Plenty of them do not survive contact with the record books. These are four of the most common, and what actually happened.

Myth one: Denis Law relegated Manchester United

The story goes that Law, a United great, sent his old club down with a backheel for Manchester City at Old Trafford on 27 April 1974. He scored in the 81st minute, City led 1-0 and a pitch invasion forced the referee to abandon the game with five minutes left.

United were already doomed. Birmingham City beat Norwich City that afternoon and West Ham United drew with Liverpool. With two points for a win, United could not have caught either side even by winning their last two games. They finished 21st in the First Division on 32 points.

Myth two: 40 points means you are safe

The 40-point target is repeated every season, but it is not a guarantee. West Ham were relegated from the Premier League with 42 points in 2002-03, the highest total for a relegated side since the league moved to 38 games.

That squad included Joe Cole, Michael Carrick, Jermain Defoe, Glen Johnson and Paolo Di Canio. A 2-2 draw at Birmingham on the final day was not enough, as Bolton’s win kept them above West Ham.

The target can also be far lower. West Brom stayed up with 34 points in 2004-05, still the lowest total of any side to avoid the drop.

Myth three: bottom at Christmas means going down

This one holds more often than not. According to Opta’s analysis for The Analyst, only four of the 34 sides bottom of the Premier League on Christmas Day have stayed up.

West Brom were the first, in that same 2004/05 season. They were eight points from safety on 25 December and survived on the final day. Sunderland in 2013/14, Leicester City in 2014/15 and Wolves in 2022/23 have done it since.

The odds are poor, then, but a bottom place on Christmas Day is not a sentence. Wolves’ 2025/26 side, on two points from 17 games, was too far behind to follow them.

Myth four: promoted clubs always go straight back down

For two seasons it looked true. All three promoted sides went down in 2023-24 (Luton Town, Burnley and Sheffield United) and again in 2024/25 (Leicester, Ipswich Town and Southampton).

The 2025/26 season broke the run. Sunderland finished seventh with 54 points and Leeds United were 14th on 47. Only Burnley went back down. In 2022/23, Fulham, Bournemouth and Nottingham Forest all stayed up.

What the record books show

Relegation rarely follows a single rule. Points totals shift from year to year, Christmas tables can be overturned and a promoted side’s fate depends on the squad, not the label. Anyone weighing up the Premier League betting odds at the bottom of the table should look at form and fixtures before the old rules of thumb.

In my mind, the answer is clear. While there will undoubtedly be enthusiasm for handing the shirt to one of Argentina’s emerging young talents, particularly Nico Paz, I believe there is only one player who possesses the experience, technical ability and footballing qualities to assume that responsibility immediately.

That player is Paulo Dybala.

Affectionately known as La Joya, or “The Jewel,” Dybala has long been one of the most gifted Argentine footballers of his generation. He has already worn Argentina’s famous No. 10 shirt in Messi’s absence, and now, with Messi finally stepping aside, I believe he is the clear and correct choice to inherit it on a more permanent basis.

Dybala first came to my attention with his magnificent brace against Messi’s Barcelona in the 2017 Champions League quarterfinal, a performance that helped Juventus eliminate the Spanish giants. At the time, Dybala was regarded by many as the next Messi, and it was difficult to imagine that Messi’s extraordinary career would continue for so long that it would ultimately overlap with virtually the entirety of Dybala’s prime international years.

It is difficult to think of another player whose international career has been so profoundly affected by the extraordinary longevity of a single teammate. Dybala possesses many of the same qualities that made Messi so exceptional, operating in similar areas of the pitch, receiving the ball in tight spaces and creating opportunities through his extraordinary left foot.

Embed from Getty Images

Indeed, the similarities between the two have frequently been cited as the principal reason Dybala struggled to establish himself in Argentina’s starting lineup. I have never been entirely convinced by the argument that they could not play together. During Argentina’s third-place match against Chile at the 2019 Copa América, Messi took a quick free kick that released Dybala behind the defence, and La Joya responded with a delightful chipped finish. It was a small but memorable demonstration of how naturally two exceptionally gifted footballers could understand one another.

Yet there was an unavoidable reality. Argentina had Messi, and as long as he remained capable of performing at the highest level, Dybala was unlikely to be given the freedom to become the team’s principal creative figure.

His opportunities were further complicated by injuries and fitness concerns, which have unfortunately followed him throughout his career. It has often appeared that Lionel Scaloni was genuinely reluctant to leave him out of the squad, and understandably so. Dybala’s talent has never been in question, but maintaining the fitness necessary to contribute consistently at international level has been a recurring challenge.

That was especially apparent before the 2022 World Cup.

In October of that year, Dybala suffered an injury while converting a penalty for Roma, creating serious doubts about whether he would recover in time to represent Argentina in Qatar. It was an extraordinarily unfortunate setback, particularly for a player whose international opportunities had already been so limited.

Dybala fought to recover, and José Mourinho helped him return to competitive football just in time for Argentina’s World Cup squad announcement. His inclusion was by no means assured, but Scaloni ultimately selected him.

I had advocated for Dybala’s involvement throughout that tournament. Following Argentina’s astonishing opening defeat against Saudi Arabia, I wrote that it would be a mistake to go through the competition leaving one of the country’s finest players on the bench. Even as Argentina improved and began advancing through the knockout rounds, I believed his exclusion from meaningful playing time was an oversight.

Argentina ultimately reached the final without relying heavily upon him. But when the moment came, Dybala was ready.

His contribution against France remains one of the most fascinating cameos in World Cup history. Having spent almost the entire tournament watching from the sidelines, Dybala was introduced in the closing stages of extra time and immediately found himself participating in one of the most dramatic finishes football has ever witnessed.

He made a critical defensive clearance in the closing moments, preventing Kylian Mbappé from threatening Argentina’s goal. It was hardly the sort of glamorous attacking contribution for which Dybala had become famous, but its importance was enormous.

The moment even inspired a gloriously cheeky online conspiracy theory suggesting that Dybala was actually Scaloni’s son, sent back from the future as a time traveller to rescue Argentina. It was a wonderfully absurd joke, but there was something fitting about it. After years of limited international opportunities, Dybala had suddenly appeared at precisely the moment Argentina needed him.

And then came the penalty shootout.

There was something almost poetic about Dybala stepping forward to take Argentina’s second penalty. Just weeks earlier, he had injured himself while converting a penalty for Roma, an injury that had threatened his participation in the World Cup altogether. Now he was being asked to take one of the most consequential penalties in Argentina’s history.

Dybala is one of the finest penalty takers in football, but the circumstances were extraordinary. He had barely played in the tournament and was suddenly expected to deliver in a situation of almost unimaginable pressure.

After Emiliano Martínez saved Kingsley Coman’s penalty, the Argentine goalkeeper approached Dybala and advised him to strike his effort down the middle. Martínez understood the psychology of the situation. Having just watched a teammate fail to score, Hugo Lloris would be under considerable pressure to make a save, increasing the likelihood that he would commit himself to a dive.

Dybala followed the advice.

His penalty travelled almost directly down the middle, bending slightly to the right and narrowly avoiding Lloris’s trailing foot as the French goalkeeper dived away. It was Argentina’s go-ahead penalty, and when Aurélien Tchouaméni subsequently missed following further psychological gamesmanship from Martínez, Argentina suddenly found itself in command.

These are the extraordinary margins upon which football history is decided.

Consider Messi’s own contribution to that shootout. He had converted Argentina’s opening penalty using his now-familiar stutter-step technique, narrowly evading Lloris’s fingertips. At that moment, Messi’s individual contribution to the tournament was complete. He could do nothing more to influence the outcome.

Had Argentina’s subsequent penalty takers failed while France converted theirs, Messi’s historical legacy would have been viewed very differently. He would still have been an all-time great, but the familiar argument concerning his inability to win a World Cup would undoubtedly have continued.

Instead, Dybala converted. Martínez produced his heroics. Argentina prevailed, and Messi’s place at the summit of football history was effectively secured.

Embed from Getty Images

That is the nature of football. The narrative is so often determined by the outcome, even when the difference between triumph and disappointment amounts to a goalkeeper’s fingertips, a trailing foot or a ball passing inches to one side of the post.

Dybala’s contribution was small in terms of playing time, but enormous in its consequences. Scaloni had the confidence to call upon him at the most critical moment imaginable, and Dybala rewarded that confidence.

Following Argentina’s World Cup triumph, I hoped that we might finally see Dybala given a more prominent role with the national team. Unfortunately, that never materialized. He was subsequently omitted from the 2024 Copa América squad, a decision Scaloni himself acknowledged was particularly difficult.

His son Ian is a tremendous admirer of Dybala, even celebrating his own goals with La Joya’s iconic gladiator-mask gesture.

The celebration itself is particularly fitting for a player who has made Rome his home. Inspired by his affection for the film Gladiator and the imagery of ancient Rome, Dybala’s trademark gesture has become one of football’s most recognizable celebrations. His move to Roma therefore seemed almost destined.

Scaloni has consistently spoken highly of Dybala, not only as an exceptional footballer but as a person. I suspect leaving him out has been difficult for the manager, just as it must have been painful for Dybala to continue watching Argentina from the sidelines.

Yet Scaloni himself has already acknowledged the special qualities of La Joya.

When Messi was unavailable for Argentina’s World Cup qualifier against Chile in September 2024, Dybala was entrusted with the famous No. 10 shirt. He celebrated the occasion by scoring Argentina’s third goal, combining with another exciting young talent, Alejandro Garnacho, who provided the assist.

It was a special moment for a player who had spent so much of his international career in Messi’s shadow.

Scaloni explained afterward that the coaching staff had selected Dybala because he possessed the quality necessary to wear the shirt. His teammates also encouraged him to accept it, despite Dybala’s initial hesitation.

Although other players have worn the shirt in Messi’s absence, Dybala’s previous opportunity provides a meaningful precedent for giving him the position now. The suggestion is hardly as unconventional as some might imagine. He has already worn the No. 10 for Scaloni and demonstrated his quality while doing so.

Whether Scaloni continues as Argentina’s manager remains uncertain. I certainly hope he does. And if he stays, I believe the mutual respect and strong relationship that already exist between him and Dybala could bring terrific energy to the team as Argentina establishes its identity without Messi.

I also believe Dybala’s willingness to accept such a limited role says something important about his character.

Dybala had every reason to be frustrated by his international circumstances. He had spent years in Messi’s shadow, frequently watching from the bench despite possessing world-class talent. It must have been painful to see his opportunities diminish, particularly during the years when he was performing brilliantly at club level.

Yet he never appeared interested in creating a public confrontation over his role. He remained supportive of his teammates and contributed positively when called upon. One gets the sense that even if he had been capable of pressing for greater playing time at Messi’s expense, he would have been reluctant to do so.

Throughout his career, Dybala has displayed tremendous class, both on the pitch and in the manner in which he has carried himself away from it.

His time at Juventus provides perhaps the clearest illustration.

Dybala was a magnificent player for the Italian giants, producing extraordinary performances and helping establish the club among Europe’s leading sides. His iconic brace against Messi’s Barcelona in the 2017 Champions League quarterfinal remains one of the defining performances of his career.

For a time, Dybala appeared destined to become the central figure around whom Juventus would build its future.

Then Cristiano Ronaldo arrived.

Once again, Dybala found himself sharing the stage with one of the two defining footballers of his generation. His role changed, and he was increasingly required to accommodate Ronaldo’s presence, although the two developed a genuine friendship during their time together.

Eventually, Juventus decided to move on from Dybala as part of its financial and sporting restructuring. The decision came amid broader difficulties surrounding the club, including the consequences of previous financial transgressions.

His departure was heartbreaking.

The images of Dybala leaving the pitch in tears following his final home appearance, being consoled by Giorgio Chiellini, remain among the most powerful memories of his Juventus career. They revealed the depth of his attachment to the club and the affection he had developed for its supporters.

Embed from Getty Images

Dybala’s arrival at Roma produced one of the most extraordinary player unveilings I have ever witnessed. Thousands of supporters gathered to welcome him, singing Antonello Venditti’s Roma Roma Roma in a beautiful display of affection. There is even a wonderful internet meme comparing the crowds at Barack Obama’s inauguration, Donald Trump’s inauguration and Dybala’s unveiling at Roma. The joke is that Dybala’s reception eclipsed them both.

It was an absolutely magnificent occasion, and one could not help but be moved by it. Dybala himself appeared deeply touched, later speaking about wanting to reciprocate the love Roma’s supporters had shown him.

That loyalty has been a defining characteristic of his career. When offered an extraordinary sum to move to Saudi Arabia, he chose to remain at Roma. His commitment to Argentina has been equally remarkable.

For years, I felt that if Argentina was not going to play him, Dybala would have been entirely justified in representing Italy, for which he had originally been eligible. Indeed, I would have loved to see him wearing Italy’s No. 10 shirt rather than spending his prime years on Argentina’s bench.

But he chose Argentina, and ultimately became a World Cup winner.

And Dybala has never been shy about celebrating that achievement. During a heated Rome derby against Lazio, following a confrontation with Mattéo Guendouzi, he cheekily produced a shin pad commemorating Argentina’s World Cup triumph over France and showed it to the Frenchman.

It was a wonderful little moment, revealing that beneath Dybala’s generally quiet demeanour lies a competitive spirit and a sense of humour. He is a loyal teammate, both to his club and his country, and a world-class footballer who has carried himself with tremendous class throughout his career.

Argentina enjoyed another extraordinary World Cup campaign in 2026, reaching the final before losing to Spain after extra time. There has been criticism of the Argentine team’s conduct during that final, with some suggesting that they displayed a lack of class.

I do not particularly share that view.

Argentina fought for their country, just as they fought for Messi. They were scrappy, determined and occasionally confrontational, but those qualities have long been part of Argentine football.

I am reminded of their performance in the 1990 World Cup final against West Germany, a match that Argentina arguably had no business reaching in the first place. Several important players were unavailable through suspension, including Claudio Caniggia, and Argentina spent much of the final fighting desperately to remain competitive.

The match ended with two Argentine players sent off and is frequently remembered as one of the least appealing World Cup finals ever played.

Yet Argentina fought and clawed until the end. It was not pretty, but there was something undeniably characteristic about their determination.

Embed from Getty Images

The same could be said of Argentina’s 2026 campaign. Their players fought for their country and one another, and I do not believe that should be dismissed simply because some of their behaviour was unattractive.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction worth making.

Some of Argentina’s class was left at home.

Dybala is, and always has been, pure class.

That description applies as much to his character as to his football. He has demonstrated remarkable loyalty, humility and composure throughout a career in which he has repeatedly been required to accept circumstances that might have embittered another player.

To say that a player is owed something in professional sport is a difficult proposition. Football is ultimately a performance-based business, and opportunities must be earned rather than distributed as rewards for past service.

Nevertheless, I believe there is value in doing right by people, and that making the right decision for the right reasons often produces positive outcomes.

Giving Dybala Argentina’s No. 10 would certainly be a fitting recognition of his career and the sacrifices he has made. But it would be a mistake to characterize the decision as a sympathy appointment.

Dybala remains a world-class footballer.

His early performances for Roma this season have demonstrated that he is still capable of producing extraordinary football, including three assists for Donyell Malen. When healthy and playing with confidence, Dybala remains one of the finest attacking talents in the game.

Indeed, the very characteristics that previously complicated his international career now make him the ideal successor to Messi.

For years, Argentina’s argument against playing Dybala regularly was that he occupied the same areas of the pitch as Messi. He wanted the ball in similar positions, preferred operating between the lines and possessed the same instinct for creating opportunities with his left foot.

But Messi is no longer there.

The qualities that once made Dybala difficult to accommodate now make him a remarkably natural replacement.

Argentina has spent years developing an attacking structure around Messi’s movement, creativity and extraordinary ability to find teammates in dangerous positions. Dybala is not Messi, but there are few footballers better equipped to step into that existing structure without requiring a fundamental change in the team’s approach.

He is, in many respects, a plug-and-play replacement.

At 32, Dybala would also bring a slightly younger presence to the position while offering the experience and technical maturity necessary to guide Argentina through its immediate transition.

How long that arrangement could last is another question. His injury history cannot be ignored, and Argentina must eventually develop younger players capable of assuming the responsibilities Messi carried for so long.

But there is no requirement that the next No. 10 be a teenager or a player whose best years remain entirely ahead of him.

Perhaps there is another advantage to his limited international involvement in recent years. Having missed two gruelling international tournaments, Dybala has been spared some of the physical demands placed upon Argentina’s regular starters. While his injury history remains a legitimate consideration, it is possible that the reduced international workload could help prolong his ability to contribute at the highest level.

There is also an argument for giving Dybala the captain’s armband.

He has demonstrated leadership throughout his club career, and his quiet, steady character would provide a useful contrast to some of the more confrontational personalities in Argentina’s squad.

Whether the captaincy would be appropriate is ultimately a question only Scaloni can answer. Dybala has not been a central figure in Argentina’s most recent international campaigns, and there are established members of the squad whose leadership and contributions deserve consideration.

But I would certainly not dismiss the possibility.

There is an understandable temptation to move immediately toward the next generation now that Messi has departed. The country has enjoyed extraordinary success under Scaloni, and maintaining that success will require new players to assume greater responsibilities.

But the transition should not come at the expense of a footballer who has already spent so much of his career waiting for an opportunity he unquestionably deserved.

Dybala has already demonstrated that he can perform at the highest level, that he can handle extraordinary pressure and that he possesses the temperament to contribute positively even when circumstances are not in his favour.

Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of Messi’s prolonged excellence with Argentina is that it eclipsed what should have been the prime international years of another generational talent. Dybala has been among my favourite footballers for years, certainly one of my favorites of his generation, and I remain convinced that he is capable of performing at a world-class level.

Argentina now faces the challenge of establishing its identity without Messi. That transition will take time, and there is no reason to believe the player who inherits the No. 10 must necessarily be the one who wears it for the next decade. Dybala strikes me as the ideal figure to lead Argentina through this interregnum, bringing continuity to an attacking system built around a player whose movements and creative instincts so closely resemble his own.

Of course, I would love to see Dybala feature prominently at the 2030 World Cup. Whether that remains realistic, given his age and injury history, is another question. But Argentina does not need to settle its plans for 2030 today. It needs to determine how best to move forward in the immediate aftermath of Messi’s retirement, and provided Dybala remains fit and continues producing the football he has demonstrated at Roma, I believe he is unquestionably the right man for the job.

At 39, Messi departed having accomplished virtually everything imaginable for his country, completing one of the most remarkable journeys in international football history.

It was nice to see Messi confidently dispatch his final penalty toward the top corner, considering the extraordinary role penalties had played throughout his international career. Few moments in football carry quite the same individual pressure, and Messi had experienced both the heartbreak and exhilaration they can produce. His final effort recalled the conviction with which he converted against Colombia in the 2021 Copa América semifinal, a match that would prove instrumental in Argentina’s eventual breakthrough.

Embed from Getty Images

Yet what struck me most about Messi’s farewell was the extraordinary affection surrounding him. It would be difficult to imagine, watching the Argentine public celebrate their captain, that just a decade earlier Messi had actually announced his retirement from international football in tears, following consecutive Copa América final defeats against Chile, both decided by penalty shootouts. Those disappointments followed Argentina’s heartbreaking defeat to Germany in the 2014 World Cup final, where Messi missed a difficult but promising opportunity against Manuel Neuer, while Gonzalo Higuaín squandered an even clearer chance. The burden of Argentina’s famous No. 10 shirt, and the inevitable comparisons with Diego Maradona, had become almost unbearable.

For those of us who had followed Messi from the beginning, the accumulation of disappointments was painful to watch. I desperately wanted him to succeed, as did millions of football supporters around the world. There was something particularly unfortunate about seeing a player who had accomplished so much for Barcelona continually judged by what he had failed to achieve for Argentina.

My own memories of Argentina stretch back considerably further than Messi. As a little boy, I attended Argentina’s 2–1 victory over Nigeria at the 1994 World Cup, a match remembered for Claudio Caniggia’s brace and, more infamously, as Maradona’s final international appearance following his subsequent positive drug test. Although I had the distinction of witnessing Maradona’s final match, it was Gabriel Batistuta, affectionately known as Batigol, who became one of my childhood idols.

Argentina would feature prominently in several of my subsequent World Cup memories. In 1998, they eliminated what remains my favorite England team of my lifetime, winning on penalties following an extraordinary 2–2 draw. Michael Owen’s magnificent individual goal understandably dominates recollections of that match, although Alan Shearer’s thunderous penalty into the top corner remains equally memorable to me. Shearer would produce another emphatic penalty in the subsequent shootout. Argentina were themselves eliminated in the quarterfinals by the Netherlands, courtesy of Dennis Bergkamp’s magnificent late winner. I had considerable affection for that Dutch team, as I have for several Netherlands sides over the years. My World Cup allegiances have frequently shifted according to the players involved, the style of football being played and the circumstances surrounding a tournament.

My attachment to Messi began at the 2006 World Cup, when he came off the bench against Serbia and Montenegro and scored a wonderful goal. Like so many others, I was immediately drawn to this extraordinarily gifted young footballer. There was something almost childlike about Messi in those early years, a young virtuoso whose remarkable abilities were accompanied by a relatively quiet and unassuming personality. For many of us, there was almost the feeling of watching a younger brother attempting to fulfill an extraordinary destiny.

By 2010, Messi was already producing extraordinary performances for Barcelona, but his international career had become a source of mounting frustration. His failure to score at that year’s World Cup is frequently cited as evidence of an unsuccessful tournament, something I have always considered a serious misrepresentation of his performances, particularly during the opening round. With Maradona managing Argentina, Messi was frequently required to create the attacking opportunities from which others benefited. Rather than receiving service in dangerous positions, he was often responsible for supplying it. He did practically everything but score, including striking the woodwork and creating opportunities that teammates converted. Maradona’s exclusion of Esteban Cambiasso from the squad was one of several selection decisions I found difficult to understand.

I occasionally wondered whether there was an element of personal conflict in the relationship between the two Argentine icons. Maradona was unquestionably a football genius, but also a deeply flawed individual, and the possibility that Messi might eventually surpass his legacy introduced an uncomfortable dimension. I cannot establish that Maradona consciously wanted to prevent Messi from eclipsing him, but some of his behavior and comments certainly left me wondering whether that possibility existed. Argentina’s humiliating 4–0 defeat against Germany brought the tournament to an ugly conclusion.

Four years later, Messi came agonizingly close to winning the World Cup. He scored four goals during the group stage in Brazil and subsequently supplied the decisive pass for Ángel Di María’s extra-time winner against Switzerland. Yet Di María’s injury during the quarterfinal against Belgium fundamentally changed Argentina’s attacking possibilities. Without him, the team increasingly relied upon defensive discipline and narrow margins rather than attacking invention. They eliminated Arjen Robben’s Netherlands on penalties before losing the final to Germany, where Messi dragged a promising opportunity narrowly wide of the far post and Higuaín squandered an excellent chance.

The Golden Ball awarded to Messi at the conclusion of that tournament remains controversial. Although he had been outstanding during the opening round, he failed to score in the knockout stages, and his attacking influence diminished considerably following Di María’s injury. Robben, in my view, had produced the superior individual tournament. Messi himself appeared uncomfortable collecting the award, and I have sometimes wondered whether the decision reflected, at least in part, the football world’s desire to recognize a player whose extraordinary talent had once again been denied the ultimate prize.

That sentiment would recur in subsequent years. His 2021 Ballon d’Or, awarded following Argentina’s Copa América triumph, was another decision that generated considerable debate. Messi had produced important goals and assists during that tournament, but his early performances following his move to Paris Saint-Germain were disappointing. There was a sense that his international breakthrough had helped carry him toward another individual honor. None of this diminishes Messi’s greatness, but it illustrates how deeply invested much of the football world had become in his pursuit of international success.

Embed from Getty Images

The disappointments continued in 2018, a tournament that proved particularly painful. Argentina’s goalkeeping problems had become impossible to ignore. Willy Caballero’s dreadful clearance against Croatia gifted Ante Rebić the opening goal in what became a humiliating 3–0 defeat, severely complicating Argentina’s path through the tournament. Messi had already missed a penalty against Iceland in the opening match, and the atmosphere surrounding the team had become increasingly desperate.

Yet there were still moments of brilliance. Messi scored a lovely goal against Nigeria in a must-win final group match, controlling a long pass with extraordinary precision before finishing with his right foot. Argentina advanced, only to encounter France in the Round of 16, where Di María produced a magnificent long-range equalizer in an extraordinary match that Argentina ultimately lost 4–3. It was also the afternoon that announced Kylian Mbappé to the wider football world. Still only 19, Mbappé’s explosive pace tore through Argentina’s defense, winning an early penalty before scoring twice in quick succession during the second half to turn the match decisively in France’s favor. It was the beginning of a rivalry that would assume far greater significance in the years ahead.

There were signs of a transformation under Lionel Scaloni, who inherited an Argentine team still recovering from the chaos of the 2018 World Cup under Jorge Sampaoli. I liked Scaloni almost immediately. His gentlemanly demeanor and calm, steady stewardship were exactly what Argentina needed after years of turmoil, and the Argentine Football Association deserves considerable credit for sticking with him. His first Copa América campaign in 2019 began poorly and ended with a semifinal defeat against Brazil, in which Messi struck the post, but there were signs of something developing.

The real turning point, however, came in the 2021 Copa América semifinal against Colombia. Messi set the tone in the penalty shootout with a ferocious blast into the top-right corner, but the star who emerged was Emiliano “Dibu” Martínez. Argentina had suffered from goalkeeping problems in recent tournaments, most notoriously Willy Caballero’s disastrous clearance against Croatia in 2018. Martínez brought something different, starting at the back: an extraordinary confidence and brashness that would occasionally get him into trouble, but which proved invaluable when Argentina needed it most.

Colombia had eliminated Uruguay in the preceding round, with Yerry Mina and others celebrating their successful penalties by dancing little jigs. Now it was Mina facing Martínez, who memorably talked him down, telling him he knew where he was going to put the ball and repeatedly declaring, “I will eat you.” It was a remarkable sight, made all the more extraordinary by the absence of spectators during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing television viewers to hear the exchanges clearly. Martínez saved three penalties, including Mina’s, prompting Messi to shout, “Dance now, Yerry!”

That was the moment Argentina’s fortunes seemed to change. For years, they had approached decisive matches with an almost inevitable sense of disappointment. Martínez’s performance gave the team something it had been missing, and his penalty-saving heroics would feature prominently in Argentina’s subsequent triumphs, particularly against the Netherlands and France at the 2022 World Cup. He would also rescue Argentina in the 2024 Copa América quarterfinal against Ecuador after Messi struck the crossbar attempting a Panenka. For a player who would later leave two goals on the table through missed penalties during his eight-goal 2026 World Cup, Messi had certainly experienced his share of disappointment from the spot. Yet in the moments that mattered most, Argentina had finally begun coming out on the winning side.

The 2021 Copa América final belonged to Di María, whose beautifully executed chip secured Argentina’s first major senior international title in 28 years. Before that breakthrough, Messi’s lone major international accomplishment had been his Olympic gold medal in 2008, also secured by a Di María chip, this time against Nigeria. The victory over Brazil was especially meaningful considering how many opportunities Messi and Argentina had squandered in preceding tournaments. Messi missed an excellent late chance, but this time Argentina survived.

By the time the 2022 World Cup began, I desperately wanted Argentina to win. I was living in Miami at the time, and watching Argentina’s matches at Bottled Blonde was a tremendous experience. It was an extraordinary atmosphere, and I still find it difficult to believe that the establishment subsequently closed. The final itself was one of the most remarkable sporting experiences of my lifetime. I joined the proceedings toward the end of normal time and watched the remainder, including extra time and penalties, live.

There are rare moments in sport when events unfold with such extraordinary drama and apparent perfection that they seem to transcend the competition itself. Having grown up in New England, I have experienced other remarkable sporting moments, but Argentina’s victory over France belonged in a category of its own. The world, by and large, seemed to be celebrating not simply Argentina’s achievement but Messi’s personal redemption.

At 35 years old, he had finally won the one trophy that had eluded him. More remarkably, he had done so as the central protagonist of Argentina’s triumph. His seven goals included four penalties, a distinction worth making when evaluating the statistical record. Nevertheless, his performances throughout the tournament were exceptional, beginning with what I consider the most important goal of his career to that point.

Embed from Getty Images

Argentina’s astonishing opening defeat against Saudi Arabia had placed enormous pressure upon the team. Mexico had effectively become a must-win match, and the tension surrounding the occasion was palpable. Messi’s goal broke that tension, and in subsequent interviews several Argentine players acknowledged how the opening defeat had sharpened their focus. He subsequently scored against Australia, ending his long-standing failure to score in a World Cup knockout match, and continued to deliver decisive contributions throughout the tournament. His assists against the Netherlands and Croatia were among the competition’s memorable moments, and in the final he scored what appeared to be the winning goal in extra time before France somehow equalized again.

Scaloni also showed great wisdom in restoring Ángel Di María to the starting lineup for the final against France. At 34, El Fideo had slipped out of the starting lineup amid fitness concerns, but was given the opportunity to do what we all imagined he might have done in the 2014 final against Germany had injury not ruled him out. Di María had a remarkable history of audacious chipped finishes in finals, having scored the winner against Nigeria in the 2008 Olympics and repeated the feat against Brazil in the 2021 Copa América. He continued that extraordinary record against France, if one grants his cheeky bounce chip over Hugo Lloris the same distinction. He also drew the penalty that Messi confidently converted to open the scoring, before departing with Argentina apparently comfortably in control at 2–0. Until that point, France had barely had a sniff of the game. El Fideo’s contributions to Argentina’s success deserve enormous recognition, and he will rightly be remembered as one of the country’s iconic players.

Then there was Paulo Dybala, affectionately known as La Joya, or “The Jewel.” Perhaps the only unfortunate consequence of Messi’s extraordinary longevity has been the limited international opportunities afforded to Dybala, a generational talent whose preferred position overlaps with Messi’s. That has always been the explanation for his limited involvement, although I saw little evidence that the two couldn’t play together when Messi supplied Dybala from a quick free kick against Chile in the 2019 Copa América third-place match, which Dybala finished with a lovely chip.

Following Argentina’s opening defeat against Saudi Arabia, I wrote at the time that it would be a mistake for Argentina to go through the tournament leaving one of their best players on the bench. And while Argentina ultimately made it to the final without relying heavily on him, Dybala was needed for a small but critical and iconic cameo in the closing minutes. He made a crucial defensive clearance against Mbappé and confidently converted his penalty in the shootout. His intervention even inspired an amusing online meme suggesting that Dybala was actually Scaloni’s son, sent back from the future to save Argentina.

Messi converted his penalty in the shootout against France using the stutter-step technique he had reportedly picked up during his time playing alongside Neymar at Paris Saint-Germain, a technique of which, for the record, I am not particularly fond. Neymar is, for better or worse, its master, and the rumor that Messi learned it from him adds an interesting wrinkle to a period that was largely viewed as a failure. Messi’s move to Paris, where he joined Neymar and Mbappé, had promised an extraordinary attacking partnership but ultimately failed to deliver the Champions League success expected of them.

More remarkably, the narrative surrounding Messi had completely reversed. For years, he had been criticized for producing extraordinary performances for Barcelona while repeatedly falling short with Argentina. At PSG, he was now winning international tournaments with his country while his club career was comparatively disappointing. There was even the awkward spectacle of Messi returning to Paris as a world champion after defeating France in the final, before eventually being suspended by PSG and apologizing for an unauthorized trip to Saudi Arabia. The footballer once accused of prioritizing his club over his country had, in the latter stages of his career, become almost the opposite.

What made Argentina’s achievement particularly remarkable was the relationship Messi had developed with his teammates. At times, the Argentine players seemed almost more determined to win the World Cup for him than for themselves. They understood what the achievement would mean to their captain, and they embraced that responsibility in a way that gave the team an extraordinary collective quality. Their commitment was not simply to win alongside Messi, but to play in a manner that allowed him to become the central protagonist of their success.

Embed from Getty Images

Scaloni deserves enormous credit for creating that environment, as do the extraordinary supporting figures who emerged around Messi. Di María, whose contributions in major finals were so often decisive. Martínez, whose extraordinary save against Randal Kolo Muani in the dying moments of extra time in the 2022 final remains one of the most consequential interventions in football history. Argentina’s victory also completed a remarkable historical progression: Mario Kempes had inspired the country’s first World Cup triumph in 1978, Maradona had delivered the second in 1986, and now Messi had added the third star. Whatever arguments may continue concerning the relative greatness of those players, Messi’s place in Argentina’s history had become unassailable.

There is an interesting parallel between Messi’s international career and that of Tom Brady, whose extraordinary longevity similarly transformed the historical assessment of his achievements. During the first half of Brady’s career, the defining individual comparison was with Peyton Manning. The two were frequently measured against one another, and for long periods Manning was considered the superior quarterback by many observers. Brady had won three Super Bowls early in his career, but what followed was an extended period of painful near-misses, including two defeats against the New York Giants involving some of the most improbable catches in Super Bowl history.

The elusive fourth championship finally arrived following the 2014 season, and the floodgates opened. Brady won another two championships with New England before adding a seventh with Tampa Bay, a victory I personally regard as rather less impressive than some of his earlier accomplishments, although its historical significance is undeniable. As Manning’s career ended, the rivalry that had defined Brady’s earlier years became increasingly irrelevant to the historical discussion. New comparisons emerged, first with quarterbacks such as Aaron Rodgers and eventually Patrick Mahomes, widely regarded as a potential future challenger to Brady’s legacy.

Brady defeated Mahomes in the 2018 AFC Championship Game and again in Super Bowl LV, this time with Tampa Bay. His final achievements had effectively settled the earlier debate with Manning, even as a new generation of rivals emerged.

Messi’s career followed a remarkably similar trajectory. For years, his defining individual comparison was with Cristiano Ronaldo, and the two dominated the discussion surrounding football’s greatest contemporary player. Yet as Messi’s international achievements escalated during the latter stages of his career, the comparison increasingly shifted toward a younger rival in Mbappé, whose extraordinary performance against Argentina in 2018 had announced his arrival on the World Cup stage.

I have actually found myself supporting Ronaldo more frequently than Messi over the past five years, particularly as I have become increasingly uncomfortable with some aspects of Messi’s behavior and the double standard in how the two players are treated. Ronaldo remains a magnificent footballer whom I would place among my ten greatest players, although behind figures such as Johan Cruyff and Brazil’s Romário. I also admire aspects of the example he sets, including his disciplined lifestyle and clean, tattoo-free appearance, which distinguishes him from many contemporary footballers.

Nevertheless, I believe Messi’s overall record has largely settled their historical comparison. Arguments for Ronaldo increasingly depend upon subjective considerations, including the familiar hypothetical about performing on a “rainy night in Stoke,” rather than the totality of their respective accomplishments. That does not diminish Ronaldo’s greatness, any more than Brady’s achievements diminish Manning’s. It simply reflects the way extraordinary late-career success can transform the historical standing of an athlete.

The 2022 World Cup triumph, in my view, cemented Messi’s place as the greatest footballer of all time. It was the achievement that finally elevated him beyond Maradona, whose international legacy had so long dominated the discussion in Argentina. Messi had already accumulated an extraordinary collection of individual and club honors, including a record number of Ballon d’Or awards, most of which were thoroughly deserved. Winning the World Cup as Argentina’s central figure completed the argument for me. What he has accomplished since has only widened the gap between himself and the great players of the past, present and future. Anyone hoping to supplant him as football’s GOAT faces an extraordinarily tall task.

And once Messi began making history with Argentina, he kept doing it.

Embed from Getty Images

At 39, Messi produced another extraordinary World Cup campaign in 2026, scoring eight goals and supplying four assists as Argentina reached a second consecutive final. Six of those goals came during the group stage, but his influence continued throughout the knockout rounds, including a goal and assist against Egypt, another assist against Switzerland, and two decisive assists in Argentina’s dramatic semifinal victory over England.

That semifinal was particularly painful for those of us supporting England. Anthony Gordon had given England the lead, but Messi inspired Argentina’s late comeback, assisting Enzo Fernández’s equalizer before supplying Lautaro Martínez for the stoppage-time winner. It was one of the most extraordinary late-career performances imaginable, and one that invites comparison with the greatest individual World Cup campaigns in history. I am not prepared to declare it the greatest individual performance ever produced at a World Cup, but a compelling argument could certainly be made.

Argentina’s extraordinary run finally ended against Spain, losing 1–0 after extra time in the final. It was disappointing, certainly, but there was none of the historical baggage that had accompanied Messi’s previous World Cup defeats. The ultimate prize had already been secured.

His performances also offered an interesting lesson in longevity. Having become the first active MLS player to win the Ballon d’Or in 2023, Messi subsequently demonstrated that an aging international star could use the flexibility and reduced physical demands of a lesser league to preserve himself for international competition. MLS is certainly not a top league, but it is difficult to imagine Messi having produced a better World Cup at 39 had he been playing in one of Europe’s major leagues. Other aging stars have moved to MLS, but none has maintained Messi’s staggering rate of goal production and goal involvement. Even at 39, he remains clearly capable of performing at an elite level, particularly in a team built around him.

What made Messi’s final years with Argentina so remarkable was not simply the accumulation of individual achievements, but the manner in which he had transformed his relationship with his country. The player who had once been criticized for failing to reproduce his Barcelona success on the international stage had become the central figure in the most successful period of Argentine football in generations. He had carried the weight of Maradona’s legacy for years, and ultimately responded by adding a third star to those delivered by Kempes and Maradona. Whatever criticisms one might make of his personality or certain aspects of his later career, his achievements with Argentina deserve extraordinary admiration.

And so we return to Messi’s farewell against Benin, where one of his final contributions was an assist to Nico Paz. Others have commented on the similarities between that moment and Messi’s first goal for Argentina, but for me it brought back more visceral, visual memories of the Argentine teams of my youth: a crafty, dark-haired No. 10 supplying a long, blond-haired forward. There was Maradona alongside Claudio Caniggia, and later Ariel Ortega supplying Gabriel Batistuta, one of my childhood idols. Seeing Messi and Paz together recalled those wonderful combinations.

Some have suggested that Paz should be the next player to wear Argentina’s famous No. 10 shirt. I have my own thoughts about who should inherit it in the immediate aftermath of Messi’s departure, but more on that in my next article.

Until then, well done, Leo. Thank you for the wonderful memories, and for the passion you have shown for your country and for football, which you shared with so many of us.

¡Viva la Albiceleste!

And while I still believe Mbappé has a stronger case than Lamine Yamal, for some reason, as I completed that article, I paused and ultimately decided to rescind it before publication.

After watching Harry Kane and England throughout the latest international break, I am glad I did.

With league football back, I am confident that Kane should, and will, win the 2026 Ballon d’Or, becoming the first English player to receive the award since Michael Owen in 2001.

Embed from Getty Images

The foundation of Kane’s case is his extraordinary season with Bayern Munich, where he scored 61 goals in 51 appearances across all competitions, including 36 in the Bundesliga and 14 in the Champions League. His performances helped Bayern capture the Bundesliga and German Cup double, while his 36 league goals earned him the European Golden Shoe for the second time in his career.

Although Bayern did not win the Champions League, they reached the semifinals, and Kane performed admirably in that competition as well.

Another important part of Kane’s case has been the exceptional quality of his overall play. As other writers have alluded to, his work rate, willingness to come back and help his teammates, and involvement in link-up play are integral parts of Bayern’s success. He is not simply a prolific goalscorer, but one of the most complete footballers in the world.

And what we saw from England during the international break provided another excellent illustration of that versatility.

There was a fluidity to England’s attacking play, with Kane, Jude Bellingham, Anthony Gordon, Morgan Rogers and others moving interchangeably into different roles, creating an explosive and unpredictable attack. Kane’s ability to drop deeper, link up with his teammates and create opportunities while remaining an extraordinary goalscoring threat is an integral part of that success.

England’s World Cup campaign ended in disappointment at the semifinal stage, although they subsequently secured third place. Kane contributed admirably throughout the tournament, scoring six goals and helping England achieve their best World Cup finish since 1966.

His iconic performance against DR Congo, in which he scored both goals in a come-from-behind victory, was particularly memorable. It was a match England should never have needed to make so difficult, but Kane delivered when his country needed him most.

The performance even prompted Thierry Henry to dub him “Sir Harry Kane.”

Kane also contributed a nifty assist in England’s victory over Mexico, once again demonstrating the quality of his all-around play.

There is certainly a strong argument for Lamine Yamal, whose excellent club season, impressive start to the new campaign and supporting role in his country’s World Cup triumph deserve recognition.

But I believe we have gone too far in allowing tournament victories to determine the outcome of individual awards.

Being part of a team that wins a major tournament is not necessarily more significant than playing a more central role for a team that does not. The Ballon d’Or is an individual award, and the quality and magnitude of a player’s contribution should remain the primary consideration.

And while England did not win the World Cup, Kane’s performances throughout the year, both for Bayern Munich and his country, were extraordinary.

Embed from Getty Images

As I wrote following England’s defeat to Spain, there was a wild swing in the betting odds between Lamine Yamal and Kane. Kane’s missed penalty may well have handed Spain the match, while Leão’s early goal contributed to England’s difficulties.

But I also wrote that an early defeat can sometimes help focus a team, and that is precisely what appears to have happened.

Kane and England responded exactly as I had hoped.

England could probably have won all three of their subsequent matches regardless. But the manner in which they responded, persevering through a difficult moment and emerging with three triumphant performances, was considerably more meaningful than simply winning the encounter against Spain would have been.

Kane scored six goals in four matches during the international break, most notably in England’s extraordinary 7–0 demolition of Croatia in Rijeka, where he scored twice and assisted another.

That result, in my mind, was far more significant than the defeat to Spain, particularly given the nature of the competition and what it suggests about the future of the English national team.

England followed that performance with a convincing 3–0 victory over Czechia, with Kane once again scoring twice and contributing an assist.

England may not emerge from this international break as the odds-on favorite to win the next major tournament, but they have certainly established themselves as a team nobody will want to face.

And that is precisely the dynamic, optimistic England that supporters have wanted to see, including Thomas Tuchel himself.

Rather than allowing the disappointment against Spain to derail their progress, England responded with confidence, determination and increasingly impressive football.

Kane was central to that response.

His goalscoring was outstanding, but so was his leadership, his work rate and his willingness to contribute throughout the pitch.

The international break also saw Kane equal Peter Shilton’s record of 125 appearances for England. He now has 91 international goals, further extending his record as England’s all-time leading scorer.

It was another reminder of why Kane remains such an exceptional professional and why his influence cannot be measured exclusively through his goalscoring statistics.

Embed from Getty Images

Mbappé has enjoyed a fantastic year, and I do not wish to diminish his accomplishments. His performances at the World Cup and his remarkable goalscoring record for Real Madrid made him a thoroughly deserving candidate.

But taken in totality, I now believe Kane’s year was better.

And with Mbappé’s injury limiting his participation during the international break, I do not believe there is sufficient time remaining for him to close the gap.

Kane has combined historic goalscoring with exceptional all-around play, consistency and leadership for both club and country. Across the 2025/26 season, he scored an extraordinary 73 goals in 63 appearances for Bayern Munich and England.

His contribution to Bayern’s success and England’s increasingly encouraging trajectory has established the strongest case for football’s most prestigious individual award.

The last Englishman to win the Ballon d’Or was Michael Owen in 2001, three years after his unforgettable wonder goal against Argentina at the 1998 World Cup.

Twenty-five years later, another English striker has produced a season worthy of joining him.

The World Cup did not “come home” to England in 2026, and ultimately, that is what mattered most.

But I believe the Ballon d’Or will return to an English player for the first time in 25 years.

The controversy began after Ronaldo was substituted earlier than he would have liked in Portugal’s match against Wales. In the subsequent encounter with Norway, he was asked to warm up during the second half, apparently with the expectation that he would enter the match. Despite spending much of the half preparing to come on, Ronaldo never made it onto the pitch.

Visibly frustrated, he left without acknowledging the supporters, setting off a confrontation that would escalate dramatically over the following days.

Jesus subsequently announced that Ronaldo would not start Portugal’s next match against Denmark and delivered a defiant press conference emphasising his authority as manager. Nobody, he declared in substance, not even footballers of the stature of Pelé, Diego Maradona or Cristiano Ronaldo, was entitled to dictate his decisions.

Much of the media embraced his remarks, applauding the manager for asserting his authority over an aging superstar. Ronaldo, meanwhile, departed the national team camp, promising that he would eventually explain his reasons to the Portuguese people.

And, predictably, those in the media who seem to find reasons to criticise Ronaldo even after he scores for his country wasted little time seizing upon the opportunity. The familiar narrative of an arrogant, entitled footballer unwilling to accept his diminishing role was quickly established.

My interpretation of these events is very different.

Embed from Getty Images

To understand why, it is worth considering the circumstances surrounding Jorge Jesus’s appointment and the manager he replaced.

Roberto Martínez had been criticised by sections of the media for his positive, optimistic and uplifting approach to managing Cristiano Ronaldo. Rather than treating the country’s greatest footballer as an inconvenience, Martínez sought to incorporate him into his teams and make the most of what he could still contribute.

That is precisely how a manager should approach a player of Ronaldo’s stature.

I consider Roberto Martínez an exceptional manager, and his work with Belgium provides an important illustration of why tournament results do not always tell the full story of a manager’s performance.

Belgium did not win a major trophy under Martínez, but they certainly played well enough to deserve one. Their 2018 World Cup semifinal against France was an exceptionally competitive match, and I would argue that Belgium may even have slightly gotten the better of the overall contest. France ultimately prevailed, but had Belgium emerged victorious, I believe they would have gone on to win the World Cup. They subsequently dismantled England in the third-place match, completing an impressive tournament that deserved considerable recognition.

Martínez was a positive, forward-thinking manager who brought out the best in an exceptionally talented group of players. I have written previously about how far a team advances in a tournament not necessarily being an accurate reflection of its performance.

That distinction applies to his time with Portugal as well.

Portugal failed to win a difficult World Cup group, leaving them with the unfortunate prospect of encountering Spain in the round of 16. Spain went on to win the tournament, and Portugal played them as competitively as virtually anyone did, perhaps more so. Portugal ultimately lost 1–0, but losing a closely contested match against the eventual champions is hardly evidence of managerial incompetence.

Nevertheless, Martínez moved on, and a couple of months later, Jorge Jesus arrived.

Rather than continuing the positive approach of his predecessor, Jesus appears to have recognised an opportunity to establish his authority by appealing to the anti-Ronaldo sentiment that has become increasingly prevalent in sections of the football media.

Jesus’s grandstanding about how nobody – not Pelé, not Diego Maradona, not Cristiano Ronaldo – is bigger than his country or entitled to tell a national team manager what to do has become the defining narrative of his dispute with Portugal’s greatest footballer.

But that assertion is simply not true. In fact, we have a real-life example that has just played out, directly refuting it.

That example is Lionel Messi.

Messi has effectively been given carte blanche regarding his involvement with the Argentine national team. He has been permitted to conclude his international career entirely on his own terms, and manager Lionel Scaloni has made it clear that Argentina’s No. 10 shirt remains his and that he is welcome to return whenever he wishes.

And I would not be surprised if he does.

One can certainly debate whether Messi’s and Ronaldo’s respective legacies are equivalent. But the principle remains the same. Cristiano Ronaldo belongs among the greatest footballers in history, regardless of where one places him relative to Messi.

He should appear on any credible all-time top-ten list. On my own, he ranks somewhere between fifth and tenth, behind players such as Johan Cruyff and Romário, but comfortably ahead of Zinedine Zidane, Michel Platini and Zico.

Which makes Jorge Jesus’s sweeping declaration all the more absurd.

Embed from Getty Images

Who exactly is this guy?

This is not Pep Guardiola or Sir Alex Ferguson. This is a relatively new manager of the Portuguese national team, a man whose career included managing in the Saudi league, where Ronaldo himself reportedly helped facilitate his appointment.

That is not to suggest Jesus is not a good manager. But his declaration is absurd, particularly coming from someone attempting to establish his authority at the expense of the greatest footballer in his country’s history.

And the more this controversy has unfolded, the more of a clown Jesus has made of himself in his apparent efforts to elevate his own standing by humiliating Portugal’s greatest footballer.

I think not.

There is also an unmistakable double standard in the manner in which Messi and Ronaldo are treated.

I have discussed this in previous articles, and it remains evident in the media’s willingness to scrutinize virtually every expression of frustration from Ronaldo while overlooking similar conduct from Messi.

Consider Messi pointing his finger directly in the face of Major League Soccer (MLS) commissioner Don Garber following Inter Miami’s Campeones Cup victory in September. The incident was captured on video, with Messi repeatedly approaching Garber during what appeared to be a heated exchange. The circumstances that prompted the confrontation remain unclear.

Yet the incident hardly generated the sustained condemnation that so often accompanies Ronaldo’s expressions of frustration.

I do not raise the incident to condemn Messi. I raise it because the contrast is instructive. Messi is afforded a level of latitude that Ronaldo frequently is not.

And to some extent, that is understandable.

Messi won the World Cup with Argentina. Ronaldo has not achieved the same with Portugal, and the difference inevitably influences how their respective international careers are remembered. But it should not determine whether one player is afforded respect while another becomes a convenient target for ridicule.

There is room to recognise Messi’s accomplishments without diminishing Ronaldo’s, just as there is room to acknowledge Ronaldo’s shortcomings without treating every controversy involving him as an opportunity to humiliate one of the greatest players the sport has ever produced.

Ronaldo subsequently released a lengthy statement detailing, in his own words, circumstances that had already been widely reported in the press. His explanation had initially emerged through accounts from those close to him, but his own substantial statement provided a considerably more detailed account of how the controversy developed.

I have no particular reason to believe that his account is untrue, although I recognise that we have heard only his side of the story.

According to Ronaldo’s account, Jesus initially agreed that he would sit out Portugal’s matches against Norway and Denmark to manage his fitness. On the day of the Norway match, however, Jesus reportedly told Ronaldo that he would play approximately 30 minutes.

Ronaldo subsequently warmed up throughout much of the second half without ever entering the match.

That alone would understandably frustrate a player of his stature, particularly one who believed he had been given a specific assurance regarding his involvement.

But the situation did not end there.

Ronaldo described a subsequent meeting involving Jesus, his adviser Tiago Craveiro and Al Nassr sporting director Simão Coutinho, during which an agreement was allegedly reached concerning how the manager would publicly explain the situation.

According to Ronaldo, eight points were prepared and agreed upon, establishing that he had not demanded playing time, had respected the manager’s decisions and had been treated unfairly when asked to warm up without ultimately entering the match.

There is something a little quirky about Ronaldo negotiating those eight points, particularly his desire to establish publicly that he was wanted by the national team. But it is disgraceful that his manager put him in a position where he felt compelled to have such a conversation in the first place.

In fact, those points are precisely what Jesus needed to communicate publicly following the events that had unfolded. Ronaldo should never have been required to negotiate a statement establishing his professionalism, loyalty and standing within the national team.

Ultimately, Ronaldo chose to share these details with the public, and I give him considerable credit for that transparency. I believe him when he says he has presented his whole truth. It is a strong statement from an iconic, high-performing footballer standing up for himself against what increasingly appears to me to be a small, manipulative and dishonourable personality in Jorge Jesus.

Instead of delivering the agreed-upon clarification, Jesus appeared at his press conference and made remarks that, according to Ronaldo, bore little resemblance to what had been discussed privately.

Embed from Getty Images

Jesus has denied making the agreement Ronaldo describes. But based on everything I have seen from both men, I am inclined to believe that it is Jesus, rather than Ronaldo, who is being dishonest about what transpired.

I certainly do not possess any particular insight into Jorge Jesus’s private thinking, and I would not pretend otherwise. But we can evaluate his conduct and the circumstances surrounding it.

If Ronaldo’s account is substantially accurate, the sequence of events raises an extremely troubling possibility. It suggests to me that the situation may have been deliberately arranged to humiliate Ronaldo, first through the manner in which his involvement was handled and then through the manager’s public remarks.

Such an approach could also serve to curry favour with younger players who would naturally welcome increased opportunities within the national team.

Again, that is an interpretation of the events, not something I can establish as fact. But if that interpretation is correct, it represents an extraordinarily destructive form of leadership.

A manager who elevates himself by diminishing a national icon, while potentially encouraging competing factions within his squad, is creating precisely the kind of toxic dynamic that can destroy a team’s culture.

And that is the larger issue here.

This is no longer simply a disagreement about whether Cristiano Ronaldo should start a particular match, appear as a substitute or remain part of Portugal’s plans. It is a question of leadership, organizational culture and the responsibilities that come with managing a national team.

There is nothing admirable about attacking the icons who have helped establish an organization’s identity and success.

The manner in which the New England Patriots organisation, beginning with Robert Kraft, treated Bill Belichick provides a particularly unfortunate example. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding a departure or a changing role, publicly diminishing the individuals responsible for an organization’s greatest achievements is a shameful approach to leadership.

These are precisely the kinds of slimy, opportunistic and manipulative shenanigans that destroy organizational cultures.

It is not something I respect, and it is certainly not something I want to see from someone entrusted with leading the Portuguese national team.

I have previously written about managerial conduct that I consider a fireable offense. In my mind, this situation falls into that category.

Based on the events as they have been presented, Jorge Jesus is not someone I would want leading the Portuguese national team.

Yet removing him now presents another serious problem.

If Portugal dismisses Jesus following this controversy, it risks reinforcing the very narrative that has been used against Ronaldo: that the country’s greatest player is exercising his influence to remove a manager who refused to accommodate him.

It could easily be portrayed as Ronaldo forcing out a coach who represented the interests of younger players in favour of someone more willing to defer to him. That would only deepen the division.

And a pro-Ronaldo versus anti-Ronaldo dynamic within Portugal’s national team would be an absolute disaster.

Players should not feel compelled to choose sides between their manager and the most celebrated footballer in their country’s history. Nor should the manager create circumstances in which younger players might view Ronaldo’s continued involvement as something they must oppose to advance their own opportunities.

This is precisely why the responsibility for resolving the controversy rests with Jesus.

He created the situation, and he has an obligation to his country to correct it.

Ronaldo concluded his lengthy statement by emphasizing that he had told the truth about the circumstances surrounding his departure. He also acknowledged that leaving the national team camp was wrong and took responsibility for that decision.

Personally, I am not so sure that it was wrong of him to leave. At a minimum, I am glad that Ronaldo stood up for himself after Jorge Jesus’s shameless shenanigans.

We know that Ronaldo takes tremendous pride in himself and his accomplishments, and that pride has undoubtedly contributed to some of his controversies and the satisfaction so many seem to take in seeing him fail. These are the same people now applauding Jorge Jesus. Yet, in my mind, it is Jesus’s character that really ought to be examined.

People can learn from their mistakes, however, and given the untenable mess Jesus has created, he needs to learn quickly.

There is another important element of Ronaldo’s statement that deserves recognition.

He went beyond merely acknowledging that his departure was inappropriate. He expressly accepted that his conduct warranted punishment and even argued that his status as captain should be considered an aggravating factor.

I disagree with him on that point.

Suspending Cristiano Ronaldo under these circumstances is not the appropriate response, particularly when the national team is already confronting a controversy that threatens to divide its players and supporters.

The Portuguese Football Federation has now provisionally suspended Ronaldo and initiated disciplinary proceedings concerning his departure from the national team camp.

That is an unfortunate development, and one I believe the federation should reconsider.

Embed from Getty Images

Ironically, Ronaldo’s willingness to accept punishment provides the federation with precisely the opportunity it needs to resolve this controversy positively.

He has acknowledged his conduct, accepted responsibility and expressed his willingness to face the consequences. In doing so, he has opened the door for the national team to respond graciously.

The appropriate response, in my view, is for the federation and Jesus to make clear that no suspension is necessary, that Ronaldo remains wanted and needed, and that Portugal looks forward to welcoming him back into the team.

That would not represent Ronaldo dictating terms to the national team. Quite the opposite. It would demonstrate an organization responding constructively to a player who has acknowledged his responsibilities and extended an opportunity for reconciliation.

And it would allow everyone involved to move forward without further humiliation or division.

Jesus’s subsequent comments suggesting that he has told Cristiano Ronaldo he needs him by his side indicate that he may now recognize the necessity of repairing the relationship.

I suspect that this necessity has been emphasized to him by his employers, the leadership of the Portuguese Football Federation, as it absolutely should have been.

Federation president Pedro Proença has publicly expressed his desire to welcome Ronaldo back into the national team, an encouraging indication that Portugal’s leadership recognizes the importance of resolving this controversy rather than allowing it to become a permanent rupture.

That is a good step forward, and Jesus should be encouraged to take several more.

It is now incumbent upon Jesus to demonstrate through his actions that Ronaldo remains a valued and important part of Portugal’s future.

There is a broader principle here concerning how successful organizations treat the individuals who have defined them.

Honouring greats is an important part of building a lasting culture.

That does not mean every decision involving a legendary player will necessarily produce the best immediate tactical result. There may be occasions when accommodating such a player requires compromises that would not otherwise be made.

But leadership is not exclusively about maximising the next result. It is also about preserving the values, relationships and institutional identity that allow an organisation to remain successful over time.

When an organization begins humiliating the people responsible for its greatest achievements, it sends a terrible message to everyone who follows them.

Portugal should understand that better than almost anyone.

Cristiano Ronaldo has represented his country for more than two decades, helping transform Portugal into one of international football’s most prominent and successful nations.

He has given the Portuguese national team an identity recognised throughout the world, and his pursuit of 1,000 career goals remains one of the most extraordinary individual stories in the sport.

That pursuit should not become an excuse to diminish him.

Nor should his age automatically disqualify him from continuing to play an important role.

Ronaldo remains an exceptional athlete, and while his responsibilities may evolve, I believe he is still capable of making meaningful contributions at the highest level.

Embed from Getty Images

There is still a path forward, but it requires Jesus to recognize that his responsibility extends beyond asserting his authority.

He must restore Ronaldo’s standing within the team, eliminate the possibility of competing factions and make clear that Portugal’s future will not be built upon diminishing the player who has contributed more to its international success than anyone else.

And I believe the appropriate course is to bring Ronaldo fully back into the fold and re-establish him as Portugal’s central talisman.

That does not mean ignoring the future or denying opportunities to younger players. It means recognizing that Ronaldo remains capable of contributing while ensuring that the transition toward the next European Championship takes place within a positive and unified environment.

There is still an opportunity to build that future around Ronaldo’s experience, competitive determination and extraordinary standing within Portuguese football.

But it will require the manager to correct the damage he has already caused.

If Jesus cannot do that, then Portugal should find a manager who understands, at the very least, the importance of treating the country’s greatest footballers with respect.

Jorge Jesus created this controversy. His conduct has threatened to establish a destructive dynamic within the Portuguese national team, and removing him now could exacerbate the very division that his actions have encouraged.

That is the unfortunate position in which Portugal finds itself.

It is Jorge Jesus, not Cristiano Ronaldo, who is to blame for Portugal’s mess — and entirely his responsibility to make it right.

The familiar caricature of Ronaldo as a man lacking self-awareness is also difficult to reconcile with his own words. He has acknowledged that this will probably be his final year playing professional football. His ambition, I believe, is to reach the extraordinary milestone of 1,000 career goals, and I suspect he had hoped to accomplish that while still representing Portugal. Depending on the international calendar and how events unfold, Portuguese football would do well to accommodate that ambition wherever reasonably possible.

As I have written previously, Lionel Messi’s peak with Argentina ultimately outlasted Ronaldo’s with Portugal. Messi won the World Cup and firmly established his case as the greatest footballer of all time. At this stage, Ronaldo, or anyone else, would be hard-pressed to reopen that debate.

But there is one important caveat: Ronaldo’s story with Portugal is not finished.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that Ronaldo announced his intention to continue representing Portugal on the very day Messi’s international career came to an end. While Ronaldo will be hard-pressed to overturn the historical comparison between them, his own story continues, and I would not bet against him adding a few more positive twists to his extraordinary list of accomplishments for Portugal.

Indeed, I would not be surprised if this entire controversy ultimately reinvigorates Ronaldo, perhaps even persuading him that this need not be his final year playing football.

I look forward to seeing a motivated, invigorated CR7 take the field for Portugal the next time they play.

And I certainly would not bet against Cristiano Ronaldo writing a few more memorable chapters before he finally decides to hang up his cleats for the Portuguese national team.

Three consecutive World Cups without qualification has shown a drastic decline in quality, creating a culture of losing among the national team. This was changed briefly in 2021, where Roberto Mancini brought the country their second ever Euros victory, as well as breaking the record for the longest unbeaten streak in international football history at the time, going 37 matches without a defeat. Three years after his resignation, he aims to reignite Italian football’s greatness.

Embed from Getty Images

To better understand Mancini’s current stint as Italy manager, it is necessary to first analyse his previous run, particularly what transformed the squad from a struggling side into an unstoppable force. It is equally important to look at what went wrong in the latter half of his spell as the team’s leader, and why they were unable to qualify for the 2022 World Cup. From his appointment in 2018, Roberto Mancini shifted the national side to a modernised 4-3-3 style, as well as placing faith in younger players that could enhance Italy’s rebuild and were ultimately pivotal in creating a new identity that forced themselves into 2021 Euros final and left as the victors.

However, it was his reliance on these younger players that resulted in failing to qualify for the 2022 World Cup, as Italy became reliant on these players over time, and ultimately found themselves lacking the squad depth sufficient to maintain their dominance, particularly with regards to finding the goals needed to win a game.

The failures of Italy in the aftermath of the Euros victory were largely out of Mancini’s control, to some extent, with institutional factors resulting in a lack of talent being produced and available for the squad, forcing the coach’s hand into an unfavourable position, as he was left without high-level attacking players.

A strained relationship between Roberto Mancini and the former president of Italy’s Football Federation, Gabriele Gravina, ultimately resulted in Mancini’s resignation in 2023, with a lack of trust between the two being cited as a key reason for this. The federation had restructured the national team’s setup prior to Mancini’s resignation, resulting in a change of backroom staff, as well as claims from the head coach that he did not have the autonomy he felt like he needed to be able to further develop the team, and take them to the next level.

This brings us to the 2026 World Cup qualifying campaign, where failure saw the resignation of Gravina as president, as well as the loss of two managers through the qualifiers, the first being Luciano Spalletti following the first round, and the second being Gennaro Gattuso after the final defeat. After a chaotic and stressful few years since his departure, Roberto Mancini has now returned as the national side’s head coach, as he now aims to recreate the magic of his first spell, while improving it and fixing the mistakes from his previous attempt.

Embed from Getty Images

Tactically, Mancini’s style of play is largely unchanged, with much of his philosophy remaining in place, as he carries forward the 4-3-3 formation, though more fluid than ever, utilising Bastoni in a key role during possession to push an aggressive press that allows the midfield to ultimately draw opponents out and create space for the attack. It is a proven method that Mancini has used in the past, but with a new group of fresh faces, the question is if the squad is capable of deploying the tactics effectively.

This is where Mancini’s growth is best seen, as he is no longer tied so strongly to his old ways, now being more open to adapting and evolving where necessary, as the starting XI is not as strict and set in stone. In the recent international break, the Italy squad has featured nine players receiving their first call-ups for the team, as these younger players will be essential in the long-term success, rather than the short-term success that Mancini’s first spell oversaw, with a focus on a wide variety of players instead of a smaller, more focused selection, allowing the squad to have greater depth.

This large group of players provides Mancini with the opportunity for experimentation, utilising the nations league matches to identify the key strengths of each individual, and developing the team’s plans to fit the abilities of the players. This will ultimately improve upon his initial stint as Italy manager by being more open to changing the starting lineup, as well as less reluctant to change tactics if necessary to suit the individuals that are available, making injuries less critical and prevent the side from falling into another crisis.

Despite it being early into Mancini’s latest spell, some elements of success and improvements are already being seen, as Italy saw an impressive 4-1 victory over Türkiye, as well as holding a strong position against a powerful France which culminated in a 1-1 draw. This demonstrates that the manager has already made an impact, changing the nation’s identity into one of winners, as he now intends on developing the team into one that can rival the best at the upcoming 2028 Euros.

However, the real question everyone wants to know, is can Roberto Mancini take Italy to their first World Cup since 2014? With four years to go until the next tournament, it is difficult to say how the squad will look by then, though with a wide array of young talent, Italy may be entering a new golden generation, with players such as Giorgio Scalvini, Riccardo Calafiori, and the Esposito brothers, Francesco and Sebastiano, likely to become major stars for the team, along with the existing key individuals such as Alessandro Bastoni and Gianluigi Donnarumma.

Time will tell if Mancini can accomplish the goals set out, but it’s certain that if this team can reach their full potential and put their coach’s tactics into play, then there is no reason why Italy can’t return to their former greatness as one of the top national sides in the world.

After a lengthy and drawn-out investigation, an independent commission ruled against the club, with a range of sanctions available to them.

What has the commission decided?

The panel found City guilty of every charge relating to financial breaches across a nine-season period, plus most of the accusations about failing to cooperate with the inquiry. According to the Premier League, the club arranged contracts with commercial partners that were intentionally designed to inflate its income, and it filed accounts that hid the true picture.

Sanctions will be determined at a later hearing, with City now expected to appeal. The club has come out and stated that it’s disappointed and surprised by the findings.

Embed from Getty Images

Fines and points deductions

The Premier League purposely chose not to set fixed punishments for financial offences, which gives the commission considerable discretion. A points deduction is widely regarded as the most likely outcome, following the precedent set when Everton and Nottingham Forest were docked points for profit and sustainability breaches.

A substantial fine could accompany it. Should the points deduction be heavy, it will severely affect City’s chances of success, which will be reflected by football betting odds online, with expectations shifting accordingly.

The most severe possibilities

The range of sanctions extends much further in the City case. Expulsion from the Premier League, while technically possible, remains improbable. Between those extremes sit heavier fines, larger deductions and other restrictions the commission may consider proportionate to a breach spanning almost a decade. The panel’s conclusion that the club clearly intended to circumvent the rules may weigh heavily when it decides how firm it should be.

Appeals and compensation claims

City are expected to appeal and have suggested so themselves, and that process could postpone any final resolution considerably. The club has been in a similar position before after UEFA banned it from European competition for two seasons and fined it €30 million in 2020, with the ban being overturned on appeal. Rival clubs are reportedly already exploring compensation for lost income, which will potentially prolong the legal fallout long after any sporting sanctions are settled.

Embed from Getty Images

Why this case matters for English football

Premier League chief executive Richard Masters described the case as the most significant in the competition’s history, arguing that City systematically broke the rules for close to a decade. The outcome will therefore shape how firmly financial regulations are enforced against clubs of every size. Supporters of rivals who finished behind City during the period in question, or lost to them in cup finals, will be watching closely, while the club’s fans face a prolonged spell of uncertainty.

What happens next?

The immediate focus will be on the sanctions and an appeal from City. If they challenge the decision, which is highly likely, it will shape the timetable, since any challenge would prolong a process the Premier League has stated it wants to resolve as soon as possible. Until a hearing determining the sanctions occurs, what happens next, and what happens to City, remain a bit of an unknown.

The guilty verdict has settled the facts as far as the commission is concerned, so it’s no longer just rumours about what’s played out. But as for the consequences, they’re still to be decided on.

The standout game is on Sunday, as Liverpool go head-to-head with table-topping Manchester City at Anfield. Read on as we preview the big match.

Embed from Getty Images

City sweating on Haaland’s fitness

One of the key Liverpool vs Manchester City match details ahead of the game surrounds the fitness of City’s star striker Erling Braut Haaland.

The 26-year-old played the full game in each of Norway’s first three Nations League fixtures, before asking to be substituted in their fourth outing against Portugal.

This sparked talk that Haaland could be doubtful for the trip to Liverpool, but Norway manager Stale Solbakken subsequently eased those fears.

He revealed he had a discussion with the striker about his heavy workload before the Portugal game and that his withdrawal was pre-planned.

“He was tired against Wales,” Solbakken said. “That’s why we had a heart-to-heart conversation yesterday. We went through the possible options.

“He might have played the last 45 minutes against Portugal. That was a discussion. But he has very bad vibes and feelings about it. I am very pleased that he managed to pull out sixty good minutes.”

City will hope that Haaland can continue his recent excellent form against Liverpool this weekend. He scored in both league meetings last term.

Embed from Getty Images

Goals could be on the cards this weekend

This will be the first league fixture between the two clubs since March 2015 with neither Jurgen Klopp or Pep Guardiola in the dugout.

Andoni Iraola has made a steady start to life at Liverpool, guiding them to two wins and three draws in their first five league outings this term.

New City boss Enzo Maresca boasts a more impressive record having overseen five consecutive victories at the start of the new campaign.

Recent fixtures between the two clubs have been hugely entertaining. Since their goalless draw in October 2018, the 15 subsequent league meetings have averaged 3.1 goals per game.

The away side has triumphed in two of the last three Premier League games between the clubs – as many as the previous 32 fixtures.

The Reds have drawn each of their last four home league games. They have only gone five or more matches without a home win in the competition on three previous occasions.

City are unbeaten in their last ten away league matches (W6, D4), which bodes well for their chances of maintaining their unbeaten record this weekend.

Embed from Getty Images

City fancied to keep rolling at Liverpool

Liverpool are unbeaten in nine matches across all competitions, but they have looked unconvincing in the Premier League this term.

Nottingham Forest (2-2) and Fulham (0-0) have both held the Reds at Anfield, and City possess far more quality than both of those clubs.

Both clubs will head into the game with several players sidelined through injury, but City’s greater squad depth could be a decisive factor.

City have scored 13 league goals this season and will fancy their chances of adding to their tally against a defence which has looked shaky at times.

Jeremy Jacquet has been their best performer at the back this season, but he could miss the game after sustaining a hamstring strain on international duty.

If the Frenchman misses the game, Ronaldo Araujuo is expected to partner Virgil van Dijk at centre-back. Haaland could cause them plenty of problems.

City triumphed 2-1 on their last visit to Anfield in February and are strongly fancied to pick up three points again this weekend.

But ironically, it was the 100 English supporters who were no doubt in dreamland today as they witnessed England deliver a historic 7–0 defeat of Croatia.

One particular clip has followed Thomas Tuchel throughout his tenure as England manager.

Before he ever took charge of the team, Tuchel was asked about Gareth Southgate’s England. He spoke about a side that lacked an identity and offered a vision of something different: a team that played to win rather than one that played not to lose. This, he told us, was supposed to be the team to beat.

Embed from Getty Images

It was exactly the message many England supporters wanted to hear. Ironically — and, from an English perspective, tragically — Tuchel’s first tournament at the helm ended up looking almost like a caricature of the Southgate teams he had criticised.

If you closed your eyes to who was standing on the touchline and simply looked at England’s performances and ultimate outcome at the World Cup, in spite of Tuchel’s superior messaging, much of the end product was painfully familiar. England consistently played down to lesser opponents before ultimately snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when they finally encountered a major one.

And that opponent just happened to be Argentina.

This was an opportunity to exorcise some of the oldest demons in English football. Argentina, England’s most iconic international nemesis. The Hand of God. Decades of controversy, heartbreak and history between two nations whose meetings have so often produced moments that live far beyond the tournaments in which they occurred.

And in that semifinal, Tuchel didn’t just retreat. He went one step further than even Southgate. England ended the match with six defenders on the pitch. Six. Not even Southgate would have done that against Argentina.

It was the retreat of all retreats, and Argentina duly overpowered England, scoring twice and ending the World Cup dream.

But I digress.

Last week, following England’s 3–2 defeat against Spain, I wrote an optimistic appraisal of what I considered to be a forward-thinking and encouraging performance. It also illustrated an important distinction I have made when evaluating both Southgate and Tuchel.

Football matches can come down to the most fortuitous of bounces, a refereeing decision or a matter of inches. Those moments determine results, but when evaluating a team and its manager, we should be willing to look beyond them. And that standard has to apply equally when England benefit from the bounce and win as it does when the bounce goes against them and they lose.

Against Spain, it went against them.

Harry Kane slipped slightly while aggressively striking a potentially decisive penalty and watched the ball crash against the crossbar. I actually liked the optimism of the attempt: high and hard, the way a former England talisman so often approached his penalties. On another day it flies into the net, and what became a disappointing defeat might instead have been remembered as a signature England victory.

That bounce of the football mattered enormously to the result. It did not change my overall appraisal of the performance. I was encouraged. England played more freely and aggressively. They played on the front foot. They looked like a team attempting to beat Spain rather than one preoccupied with avoiding defeat.

There was, of course, an important piece of context. The Nations League is not the World Cup. It is not the Euros. Playing with that freedom here is not the same thing as doing it with a World Cup semifinal hanging in the balance.

Embed from Getty Images

The second match against Czechia did not provide much additional material for evaluation. Most probably would agree that the match should have been easier than it was, especially in light of England playing with a man advantage for much of it.

Nevertheless, it was a victory and a clean sheet, with the names you want to see on the scoresheet. Gordon and Kane again supplied the goals, as they had in the first match against Spain. Gordon’s remarkable streak of goal contributions for England has now reached seven matches, and he is emerging as a bona fide star for club and country, rounding out an attacking trio with Kane and Bellingham that gives England plenty to be excited about.

And despite the horrific manner in which the World Cup ended, along with some underwhelming performances along the way, there were certainly bright spots. Perhaps none was brighter than England’s 4–2 opening victory over Croatia.

There were slip-ups in the first half that allowed Croatia to score twice, but England’s second-half performance gave us a glimpse of the front-foot team Tuchel had promised us.

That match was a source of optimism, but today was the stuff of dreams.

Aside from last weekend’s implications for the table in this group, the past week also saw a wild swing in the Ballon d’Or odds, trending away from Kane and towards Lamine Yamal. No doubt the events which unfolded in that match played a large role. It will be interesting to see where those odds sit once the dust settles on today’s performance, led by captain Harry Kane.

Kane served as the catalyst, starting the party early with a decisive strike after eight minutes following a slick through ball from Bellingham. Bellingham himself returned to score the second just 13 minutes later, Gordon continued his remarkable run of goal contributions, and Saka made it four before halftime.

Kane added another after the break to complete his brace and later turned provider for Saka, finishing with two goals and an assist. Saka’s second and a late goal from Morgan Rogers rounded out the historic 7–0 scoreline. Kane now has four goals through England’s opening three Nations League matches, adding to his historic calendar year for club and country.

Tuchel previously took umbrage when questioned about England’s record against top-10 nations. His response was that nobody seemed to mention that statistic when England actually won one.

Point taken.

Let the record show that England have now beaten top-10 nations on seven of their last 16 opportunities, which is nothing to scoff at. And credit where it’s due for Tuchel: four wins from six opportunities under his management, which, excluding context, is certainly a good record.

Embed from Getty Images

The lingering question is how England will fare against this level of opposition in the latter stages of tournaments. And while I’m not sure how much longer Croatia will remain a top-10 nation, they are nevertheless a quality opponent, and this was a historic and emphatically positive result.

I mentioned after the Spain game that losing early in a tournament can sometimes ultimately be beneficial. In a forgiving group stage, England had the opportunity to absorb that defeat without allowing it to define them. Perhaps we are seeing that play out here. England lost to Spain while playing positively, got the necessary victory against Czechia, and have now gone to Croatia and won 7–0.

Assuming England take care of business in their next two matches, based on the goal differentials as they currently stand, it seems increasingly likely that they will travel to Spain for the final match of the group stage with an opportunity to win the group.

The Nations League is not the World Cup. It is not the Euros. But it is a great opportunity to watch our country compete at the highest level, and as this initial trip concludes, there is a lot to be excited about.

And I, for one, am excited to see what Kane, Bellingham, Gordon and Tuchel’s England deliver next.

Increasingly, this is starting to look like the team Thomas Tuchel told us he intended his England to be: a team that plays to win rather than playing not to lose.

And perhaps, the team to beat.

The charges cover a range of alleged breaches, including failures to provide accurate financial information, matters relating to player and manager remuneration, UEFA financial regulations, Premier League profitability and sustainability rules, and failures to cooperate with the league’s investigation.

There are some important qualifications before going any further. The full judgment has not been published. No sanction has yet been announced. Manchester City maintain their position and are expected to appeal. The club says the process remains ongoing. And I certainly haven’t spent the last several years digging through Manchester City’s accounts. I haven’t examined the evidence in anything approaching sufficient detail to independently declare what did or didn’t happen, nor am I going to pretend otherwise.

So everything that follows presupposes one thing: that what is presently being reported is substantially accurate and that these findings ultimately survive the appeals process. If they do, the punishment should be severe. But I strongly disagree with one of the most obvious proposed solutions: do not rewrite history.

Embed from Getty Images

You cannot manufacture an alternative past

There will understandably be calls to strip Manchester City of titles and award them retroactively to whichever club finished second. I don’t think the Premier League should do that. There is precedent elsewhere in sport for vacating accomplishments after the fact, but football should be extremely reluctant to establish a precedent in which championships can be administratively reassigned years after everybody went home.

For one thing, we cannot possibly know what would have happened. Take Diego Maradona and the Hand of God in 1986. Suppose the referee sees it, the goal is disallowed and Maradona is sent off. Does England beat a ten-man Argentina? Yeah, probably. But we don’t know. And even if England do win, they then have to play Belgium and, if they get through that, presumably West Germany in the final. Every match unfolds differently, every tactical decision changes and every subsequent event occurs in a world altered by what happened before it. You cannot change one enormous variable and confidently assume everything that follows remains the same.

The same problem exists with Manchester City. Manchester United lost the 2011/12 Premier League title on goal difference. Liverpool finished one point behind City in 2018/19 and again in 2021/22. It is incredibly tempting to remove City, move everybody else up one position and declare justice served, but that isn’t history. Those seasons unfolded with Manchester City in them. Teams approached matches according to the table in front of them. Managers made decisions based upon results that had already happened. Transfers were made. Managers were hired and fired. Players experienced pressure, confidence, fatigue and injuries. Change Manchester City and you change everything downstream.

We cannot know with certainty who would have won those championships, and even if we could somehow approximate it, I don’t think we should rewrite them anyway.

Football needs finality

There is a broader reason for that. I think retroactively changing championships years later would damage the Premier League brand considerably and establish a horrible precedent. We already hear complaints about VAR taking away some of the joy of a goal. The ball hits the net and everyone celebrates, but there is now sometimes that moment of hesitation while we wait to see whether somebody was offside, whether there was a handball or whether VAR is going to intervene.

Now take that concept to an entirely different level. Imagine introducing the idea that a championship you watched your club win might not really be theirs because lawyers and accountants could revisit the season five, ten or fifteen years later and officially declare somebody else champion. Football should not go down that road. Sport requires a degree of finality.

That does not mean violations discovered later should go unpunished. It means the punishment should address the violation rather than pretending the violation never occurred. A crime cannot be undone. This is not a criminal case, and violations of Premier League rules are not crimes, but the principle is the same. When a wrong has occurred, the legal system does not possess a time machine. It determines responsibility, imposes consequences and, where appropriate, attempts to compensate the people who were harmed. That is the model I would apply here.

Embed from Getty Images

Don’t use counterfactuals to rewrite history; use them to calculate Damages

This is where the distinction becomes important. I don’t believe we can say Liverpool definitely would have won a particular championship without Manchester City. What we can potentially do is estimate the probability that they would have, and that probability has economic value. The same principle can apply to Manchester United, Champions League qualification, league position, European progression, commercial opportunities and other identifiable sources of revenue.

And this is not entirely theoretical. Premier League clubs are already reported to be considering compensation claims following the reported City decision. Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham are among those reported to have preserved their ability to pursue compensation, with potential claims involving lost earnings and lost opportunities. That is where the counterfactual belongs.

I am willing to use a counterfactual to help determine damages. I am not willing to use one to manufacture history. Experts can attempt to calculate probabilities. Lawyers can argue causation. Economists can quantify losses. Manchester City can challenge those calculations. Independent commissions and, where applicable, courts or tribunals can decide what can actually be proven. It would be enormously complicated, but complexity is not a reason to ignore legitimate damage.

If a club can demonstrate that Manchester City’s violations materially reduced its opportunity to win a championship, qualify for the Champions League, progress in Europe or earn additional revenue, there should be a process for translating that lost opportunity into economic damages where the applicable rules and law permit it. The consequences need not stop with whichever club happened to finish second. Competitive harm travels through a league table. One club misses a championship, another potentially misses the Champions League, another loses European football and another finishes one position lower. The farther down that chain we travel, the harder causation becomes to establish and the smaller the potential damages are likely to become. That’s exactly why we have legal processes. Let the evidence establish where the chain ends.

This could extend beyond England

There is also an obvious European dimension. Manchester City were not competing solely against English clubs during this period. They were participating in the Champions League, earning revenue and occupying places in European competition. That doesn’t mean UEFA should start retroactively handing Champions League matches or trophies to somebody else either. The same principle applies.

Don’t manufacture an alternative tournament. But where a legally sustainable claim can establish economic harm arising from an improperly obtained competitive advantage, it should be examined through whatever European, regulatory or legal process has jurisdiction. This could become an extraordinary domino chain, but that is unavoidable if the underlying violations ultimately prove to have been as extensive as presently reported.

Embed from Getty Images

The money should go somewhere

There is another reason I prefer compensation to historical revision. Money paid as compensation doesn’t simply disappear. If Manchester City ultimately has to compensate other clubs for demonstrable losses, that injects capital back into the clubs that were harmed. That is far closer to restoration than changing the name engraved on an old trophy.

Don’t give Liverpool a championship years after the fact; compensate Liverpool for whatever losses it can actually establish. Don’t pretend another club played in a Champions League campaign it never participated in; determine whether it lost an identifiable economic opportunity and, if so, what that opportunity was reasonably worth. Apply the same principle throughout the league wherever legitimate damages can be demonstrated.

That creates an interesting corrective mechanism. Manchester City loses capital corresponding to harm attributed to its violations, while other clubs receive capital corresponding to losses they can establish. Instead of pretending to restore competitive balance retrospectively, you begin restoring it prospectively. There is already a recent Premier League precedent for substantial compensation arising from a financial-rule breach: Burnley were awarded £35.1 million from Everton after a commission determined that Everton’s breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules had given it a sporting advantage in the season Burnley were relegated. The City situation, if the reported findings survive appeal, is potentially on an entirely different scale.

The punishment should actually hurt

Compensation alone may not be sufficient. If Manchester City are ultimately found responsible for violations approaching the scale presently being reported, there must also be a serious sporting consequence. Relegation would be entirely appropriate in my view. Alternatively, an enormous points deduction could effectively produce the same result through the league table.

What cannot happen is a fine sufficiently small that an ownership group of Manchester City’s resources can simply absorb it as the cost of doing business. The consequences should materially affect the club, and substantial compensation could create consequences of its own. Manchester City have continued spending and building for the future. If the club eventually faces enormous financial liabilities alongside sporting sanctions, it could be forced into extremely difficult decisions. That might mean selling valuable players. It might mean several transfer windows in which City cannot operate from anything resembling its previous position of strength. Combined financial and sporting consequences could set the club back several seasons.

That would not be an arbitrary redistribution of Manchester City’s wealth. It would be the consequence of a process determining that identifiable parties suffered identifiable economic harm and are entitled to compensation. City got the trophies, and those stay. But preserving the trophies does not require preserving every economic advantage derived from them.

Leave the players out of it

There is also an important distinction between Manchester City as an institution, its manager and the players who actually went onto the pitch. For the players, this should have no impact whatsoever on how their performances are viewed unless evidence emerges that particular individuals were personally involved in wrongdoing. They weren’t responsible for constructing Manchester City’s financial arrangements. They went out and played football, produced the performances and moments that supporters remember, and there is no reason to retrospectively attach institutional wrongdoing to players who were neither involved in it nor aware of it.

Pep Guardiola’s legacy raises a slightly different question, not because I am suggesting Guardiola personally participated in financial wrongdoing, but because the circumstances under which a manager’s squad was constructed are inherently relevant when evaluating his accomplishments. Pep should still have the titles. But if it is ultimately established that Manchester City enjoyed a considerable competitive advantage in assembling and maintaining those squads because the club operated outside financial restrictions its competitors were required to observe, that is legitimate context when evaluating Guardiola against contemporaries such as Jürgen Klopp and José Mourinho.

That doesn’t erase Guardiola’s tactical accomplishments, nor does it prove another manager would have achieved what he achieved. It simply becomes part of the historical evaluation. The record book can tell us what Pep Guardiola won. Football supporters and historians can decide what weight to give the circumstances under which he won it. We don’t need the Premier League to make that judgment for us.

Embed from Getty Images

Enforcement can strengthen the Premier League

Financial regulations in football are already controversial. There are supporters who believe the rules themselves entrench the established elite by making it extremely difficult for ambitious clubs outside that group to spend enough money to catch them. That is a legitimate debate, but it is a different debate. If the rules are bad, change them. While they exist, everybody has to obey them.

And if it is ultimately established that one of the richest and most successful clubs in world football egregiously violated financial restrictions that everybody else was expected to follow, that is appalling. Some will argue that imposing consequences on this scale would damage the Premier League’s reputation. I think mishandling it would be far more damaging.

A transparent process in which Manchester City receives every opportunity to appeal, the findings are eventually made clear, legitimate damages are assessed, injured parties are compensated and meaningful sporting sanctions are imposed demonstrates that nobody is bigger than the competition. That could ultimately strengthen the Premier League. The alternative — establishing enormous violations and then imposing a punishment that Manchester City’s ownership can shrug off — would tell supporters that the rules are meaningful only until somebody becomes wealthy enough to break them.

Don’t erase history, deal with it

That is ultimately my position. Don’t give Liverpool championships they didn’t celebrate, don’t give Manchester United 2012, don’t erase Agüero’s goal, and don’t tell players who had nothing to do with financial arrangements that their accomplishments disappeared years later. Most importantly, don’t pretend we can construct an alternative decade of English football and know how it would have unfolded. We can’t.

Presupposing these findings survive appeal, punish Manchester City severely. Calculate the economic harm as comprehensively as the evidence and applicable legal processes allow, compensate clubs that can establish legitimate losses, and allow those damages to inject capital back into the competition. Impose a sporting sanction commensurate with the seriousness of what was done, including relegation if appropriate.

And if the financial consequences are so severe that Manchester City must sell assets and spend several seasons rebuilding from a significantly weakened position, that is not rewriting history. That is living with its consequences.

The record should say what happened. The findings should say what was wrong. The punishment should address the damage. And history should be trusted to hold all three facts at once.