Following in the footsteps of mentor Terence Crawford, Shakur Stevenson has established himself as one of boxing’s most accomplished champions, winning world titles in four divisions and cementing his place among the sport’s elite.

The unbeaten American most recently stepped up to super-lightweight, defeating Teofimo Lopez to claim the WBO title and continue his rise through the weight classes. Since then, attention has quickly turned to who could be next, with a number of high-profile names linked to the Newark southpaw.

Earlier this month, Stevenson signed with Zuffa Boxing, a move widely expected to increase his chances of landing the biggest fights available due to the strong affiliation with Ring Magazine cards. Chief among the match-ups is a long-discussed clash with fellow three-weight world champion Devin Haney, who has also been heavily linked with the promotion in recent weeks.

Speaking on The Breakfast Club, ‘Bud’ Crawford joined fans in calling for Stevenson to face Haney, and said that the latter is in “a great spot” at the moment.

“I want to see him and Devin. I think that’s gonna be the fight. Listen, Devin-Keyshawn, Devin-Shakur, Devin-Tank. Devin’s in a great spot right now, he’s got a lot of good options. Devin-Ryan [Garcia], Devin-Conor Benn. All these guys can fight each other. They can round robin.”

Stevenson and Haney have been embroiled in a public back and forth for months now, first unable to agree on a weight before Haney appeared to concede to dropping down from welterweight to a 144lbs catchweight. The fight, however, does not seem a done deal just yet, with the latest exchange proving less encouraging.

Stevenson’s deal with Zuffa Boxing and Haney’s reported talks with the promotion remain positive signs for fans hoping to see the fight come together.

Marvel Stadium will play host to Sunday’s
Round 19 AFL game between Essendon Bombers and
GWS GIANTS. The game kicks off at 4:40 pm with GWS GIANTS heading into the game as favourites with the bookmakers. Continue reading for our in-depth preview of the Essendon Bombers vs.
GWS GIANTS
game and give you our free tips and bets.

When: Sunday July 19, 2026 at 4:40 pm

Where: Marvel Stadium

Bet 💰: Bet On This Match HERE

Essendon Bombers vs GWS GIANTS Odds

Essendon Bombers vs GWS GIANTS Preview

Greater Western Sydney will be aiming to continue its surge towards September when it takes on an Essendon side searching for a response after one of its toughest defeats of the season. The Bombers were comprehensively beaten by Brisbane last week, raising further questions about their consistency, while the Giants produced an impressive comeback victory over Geelong to strengthen their own finals credentials.

The Giants have found form at the right time of year, with their midfield generating strong clearance numbers and captain Toby Greene continuing to lead the attack. Former Bomber Jake Stringer adds extra intrigue against his old club, but Essendon must first rediscover its intensity around the contest after another disappointing display. GWS enters the match with momentum and will be confident of extending its winning run against a side under growing pressure.

Among Vikings players, WR1 Justin Jefferson remains unchallenged as the best football player in the Twin Cities. He alone is an unquestioned elite talent on Minnesota’s roster.

Who are the other best players?

To get to the bottom of the issue, I asked writers from Vikings Territory and PurplePTSD. All of Dustin Baker, Janik Eckardt, Brevan Bane, Adam New, Ali Siddiqui, and Steve Hoikkala responded. I, too, allowed my vote to get tossed into the mix. Check out the team’s most formidable talents.

The 10 Best Vikings Players

No. 10 — CB Byron Murphy Jr.

Byron Murphy is a player who allows the team to play better as a result of having him on the field. At his best, Murphy is a Pro Bowl corner capable of plucking a bunch of passes out of the sky. He’s a low-end CB1.

No. 9 — QB Kyler Murray

Shrinking the list down to the most talented player and not the best player could reasonably lead to Murray finishing first overall. The problem, of course, is that he hasn’t always allowed his elite talent to push him toward being an elite player. Does he prove to be a franchise quarterback in Minnesota?

No. 8 — LB Blake Cashman

An excellent athlete who thinks the game at a high level, Cashman is entering the third and final year of his contract. He should be very motivated to have a monstrous season.

No. 7 — DT Jalen Redmond

There’s still meat on the bone. Jalen Redmond has gone from a good story to a good player. Does he have better than “good” within him? If so, then the 2026 season appears to be a good time to get there now that he’s the clear top DT.

No. 6 — WR Jordan Addison

Nobody questions his talent. What has been missing, though, has been an ability to stay out of trouble off the field. So far, things have gone better in 2026 (casino noodle issue aside). The Vikings will hope that continues as the 2023 1st-Round selection chases his first ever 1,000-yard season.

No. 5 — K Will Reichard

The assassin at kicker is coming off an AP1 season. He was deadly out there and the word is that he has further refined his form to kick the ball straighter. Does he have more All Pro seasons in him? If so, then he’ll start demanding placement higher on the list.

No. 4 — RT Brian O’Neill

Mr. O’Neill, always a great athlete, has become a tremendous team leader. Does that lead to him getting extended? The rugged right tackle is older but hasn’t slowed down much, if at all. He has had a very good career and remains among the best players on the team.

No. 3 — EDGE Andrew Van Ginkel

He’s a fantastic football player. Van Ginkel is among the most athletic players on the team. I had him as the second-best player on the team but seeing him above or below the terrific OTs can’t lead to too much debate. I think he rushes the passer more with Jonathan Greenard gone, leading to 12+ sacks.

No. 2 — LT Christian Darrisaw

Seemingly the only issue hindering Christian Darrisaw is health, or lack thereof. Seeing the LT1 get and remain healthy is the key to seeing him fulfill the immense potential. I had Darrisaw at 4th on my ballot, below all of Jefferson, Van Ginkel, and O’Neill.

No. 1 — WR Justin Jefferson

All seven voters picked Justin Jefferson as the top player. As a result, he had a perfect score within the ballots. There should be zero debate about who belongs in the lead position.

Senior Editor for Vikings Territory & PurplePTSD . Twitter & Bluesky: @VikingsGazette. Email: k.joudry[at]vikingsterritory[dot]com. Canadian. Jude 1:24-25.

Advertisement

We’re back with Braves baseball. Let’s see if the Braves can take a dub and start off hot. First things first, the offense needs to step up. And consistency has to come through as well.

The Braves aren’t too far off from being great. They’re just missing pieces that need to be combined to get past slumps and find consistent success. Starting with tonight, we’ll see what version of the Braves we’re going to get.

Until 7:15 p.m. ET, happy race to October!

Lineup

Preview

Betfred Super League

Huddersfield (4) 10

Tries: Milne, Gagai Goal: Flanagan

Wigan (10) 24

Tries: Partington, Eckersley 3 Goals: Keighran 4

Zach Eckersley’s hat-trick broke Huddersfield Giants’ stiff resistance to send Wigan Warriors up to second and to within two points of the Super League summit.

Jim Lenihan’s side made a nonsense of the fact they had suffered 11 straight defeats going into the game and threatened to do the league double over the in-form Warriors after pulling off a shock victory at the Brick Community Stadium in March.

Taane Milne’s try put the league’s bottom side ahead, but Oliver Partington and Eckersley hit back with tries which had Matt Peet’s team 10-4 up at the break.

The hosts raised their game again in the second half to level through Jacob Gagai but as their discipline faltered and Joe Greenwood was sin-binned for dissent, Adam Keighran’s penalty and a late Eckersley double secured the win for Wigan.

Huddersfield have suffered another tough week, losing three players for the season through injury and having long-serving chairman Ken Davy step down, and the sight of Wigan rolling into town on the back of seven successive wins in all competitions had some supporters fearing the worst.

Lenihan has started to work a little magic, however, and after Huddersfield soaked up the expected early pressure, they struck first as Milne finished strongly.

Wigan have been in imperious form and they soon edged ahead as Partington stretched out to finish after evading two tackles following Keighran’s short, sharp pass.

Tanguy Zenon was forced off with a head injury after being knocked out cold, and Eckersley took advantage of a brilliant Keighran pass to score his first try of the evening and open a six-point gap at half-time.

Tempers flared throughout the game and referee Matty Lynn’s patience ran out just before the interval as he sent both Tui Lolohea and Shea O’Connor to the sin-bin for a tussle at the play-the-ball.

It started to look like the game would slip away from Huddersfield, but they muscled up again in the second half and levelled when Gagai finished a slick passing move and George Flanagan, on as the 18th man, kicked the extras.

Suddenly it was Wigan who looked unsure of themselves, but the game turned on moments of indiscipline.

Huddersfield thought they had scored a brilliant counter-attacking try after Wigan’s teenage half-back George Marsden had dropped the ball, but referee Lynn disallowed it for a forward pass.

To rub salt in the wound, Wigan challenged the decision and were awarded a penalty for a high challenge on Marsden, with Keighran converting the two points to restore the lead.

Huddersfield were still hunting the win but when they were penalised for a knock-on, Greenwood disputed the decision despite the captain’s challenge having been used, and he was sent to the sin-bin.

That ended the superb Huddersfield effort as Wigan went up the other end and Harry Smith, the calmest man on the pitch, dinked a beautiful kick for Eckersley to race through and collect for his second try.

With all resistance over, Eckersley claimed his hat-trick, and made it 19 tries for the season, from George O’Loughlin’s pass on the last tackle.

Lionel Messi once again proved why he remains Argentina’s talisman, producing two decisive assists as the defending champions came from behind to beat England 2-1 in a dramatic FIFA World Cup 2026 semifinal in Atlanta and book their place in a second successive World Cup final.

The first half lived up to the billing of one of international football’s fiercest rivalries. Both teams flew into challenges from the opening whistle, with Argentina repeatedly committing fouls to disrupt England’s rhythm. Referee Ismail Elfath had his hands full early, issuing warnings before eventually booking Elliot Anderson for a foul on Messi and Lisandro Martinez for bringing down Morgan Rogers.

Despite the heated atmosphere, clear-cut chances were scarce. England enjoyed more possession and looked the more composed side, with Jude Bellingham earning dangerous free-kicks and John Stones heading over from one of them. Argentina threatened mainly from set-pieces, while both goalkeepers remained largely untested as the teams went into the break locked at 0-0.

England finally broke the deadlock in the 55th minute. Cristian Romero switched off defensively, allowing Anthony Gordon to ghost in behind and tap home from close range, sending the England supporters into celebration.

Argentina responded by throwing bodies forward. Lionel Scaloni introduced Nico Gonzalez before later making a triple substitution, bringing on Gonzalo Montiel, Rodrigo De Paul and Nicolas Otamendi in a bid to inject fresh energy. England defended resolutely, with Jordan Pickford making an outstanding reaction save from close range after a dangerous Messi delivery, while Djed Spence produced a crucial last-ditch tackle to deny Giuliano Simeone.

The pressure eventually told. In the 85th minute, Messi found Enzo Fernandez on the edge of the area, and the midfielder unleashed a stunning long-range strike beyond Pickford to level the contest.

Nine minutes of stoppage time set up a dramatic finale. After John Stones required treatment, Argentina continued to pile forward and found the winner in the second added minute. Messi produced another moment of brilliance, delivering a perfectly weighted cross for Lautaro Martinez, who powered a header beyond Pickford to complete another remarkable comeback.

England pushed desperately for an equaliser in the closing moments but Argentina held firm to seal a famous victory.

Having survived scares against Egypt, Switzerland and now England, Scaloni’s side have once again found a way through adversity. Argentina will now face European champions Spain in the FIFA World Cup 2026 final, with Messi’s dream of leading his nation to consecutive world titles still very much alive.

Argentina’s dramatic semifinal victory over England may have secured their place in the Fifa World Cup final, but the celebrations in Atlanta created a disciplinary question that could follow the defending champions into Sunday’s title match against Spain.

Several Argentina players displayed a banner reading “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” — “The Malvinas are Argentine” — on the pitch after their 2-1 win. Lisandro Martinez, Giovani Lo Celso and Nicolas Otamendi were among those pictured with it, while reports indicated that the banner may have been thrown from the stands before the players picked it up.

The message referred to Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas. The islands remain a British Overseas Territory and were at the centre of the 1982 war between Argentina and the United Kingdom, in which more than 900 people died.

The central question is not whether Fifa has rules capable of covering the incident. It does.

The more difficult questions are which rule provides the strongest basis for action, whether a post-match display remains within Fifa’s jurisdiction and whether any punishment could be imposed before Argentina face Spain.

What exactly happened after Argentina beat England?

Argentina came from behind to defeat England through late goals from Enzo Fernandez and Lautaro Martinez. During the celebrations that followed, players held the white banner on the field and briefly placed it on the turf.

The display was particularly sensitive because Argentina’s security minister, Alejandra Monteoliva, had said before the match that political, racial or provocative banners would not be permitted inside the stadium.

The warning had been issued because of the historical tensions surrounding England-Argentina matches and the continuing sovereignty dispute. Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni had also attempted to separate the fixture from politics, describing the war as a tragic period that should not be confused with football.

What do football’s laws say about political messages?

The most frequently quoted provision is Law 4 of the Ifab Laws of the Game, which governs players’ equipment.

It states that equipment must not carry political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. Players are also prohibited from revealing undergarments containing such material, with the player or team liable to sanctions imposed by the competition organiser, national association or Fifa.

The rule also explains how political content should be interpreted. It bars material connected to governments, political organisations, specific political acts or events, and messages that are provocative, derisory or inflammatory.

However, Law 4 may not be the most direct provision in this case.

The Argentina players did not display the slogan on their shirts, armbands, undergarments or other equipment. They held a separate banner after the final whistle.

Law 4 demonstrates football’s general prohibition on political statements, but the Stadium Code of Conduct, the World Cup regulations and the Fifa Disciplinary Code provide a stronger route for disciplinary action against a banner displayed on the pitch.

Does Fifa’s Stadium Code of Conduct apply to players?

The Stadium Code of Conduct is often described primarily as a set of rules for supporters, but its scope is wider.

It applies to all areas used in connection with the competition, including the stadium building, surrounding premises, entrances, exits and facilities under stadium control. It also applies to people entering through accreditation, a category that includes players and team officials.

Accredited persons must comply with the code while at the stadium unless a provision conflicts with their official duties or the specific terms of their accreditation. Holding a political banner would be difficult to characterise as part of a player’s official duties.

The code prohibits banners, flags, flyers, clothing and other material of a political, offensive or discriminatory nature. It separately prohibits displaying, distributing or promoting such material within the stadium.

That makes the stadium code directly relevant even though the banner did not form part of the players’ equipment.

However, the code’s usual enforcement measures — removal from the stadium or cancellation of a ticket or accreditation — are designed mainly for access and security management. For players, any sporting or financial punishment would more likely be imposed through the Fifa Disciplinary Code and tournament regulations.

Does the post-match timing give Argentina a defence?

Probably not.

The banner appeared after the referee had ended the match, but the incident still took place on the pitch during official celebrations and before the players had left the stadium.

The Stadium Code of Conduct requires attendees and accredited persons to comply with its provisions “at all times” while they are at the stadium. It also instructs them to leave promptly following the conclusion of a match unless their ticket, accreditation or the organisers permit them to remain.

The final whistle therefore does not immediately end the code’s application.

The Fifa Disciplinary Code is broader still. It applies to every match and competition organised by Fifa, and players and member associations fall within its personal jurisdiction.

Fifa has previously acted against conduct inside dressing rooms and during post-match activity, demonstrating that its disciplinary authority is not limited to the 90 minutes of play.

The fact that a supporter may have supplied the banner would not necessarily protect the Argentine Football Association. The disciplinary code permits associations to be held responsible for the conduct of their players, officials and representatives even when the association argues that it was not at fault.

Will Fifa sanction Argentina before the final?

Fifa can open proceedings immediately, seek written submissions from Argentina and impose a decision through its Disciplinary Committee.

Whether it will complete that process before the final is less certain.

Disciplinary cases can be handled rapidly during tournaments when player eligibility or match suspensions are involved. But political-message cases have generally resulted in financial sanctions or warnings rather than urgent bans.

There is also no indication yet that Fifa intends to prevent any of the players involved from facing Spain.

A punishment before the final would require the disciplinary body to establish the relevant offence, identify the responsible players, consider Argentina’s response and determine whether the repeat nature of the message is an aggravating factor.

Fifa’s current disciplinary framework allows it to sanction players, officials and member associations. The available measures include warnings, reprimands, fines and sporting sanctions, depending on the seriousness and circumstances of an offence. Fifa’s Disciplinary Committee is the body responsible for imposing such penalties.

Based on precedent, the likely sequence is:

• 
  Fifa reviews match reports and video evidence.
• 
  Proceedings may be opened against the Argentine Football Association and possibly individual players.
• 
  Argentina is invited to explain how the banner reached the pitch and who displayed it.
• 
  A fine and formal reprimand are considered.
• 
  A decision could be announced before or after the final.

Could Argentina or its players be banned?

A suspension is possible in theory, but it would be a severe response when measured against comparable cases.

The banner made an explicit territorial and political claim during a match involving England. The incident also occurred despite pre-match restrictions and repeated a slogan for which Argentina had already been punished.

Those factors could make the case more serious than an accidental or ambiguous gesture.

However, Fifa has generally treated political displays as misconduct warranting fines and warnings unless they are combined with discrimination, violence, repeated disorder or other aggravating conduct.

An exclusion from the final, points penalty or annulment of the semifinal result would be extraordinarily disproportionate to previous political-message cases. There is no precedent in the examples below for a team being removed from a major tournament because players displayed a political banner.

Individual fines or warnings are more plausible. A player suspension would be possible only if Fifa concluded that the conduct was especially provocative or inflammatory and required an immediate sporting punishment.

The strongest inference from previous decisions is that Argentina will play the final with its sporting status unaffected, although the association could face a larger financial penalty because the message was identical to one punished in 2014.

Was this the first time Argentina displayed the Falklands banner?

No.

Before a friendly against Slovenia in La Plata on June 7, 2014, Argentina players stood behind a banner carrying the same words: “Las Malvinas son Argentinas.”

Fifa opened disciplinary proceedings and later reprimanded the Argentine Football Association and fined it 30,000 Swiss francs, worth about £20,000 at the time.

That precedent is directly relevant because it involved:

• 
  Argentina’s national team
• 
  The same political claim
• 
  The same wording
• 
  A banner displayed on the field
• 
  Players participating collectively

The 2026 incident differs mainly in timing and context. The 2014 banner was displayed before a warm-up match; the latest one appeared after a World Cup semifinal against England itself.

The repeat nature of the act could justify a higher fine. It also weakens any argument that the slogan’s political meaning was unclear.

The Serbian case is especially important for the post-match and off-field question. The flag was displayed in a dressing room rather than during open play, but Fifa still treated it as conduct falling within the tournament’s disciplinary framework.

The Swiss case shows that players can be sanctioned individually without being suspended from subsequent World Cup matches.

Could Fifa treat the banner as discriminatory?

The banner is primarily a political and territorial statement. It does not, by itself, target a protected group in the same way as racist or other discriminatory abuse.

Fifa could instead examine it under provisions concerning offensive behaviour, fair play, provocative conduct, team misconduct and breaches of competition or stadium regulations.

That distinction matters because discriminatory offences generally carry heavier minimum sanctions than political statements.

If Fifa found that the surrounding chants or conduct targeted people on the basis of nationality, the scope of the case could become wider. But the banner alone is most clearly a sovereignty message linked to a specific political dispute.

Does government support affect the case?

Argentina Vice-President Victoria Villarruel reinforced the message after the match, writing that “the Falklands are Argentine” and arguing that the semifinal was not merely a football match.

Those remarks provide political context, but Fifa’s disciplinary case would focus on the conduct of the players and association within the World Cup environment.

The Argentine government is not subject to Fifa’s sporting jurisdiction in the same way as the team.

However, public statements from senior political figures could make it harder for the association to portray the banner as an unplanned gesture devoid of political intent.

Fifa would still need to judge the evidence involving the players themselves rather than infer collective responsibility solely from government comments.

Could stadium security also face questions?

The incident raises a separate operational issue: how did a banner that had apparently been prohibited enter the stadium and reach the pitch?

Fifa’s Stadium Code allows organisers to screen attendees and confiscate political material. It also gives them broad discretion to decide which items present security or reputational risks.

If a supporter carried the banner through security, the incident suggests that screening failed or that the message was concealed.

But a security failure would not erase the players’ decision to display it. Fifa could investigate the source of the banner while separately considering disciplinary action against Argentina.

The two questions are distinct:

• 
  Who brought the banner into the stadium?
• 
  Who chose to use it as part of an on-field celebration?

What is the most likely outcome?

Argentina are exposed to disciplinary action because the incident occurred inside a Fifa-controlled stadium, involved accredited players and carried an unmistakable political claim.

The post-match timing is unlikely to remove the matter from Fifa’s jurisdiction.

Yet precedent points towards a financial rather than sporting penalty.

The 2014 case involving the identical slogan ended with a reprimand and a CHF 30,000 fine. Serbia’s Kosovo dressing-room flag and the Swiss players’ Albanian gestures also resulted in financial sanctions without tournament suspensions.

A repeat offence, the identity of the opponent and the pre-match prohibition could push the penalty above the 2014 level. Individual players may also receive warnings or fines if Fifa identifies them as active participants.

Unless additional evidence emerges — such as discriminatory conduct, refusal to follow officials’ instructions or organised involvement by the association — player bans before the Spain final appear unlikely.

Argentina’s place in Sunday’s match is therefore not in serious doubt.

Its celebrations, however, have given Fifa a test of consistency: whether a political message it punished 12 years ago will again draw action when displayed by the defending champions days before the sport’s biggest match.

Argentina’s Giovani Lo Celso, right, holds a banner with the words “The Malvinas are Argentine”, referring to the Falkland Islands, at the end of the World Cup semifinal soccer match between England and Argentina in Atlanta, Wednesday, July 15, 2026. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

Argentina’s place in the 2026 FIFA World Cup final has been overshadowed by a growing disciplinary controversy after several players were involved in displaying a politically charged banner following their 2-1 semi-final victory over England, prompting questions over whether those involved could face sanctions, including potential suspension, ahead of Sunday’s showpiece against Spain.The incident unfolded during on-field celebrations in Atlanta, where Argentina secured a dramatic late win to reach a second consecutive World Cup final. In the aftermath, a group of players were seen holding a banner taken from supporters that read “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” (“The Falkland Islands are Argentine”), a message tied to the long-standing sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The banner references the 74-day Falklands War in 1982, when Argentina and the UK fought over the islands, resulting in the deaths of 255 British servicemen and 649 Argentine personnel.The involvement of multiple players, reportedly including Lisandro Martínez, Cristian Romero and Giovani Lo Celso among others, has led to scrutiny under FIFA’s regulations, with the possibility of disciplinary action now under formal consideration.

FIFA investigation and regulatory framework

FIFA has confirmed that its independent disciplinary committee is reviewing the incident as part of its standard procedures.In a statement, the governing body said:“As is standard procedure, FIFA’s independent disciplinary committee is currently assessing the match reports and considering the relevant circumstances before deciding on potential further steps based on the FIFA Disciplinary Code.”The review centres on Article 34.3 of the 2026 FIFA World Cup Match Protocol, which explicitly prohibits players and team officials from displaying political, religious or personal messages “before the match, during the national anthems, during the match and after the conclusion of the match.”The FIFA Disciplinary Code further classifies the use of a sporting event to stage demonstrations of a political or non-sporting nature as a potential offence, with sanctions ranging from warnings and fines to sporting penalties, depending on the severity and context.

Could players be suspended for the final?

The central question remains whether the players involved could be suspended in time for the World Cup final.Political figures in the United Kingdom have called for strong action. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has urged FIFA to suspend all players involved in displaying or surrounding the banner. In an open letter to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Davey referenced UEFA’s decision to impose a one-match ban on Spain internationals Álvaro Morata and Rodri after they chanted “Gibraltar is Spanish” during their Euro 2024 victory celebrations.British minister Peter Kyle also described the gesture as “totally inappropriate” in comments to the BBC, adding that politics should be kept out of football and that he expected FIFA to conduct a thorough investigation.However, while such calls have intensified scrutiny, FIFA’s disciplinary position remains unclear as the governing body has yet to announce any formal decision.Reports from Spanish outlet COPE and Argentine newspaper Clarín suggest that, although disciplinary action is expected, sporting suspensions, particularly ones affecting the World Cup final, are considered less likely. According to those reports, sanctions could instead take the form of warnings or financial penalties directed at either the players involved or the Argentine Football Association (AFA).Crucially, multiple outlets have reported that any formal decision by FIFA’s disciplinary committee is unlikely to be issued until after the conclusion of the tournament. If that timeline is followed, it would mean that even if sanctions are imposed, they would not affect player availability for the final against Spain.FIFA has not publicly confirmed the timing of its decision, leaving a degree of uncertainty until the disciplinary process is completed.

Precedents and possible outcomes

Previous cases provide some context for how FIFA and other governing bodies have handled similar incidents, though outcomes have varied.UEFA’s suspension of Morata and Rodri in 2024 is one of the most frequently cited comparisons. At the 2018 World Cup, Switzerland’s Granit Xhaka and Xherdan Shaqiri were fined, rather than suspended, for political gestures during a match against Serbia. South Korea’s Park Jong-woo received a suspension after displaying a political banner at the London Olympics.FIFA has also previously sanctioned Argentina in 2014 after a Falklands-related banner was displayed following a friendly match, though that case resulted in a financial penalty rather than sporting sanctions.These precedents suggest that while disciplinary action for political messaging is not uncommon, suspensions, particularly those affecting major fixtures, are typically reserved for cases deemed especially serious or repeated.

Situation remains unresolved ahead of final

With Argentina preparing to face Spain in the World Cup final, the disciplinary process remains ongoing and unresolved.While there is no confirmed indication at this stage that any player will be barred from participating, the possibility of sanctions, and the timing of any decision, continues to be closely monitored, leaving FIFA’s eventual ruling as one of the key outstanding issues ahead of the tournament’s conclusion.

The Lindsay Park stable is looking to the long term with their impressive juvenile Hard Kick, who is set to resume racing at Flemington.

Having tasted success on debut in the Listed Talindert Stakes (1100m) at Flemington in February, Hard Kick will now contest the TAB We’re On (1000m) at Flemington this Saturday.

Lindsay Park trainers Ben, Will, and J D Hayes, in conjunction with their father David Hayes, the principal owner of Hard Kick, made the decision not to run the two-year-old in the Group 1 Blue Diamond Stakes (1200m) just a week after his strong Flemington performance.

The runner-up in that race, Zambales, went on to finish fourth in the Blue Diamond and later claimed second place in the VRC Sires’ Produce Stakes (1400m) before embarking on a campaign in Sydney.

Will Hayes explained that while bypassing the Blue Diamond was a difficult choice at the time, the team is encouraged by Hard Kick’s development during his spell from racing.

“He’s like an 18-year-old growing into a 20-year-old’s body,” Hayes explained.

“He has naturally gained strength and developed, and he is now ready for his three-year-old season. We weren’t entirely comfortable with the quick backup for a two-year-old, and consequently, he has emerged as a fantastic prospect, which was the ultimate goal.”

“It was a team decision, and it simplifies matters when David Hayes himself is the principal owner. It was a very internal discussion, and we adhered to our processes, benefiting from the excellent guidance of Dr. David McKellar, a superb vet at Lindsay Park.”

This 1000m race, a relatively new addition to the Flemington racing calendar, has previously been won by horses such as Giga Kick (2022), First Settler (2024), and Shining Smile last year.

Giga Kick subsequently won The Everest in Sydney after two more wins, while First Settler finished second in the Poseidon Stakes down the Flemington straight before winning the Danehill Stakes.

Hayes mentioned that Cruiserweight’s recent win at Caulfield last Saturday has instilled further confidence in the team ahead of Hard Kick’s return, particularly after the colt achieved a jump-out victory over Cruiserweight at Werribee on July 3.

He stated that the objective for Saturday’s race was to provide Hard Kick with a competitive outing before the commencement of the early season three-year-old races.

Hayes indicated that the Group 3 Vain Stakes (1100m) on August 15 and the Group 3 H D F McNeil Stakes (1200m), both at Caulfield and scheduled two weeks later, are the likely next assignments for Hard Kick.

“We’re going to have a run under our belt, which was our intention, as he did have a nice, long break,” Hayes concluded.

“The Vain, the McNeil, will all be races considered going forward, but we think he’s come up super and his trial form has been franked by Cruiserweight coming out and winning dominantly.”

Get involved with the upcoming race at Flemington by checking out the betting sites and apps with sign-up bonus in Australia.