the banner “Las Malavinas son Argentinas,” clearly breaching FIFA’s code of conduct. Demonstrating messages that are of a political nature is strictly prohibited by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), and can lead to sanction and even disqualification. Las Malvinas refers to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency which lies around 480 km off the east coast of mainland Argentina and has been contested territory since the British invasions of Argentina in the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century. In 1982, the Argentinian military government attempted to take over the territory but ultimately surrendered to the British. However, the archipelago remains a nationalistic symbol for Argentines. On April 24th, President Javier Milei even celebrated the 44th anniversary of his country’s invasion of the archipelago with a social media post stating: “Las Malavinas were, are, and always will be Argentine.” The result is a football culture that is heavily rooted in nationalism and anti-English sentiment, and a football team that is not afraid to disregard FIFA rules. “Y ya lo ve, y ya lo ve, el que no salta, es un ingles!” (“And now you see, and now you see, whoever doesn’t jump is English!”) was the chant that was used by fans to serenade Argentina after each victory.
This is not the first time that the Argentinian team has been reproached for its inappropriate conduct. During the Copa America in July 2024, the French Football Federation condemned the Argentinian Football Association (AFA) for an “unacceptable, racist and discriminatory” chant sung after the final regarding the French national team. Footage that was posted by Argentinian midfielder Enzo Fernandez featured team-mates chanting: “They play for France, but their parents are from Angola. Their mother is from Cameroon, while their father is from Nigeria. But their passport says French.” This same chant was sung by Argentinian fans two years earlier during the 2022 World Cup final when Argentina defeated France. Interestingly, the proceedings opened by FIFA against the Argentinian Football Association (AFA) were not only related to misconduct on behalf of the national team but also its fanbase. During this year’s World Cup, FIFA opened an investigation into an incident of racist abuse where a woman wearing an Argentinian jersey can be heard in a video shouting “go cry to the zoo” to the Black American streamer IShowSpeed who was supporting Cape Verde. In fact, the FIFA disciplinary committee also reprimanded AFA’s fans more broadly for threatening the “order and security at matches” including through the “throwing of objects by spectators”. This at times unruly fanaticism manifested by Argentina supporters has even deterred other fans from rooting for the country in the finals.
A fan base with waning support
The usual habit that fans often adopt during the world cup is that when their nationality’s team is eliminated, they migrate their support towards a regional neighbour. However, in this year’s finals after all of Latin America’s teams were out and Argentina was the last one standing, other Latin Americans did not show support for their neighbour but instead rooted against it. Across social media, memes even circulated joking that after Columbia was disqualified no Latin American team remained, alluding that Argentina is more European than it is Latin American, and teasing that other Latin Americans would rather cheer for Norway.
For Nestor Ibarra, a 28 year old Columbian marketing specialist, and his Ecuadorian and Peruvian friends, the calculation was simple: to back “whoever is facing Argentina,” even if this meant cheering for a team who had beaten Columbia itself. Ibarra elaborated on how he disliked how he felt that the Argentinian team as well as its fans acted superior and looked down on its other Latin American opponents, and often seemed to consider themselves as more European than Latin American. Indeed, the majority of Argentina’s population originates from Spanish and Italian immigrants, in contrast with Brazil’s for example which notably has the largest Afro-descendant population outside Africa. Similarly, Enrique Portor, television commentator and editor in Brazil, expressed how Brazil “simply cannot support” Argentina, pointing to a decades-long rivalry between the two countries which he claims is fueled by much racism on the Argentine side. A long history of an intense soccer culture combined with one of cultural distinction has resulted in what some believe to be the treatment of football victories as proof of national exceptionalism. This all fits into a wider story of how Argentina understands its own identity within the region of Latin America, and a darker history of national exceptionalism through ethnic homogenization.
A history of institutionalized racism
When watching Argentina play in the World Cup against other top-ranking teams, one characteristic is quite striking: there is not a single black player. While many claim that this is simply a product of the country’s distinctly European heritage, the lack of black players is in fact not coincidental. It is representative of an explicit project of demographic and cultural whitening.
The traditional view is that while “Mexicans descended from the Aztecs, and Peruvians from the Incas … Argentinians descended from the ships.” While it is true that between the mid 19th and 20th centuries there was a phenomenon of mass migration of Europeans (mostly Spanish and Italian) to Argentina, it would be factually erroneous to claim that the origin story of Argentina is strictly white. Indeed, between the 16th and 19th centuries, long before the Spanish and Italian ships set sail to the Argentine coast, slave trade dominated the River plate, and more than 200,000 enslaved Africans arrived at the twin ports of Buenos Aires and Montevideo. By 1778, people of African descent made up more than 37% of the population of what is now Argentina, and they continued to represent over one third of the population of Buenos Aires for decades after Argentina gained independence from Spain in 1816. However, the data after that date is unknown. University lecturer Patrocia Gomes explains how “census data was manipulated to erase (us) first from the statistics – and then from the history books” as black Argentines were simply no longer counted as part of the national population.
Indeed, from the 19th century onwards, the state took on an active campaign to “present Argentina as homogeneous and of European descent.” Erika Edwards in her book “Hiding in Plain Sight,” shows how in terms of the “whitening project,” this was extremely successful because “the idea that somebody could be the descendant of a slave was just not there.” The goal was to eliminate afro-descendants symbolically, to create a discourse that there are no blacks in Argentina. And this belief continues to live on to this day. In 2018 President Mauricio Macri asserted at the World Economic Forum in Davos: “We are all descendants from Europe.” But in reality, the idea of a “European Argentina” was fabricated by the country’s elite. The European heritage that Argentina claims to be its origin story is a direct result of calculated pro-European immigration policies from the 1853 Constitution, during a time where books such as future Argentinian president Domingo Sarmiento’s (1868-1874) “Civilization and Barbarism” (1845) promoting social darwinist ideals dominated the national paradigm. European immigration was thus seen as a vehicle for civilization and ethnic homogenization.
Interestingly, since 1853, Article 25 which explicitly commands that “the Federal Government shall foster European immigration” has survived every constitutional reform. Europeanism remains the ideal, the nation’s desired identity. The myth of a nation born from white Europeans pushed forward by political discourse and knowledge production is ingrained in Argentina’s national culture, so much so that whiteness has defaulted to the universal representation of the nation. Patricia Gomes shares how in Argentina this created the logic that because “there were no blacks … there was no one to be racist with” and hence “there was no racism.” The cost is therefore not only the erasure and denial of the Afro-descendant part of the population but also the denial of responsibility in structural racism and inequality. Much like there are no black football players, “there are no black journalists or politicians,” but black activist and researcher Alí Delgado points to the fact that meanwhile Argentina’s poor barrios and prisons “are full of Afro-descendants,” linking the country’s systemic discrimination to that of the US.
This racial inequality only continues to deepen with the current libertarian administration through the dismantling of institutions such as the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, and the Commission for the Historical Recognition of the Afro-Argentine Community that are aimed at combatting racism and promoting reparations. Argentina’s president Jabier Milei was among the only three world leaders to vote against the newly adopted United National General Assembly landmark resolution which recognizes the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery as the gravest crime against humanity and calls for reparations. Not too surprisingly the only two other countries that voted against the resolution were the United States and Israel, all of which promote supremacist discourse on how “the West is a civilization under threat that must be defended.”
When countries speak of nationality as equated to whiteness, and of a mission to defend this identity, that is a colonial project. In the case of Argentina, it may represent the ultimate completion of the colonial project as it has succeeded in erasing its black culture from the national narrative and the nation’s collective consciousness. And this is deeply embedded in its popular culture, trickling all the way down to its all-white national football team.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
