Written by Megan Taylor, sports reporter covering international sports since 2020

Argentina last goal against Egypt has become one of the loudest debates from the 3-2 World Cup thriller in Atlanta, after Julian Alvarez challenged Mohamed Salah before the move that led to the winner.

Many Egypt fans and rival supporters argued the goal should have been cancelled for a foul, but the available reading of the incident is different: Alvarez touched the ball first, there was no clear illegal body contact, and Salah lost possession in a normal football duel.

The debate followed another major talking point from the same match, with Egypt VAR goal decision explained after Argentina’s dramatic World Cup win.

Why The Alvarez Challenge Was Legal

A player losing the ball does not automatically mean a foul has been committed.

Football allows players to challenge for possession if the action is fair, the ball is played, and the contact does not involve kicking, tripping, pushing, holding or careless force.

That is the heart of the Alvarez and Salah incident.

If Alvarez reached the ball first and did not make heavy physical contact with Salah, the referee had strong grounds to let play continue.

A clean poke of the ball can look harsh in real time, especially when the opponent falls or loses balance.

But football is not judged by the reaction alone.

The referee must judge the action itself.

What Counts As A Foul

Under the Laws of the Game, a foul requires an offence such as tripping, kicking, pushing, charging carelessly, holding or making illegal contact with an opponent.

Winning the ball first does not protect a player if the challenge is reckless or dangerous.

But it does matter when the action is controlled and the contact is minimal.

In this case, the complaint was that Alvarez touched the ball, Salah lost it, and Argentina scored after that.

That sequence is not enough to cancel a goal.

For the goal to be ruled out, VAR would need to identify a clear attacking offence by Argentina in the move that led to the goal.

Why VAR Did Not Step In

VAR does not exist to search for every possible contact and restart the match from a preferred point.

It can intervene only in four match-changing areas: goal or no goal, penalty or no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity.

Because Argentina scored, VAR could check whether there was an attacking foul in the build-up.

But VAR cannot overturn a goal simply because a challenge is debatable.

The standard is clear and obvious error.

If the referee saw Alvarez’s challenge and judged it fair, VAR would need strong video proof that the referee had clearly missed a foul.

If the replay showed Alvarez touching the ball first with no clear trip, push, kick or illegal contact on Salah, there was no reason for VAR to send the referee to the monitor.

That is why the goal stood.

The official VAR protocol is available through IFAB, which manages football’s Laws of the Game.

Why The Messi Favouritism Claim Is Weak

The claim that FIFA always favours Lionel Messi and Argentina sounds loud online, but this incident does not support it.

A fair challenge before a goal is not favouritism.

It is normal football.

Messi’s name makes every Argentina decision bigger, and rival fans often turn close calls into conspiracy claims.

But the law does not ask whether the team is Argentina, Egypt, Brazil or France.

It asks whether there was a clear foul.

On this incident, the key details work against the foul claim: Alvarez played the ball first, Salah lost possession, and there was no clear illegal physical action strong enough for VAR to cancel the goal.

Egypt’s Frustration Is Understandable

Egypt had every reason to feel hurt by the ending.

They were close to a historic World Cup quarter-final and had pushed Argentina deep into trouble.

In those final minutes, every tackle, whistle and loose ball carried huge pressure.

But pressure does not change the law.

A controversial-looking challenge is not automatically a foul, and VAR is not meant to re-referee every 50-50 moment.

Egypt’s anger came from the pain of the moment.

The decision came from the rules of the game.

Final Verdict

Argentina’s last goal was right to stand if Alvarez touched the ball first and made no clear illegal contact on Salah.

Salah losing possession was not proof of a foul.

VAR did not intervene because there was no clear and obvious error to correct.

The strongest explanation is not that FIFA helped Messi or Argentina.

It is that Alvarez won a fair challenge, Argentina kept playing, and the goal passed the VAR test.