Flaws

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. — The largest, longest and most complex World Cup in history came to a close Sunday, with Spain beating Argentina 1-0 in extra time. But FIFA president Gianni Infantino didn’t bother waiting for the final result before passing judgment on the tournament.

“By all means this World Cup has exceeded all expectations,” he said during a reception at Trump Tower two days before the final kicked off. “This has not just been the greatest FIFA World Cup of all time. It is the greatest human social and cultural event that mankind has ever witnessed.”

No, but it was pretty good, with FIFA emerging as the World Cup’s biggest winner, allowing Infantino to reportedly shore up support within the organization despite a number of norm-shattering decisions during the tournament.

Attendance topped 6.8 million, a World Cup record averaging more than 65,000 fans a game. FIFA estimated the cumulative global TV audience topped 5 billion people across linear television, digital streaming and social platforms while more than 1.8 billion people were expected to watch the final, according to the BusinessStats website, making it the most-viewed sporting event in history.

Argentina goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez reacts as Spain’s Ferran Torres scores during the World Cup final in East Rutherford, N.J., on Sunday.

(Julio Cortez / Ap Photo/julio Cortez)

Exact figures won’t be known for a few days.

Revenue for the four-year World Cup cycle is anticipated to reach $13 billion, making it the first $10-billion sporting event in history — bolstering Infantino’s case for reelection as FIFA’s president next year.

The final was among the most expensive U.S. sporting events of all time, with the get-in asking price for a single ticket on the secondary market peaking at about $7,400 three hours before kickoff and the average purchase price topping $10,800. One seat sold for $32,502, which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether you’re buying the ticket or selling it.

Inglewood’s SoFi Stadium hosted eight games, including two of the U.S. team’s three group-stage games and Spain’s quarterfinal win over Belgium. The matches had a total attendance of 561,656 people, about 99.6% of capacity — that’s more than each of the first three World Cups drew for the entire tournaments.

U.S. and Paraguay oversized flags are featured on the pitch before a World Cup group stage match at SoFi Stadium on June 12.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Weather disrupted just a handful of matches, not the dozen or more that were feared, and the logistical nightmares of staging the 39-day tournament across three countries for the first time — the U.S. co-hosted the event with Mexico and Canada — never materialized. The expansion to 48 teams and 104 games, meanwhile, made room for a number of surprises that gave the tournament its life and sparkle.

Tiny Cape Verde, the second-smallest country to qualify for a World Cup, made a memorable debut, playing Spain to a scoreless draw in its opener, then taking Argentina to extra time before falling in the cruelest way possible, on an own goal, in the knockout rounds.

Norway, playing in the tournament for the first time this century, made it to the quarterfinals behind its hulking striker Erling Haaland, who quickly became a fan favorite while the team’s supporters saw their synchronized “Viking Row” celebration go viral.

Canada and Egypt both won World Cup games for the first time, advancing to the Round of 16, with Egypt becoming one of nine African teams to make it to the knockout rounds. Of FIFA’s six continental confederations, only UEFA, representing Europe, did better than Africa, sending 13 teams beyond the group stage.

Argentina’s Lionel Messi erased any doubt that he’s the greatest player in World Cup history — if not soccer history — by willing his team to the final and winning the Silver Ball, runner-up for the tournament’s most outstanding player. On Sunday, Messi was thwarted in his attempt to win a second straight World Cup and third Golden Ball, but he walked off the field at MetLife Stadium as only the second man to play in three World Cup finals.

And he finished his record-setting sixth tournament as the all-time leader in games (34), assists (12) and goal contributions (33), more than standing the test of time. Two of the players Spain started against Argentina in the final hadn’t even been born when Messi, 39, made his World Cup debut in 2006.

But if those were the highlights, there were also lowlights.

This was by far the most political World Cup in history and the first in which a host country, the U.S., was actively at war with a participating one, Iran.

Iran defender Ramin Rezaeian celebrates with teammates after scoring during a World Cup match against New Zealand at SoFi Stadium on June 15.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

That had all kinds of ramifications, starting with the State Department’s refusal to grant visas to more than a dozen members of Iran’s official delegation. Iran was also forced to move its base camp from Tucson to Tijuana, and though it played all its games in the U.S., it was denied permission to remain in the country after each match, an option granted to every other team.

Despite the harassment, Iran did not lose a game, playing to three draws despite having three goals — any of which would have sent it to the knockout rounds — erased by video reviews.

The State Department also denied entry to Omar Abdulkadir Artan, a decorated Somali referee, turning him away at Miami International Airport in June, citing “vetting concerns.” Artan, named Africa’s top referee last year, had a valid entry visa and was selected by FIFA to work the tournament last April.

Iran wasn’t the only team to have its World Cup ended early by technology. Although the video assistant referee (VAR) system was adopted primarily to alert the head official to potential clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents, in this tournament it became intrusive, eliminating Croatia on evidence from a NASA-level ball sensor and costing Egypt what would have been a game-winning score for a perceived foul that took place nearly 100 yards from the goal.

Coaches and players are still allowed to make mistakes, but the technology now has referees making calls on things that are imperceptible to the naked eye, something critics say has removed any sense of judgment or nuance, robbing the game of much of its drama.

“Football is an art. That’s why we love it,” said Christina Unkel, a former FIFA referee and a rules of the game analyst for multiple TV networks. “When you do pursue black and white — objectivity is what they’re trying to get to, and I get it; they want to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible — what everyone is hating is this perfection thing.”

Then there was the official’s call that President Trump took credit for overruling from 2,800 miles away.

When striker Folarin Balogun, the U.S. team’s leading scorer, was given a red card in the second half of his team’s Round of 32 win over Bosnia-Herzegovina, he was immediately suspended from the Americans’ next elimination game with Belgium. But Trump admitted he phoned Infantino three times, lobbying for the suspension to be rescinded.

U.S. forward Folarin Balogun stepped on Bosnia-Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemovic’s foot during a World Cup match and received a red card at Levi’s Stadium on July 1.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Less than 30 hours before the Belgium game, the card penalty was suspended and Balogun was placed on one year’s probation by FIFA’s disciplinary committee, marking just the second time in World Cup history that a player who received a red card was allowed to play in his team’s next game. The international uproar that followed overwhelmed the U.S. team, which played its worst game of the tournament against Belgium.

“I could almost see within my teammates a bit of nerves,” Balogun said in an interview with CBS, “because it’s something that is so unique.”

Trump, who was booed as he saluted the national anthem Sunday from a luxury box before the game, was booed again by the crowd of 80,663 when he strode onto the pitch for the awards ceremony afterward.

UEFA, the FIFA confederation in which Belgium plays, protested the decision to let Balogun play, saying it had “crossed a red line.” It was far from the only bright red line Infantino crossed in this tournament. And some of that line crossing could set dangerous precedents.

Allowing the U.S. to turn away the Somali official and limit the Iranian team’s time in the country, for example, could embolden future World Cup hosts to do the same. What’s to stop Morocco, co-host of the 2030 tournament, from banning officials and players from Algeria over the two countries’ territorial dispute in the Western Sahara? And if a red card is handed to a player from Spain, another 2030 co-host, would the Spanish prime minister call Infantino to try to get it rescinded? Despite FIFA’s insistence that the disciplinary committee works independently, many believe Trump’s meddling worked.

But as always with FIFA, money speaks the loudest, so Infantino’s norm-shattering behavior over the last year doesn’t seem to have cost him much support. The Guardian reported last week that as the World Cup neared its successful conclusion, nearly 200 of FIFA’s 211 member associations are endorsing Infantino’s bid for reelection to a fourth term as president next March.

Which is why Spain wasn’t the only winner in this tournament.

With a year to go until the World Cup starts in Brazil, this was a concerning scoreline that gives Wiegman plenty to ponder.

Facing world champions Spain away is arguably the toughest test in football, but to lose so comfortably was not an easy watch.

Former England midfielder Fran Kirby said Wiegman’s players looked “deflated” at full-time and she “hurt just watching it”.

“They will learn from it, and they have to rise up to put in a good performance against Ukraine,” Kirby told BBC Radio 5 Live.

Just the top team from their group automatically qualifies for the World Cup and even if England beat Ukraine on Tuesday they will likely miss out, with this defeat by Spain the only blotch on their otherwise solid campaign.

So what damage did the 4-0 defeat have on England?

“Of course, it’s not a great scoreline. It’s hard, it’s disappointing, and I think there was a difference – a big difference – between ourselves and Spain,” added Wiegman.

“We review this, recover, stick together, play a good game and then move forward.

“We know if we qualify [automatically] that there’s a different preparation than if we don’t qualify. Let’s first see what happens on Tuesday.”

England midfielder Keira Walsh, who captained the side in the absence of injured centre-back Leah Williamson, conceded they “just weren’t good enough”.

“Spain played incredibly well but I think there are a lot of things we could have done better. It felt like they had bodies everywhere,” said Walsh.

“It was very difficult to get out of our own box. I don’t have solutions right now. Obviously we’ll look back but right now the emotions are very high.

“It was a disappointing game. We’ve still got a small chance to qualify automatically. It’s out of our hands. We can hope Iceland do us a favour.”

Optimism has been the name of the game since Operation Absolute Resolve took Maduro out. Such optimism doesn’t just come from Venezuelans, where polls showed support for the intervention, but also from the investment community, which has flocked into the country to assess all kinds of opportunities. Since then, oil revenues have increased, driven not just by output increments but also by favourable price tailwinds and sanctions relief, which meant the reintroduction of Venezuelan crude into the global market. Today, Venezuela is the second largest source of imported crude in the United States, something unthinkable five months ago.

The petro dollars haven’t come in by themselves. A mechanism was designed so American officials could control how and where those funds would be deployed in order to avoid the disappearance of half of all oil revenues, as was the case under the previous administration. Additionally, licenses were granted to the BCV, new laws were passed for the hydrocarbon and mining sectors, with new MoUs being signed with international energy companies. Even macroeconomic data sets have been released for the first time in over a decade. So much appears to have changed that even multilaterals (chiefly the IMF) reemerged as crucial partners for a potential debt restructuring and stabilization program. Optimism is granted and the illusion of recovery does not come without merit, given the changes the country has experienced in less than five months.

However, that mirage breaks against the harsh reality on the ground and macroeconomic indicators that tell a different story. A year-to-date inflation of 90%, a 70% depreciation of the official exchange rate, and a widening gap between multiple dollar rates that continues to punish businesses and individuals alike. Meanwhile, the Bolívar printing press is working overtime while BCV reserves remain flat, deepening macroeconomic uncertainty and destroying what little credibility the institution still retained.

The almighty bond market will need far more than an Instagram post to bite the bait. Sovereign creditors respond to numbers, rules, and enforceability. Venezuela remains deeply deficient on those fronts.

None of this reflects an economy that is stabilizing, despite the interim authorities having a golden opportunity to do so. Instead, it reflects a government trying to politically manage deterioration without implementing the reforms necessary to stop it. 

The current model is not designed to solve the crisis but to preserve political control while generating just enough liquidity, oil revenue, and international flexibility to postpone its inevitable collapse. The interim authorities continue to rely on the same mechanisms that created the disaster in the first place with an unsustainable monetary expansion, exchange-rate distortions, opaque fiscal management, and complete control over all institutions. So while oil revenues and external prospects may have improved, the underlying structure of the economy remains unchanged. 

Refusing to address the obvious

A country benefiting from stronger revenues should be rebuilding reserve buffers and restoring institutional confidence, and prioritizing the reconstruction of the essential services. Instead, every dollar is consumed by a State that remains just too large, too inefficient, and politically unwilling to reform. The central bank continues injecting Bolívares into an economy where there is effectively no confidence that the currency can preserve value over time, nor in the institutional capacity to sustain credible long-term policy.

This lack of confidence is central to understanding our persistent inflation problem. It is not solely driven by the irresponsible monetary expansion but by high money velocity resulting from the complete lack of credibility in our currency. As soon as businesses and individuals receive Bolívars, they rush to buy dollars, inventory, or any asset capable of preserving value, accelerating velocity and pushing inflation into a spiral. This is not speculation; it is rational economic behavior in response to the collapse of trust in the Bolívar. Without restoring that confidence, inflation will remain entrenched.

The foreign exchange market remains one of the clearest indicators of the country’s fragility. As the gap between the official and parallel rate distort prices throughout the economy. The widening gap between the official and parallel exchange rates distorts prices across the economy, leaving businesses struggling to establish stable cost structures or expansion plans. International investors also face enormous uncertainty regarding how those multiple rates affect their ability to move capital in and out of the country. Meanwhile, the BCV continues wasting precious dollar inflows trying to defend an artificial exchange rate that is fundamentally unsustainable. 

Without institutional legitimacy, no restructuring effort or investment cycle will prove durable or beneficial for the country.

Addressing these distortions may still be too politically costly for Rodriguez. Closing the gap would require a fiscal discipline alien to chavismo, while also dismantling one of the most important corruption mechanisms for rewarding insiders. 

The solution appears straightforward: transition toward a system in which dollar-auction pricing is transparent and the USD is allowed to float. Furthermore, the government should let the dollars circulate freely, letting businesses and individuals use the greenback for both transactions and contract setting. While alleviating the economic distortions, this will also contribute to slowing the velocity, and keeping inflation under control. Venezuela should pursue this approach while keeping the Bolívar alive so it can gradually recover credibility through discipline and a coherent fiscal and monetary framework. 

Yet the changes necessary to stabilize the economy are the same changes that would reduce the government’s discretionary control over the economy. As previously argued, setting an independent board in the likes of Petroleos de Venezuela or the Venezuelan Central Bank would threaten the political hegemony of the interim authorities across all institutions.

What sound debt restructuring implies

The next collision with reality, where fundamental flaws will be hard to conceal, lies in the newly announced debt restructuring process. Interim authorities are about to face the almighty bond market which will need far more than an Instagram post to bite the bait. Sovereign creditors respond to numbers, rules, and enforceability. And on those fronts, Venezuela remains deeply deficient.

Venezuela’s total debt is estimated at $200 billion or about 200% of GDP. Despite Venezuela receiving a license to be able to hire Centerview, one of the most prestigious boutique firms in the market, any meaningful and fair progress would be impossible without a coherent macroeconomic plan bound by institutional legitimacy and backed by multilateral oversight, particularly from the IMF.

For Venezuela to avoid setting itself up for failure through a restructuring process that could hinder its financial capacity to grow sustainably, the Fund becomes an indispensable partner. The IMF would need to conduct an assessment of the country’s current financial stance via an Article IV consultation that hasn’t been conducted since Chavez withdrew from the organization. This assessment would be a key piece in understanding Venezuela’s repayment capacity and debt sustainability, setting the base from where to negotiate towards an agreeable debt haircut, tenor, and coupon.

Nothing will come out of the great opportunity created by the January events if there is no fundamental change over the who and hows of economic management.

An IMF-backed restructuring would eventually demand fiscal transparency, monetary discipline, reserve accumulation, independent oversight, and credible institutional reforms. Additionally, creditors will call for legal certainty and enforceable agreements that provide confidence that rules will not arbitrarily change once capital enters the country, or years later when investors seek to exit . To provide such guarantees, Venezuela would need a legitimate political and legal framework capable of signing long-term agreements recognized both domestically and internationally 

Without institutional legitimacy, no restructuring effort or investment cycle will prove durable or beneficial for the country. Proceeding without these elements would leave the country exposed to holdout creditors and future arbitration battles. The cornerstone for avoiding that is a credible electoral timeline that renews and legitimizes the National Assembly and executive power.

Yet that process is also set to collide with the interim authorities’ apparent intention to manipulate political timing in their favor. The current leadership wants the benefits of the stability phase brought in by oil revenue, sanctions relief, and fresh capital without surrendering the mechanisms of control that produced the crisis in the first place.

That formula is destined to fail. The authorities are neither serious enough nor committed to making the necessary reforms. In the meantime, we can keep going over the distortion caused by the exchange rate, what new law is being proposed or the deceiving debt announcement from last week. But nothing will come out of the great opportunity created by the January events if there is no fundamental change over the who and hows of economic management.