Welcome back. Of course, let me start with the most important news of the week: Spain won the World Cup. Surprised? Well, you shouldn’t be, because bad punditry aside (and there was plenty of it) it was the logical conclusion.

Football is a team sport, and that’s something the Spanish have mastered, because it’s a system, a school of thought, that defines the game, not a star player. The coach can swap midfielders, you won’t notice it on the pitch because the structure remains: dominate passes, own the ball and ultimately score.

There was something of poetic justice to it too, and I can only point you to Brazilian newscaster Bruno Cantarelli, who captured the winning goal scored by Barcelona striker Ferran Torres with the most memorable analysis of the final.

O futebol vence a catimba – he shouted at the top of his lungs.

What does it mean? It’s difficult to describe because it’s a vibe, and Brazilian Portuguese is brilliant at capturing that. Sometimes you have to drop the literal translation and follow the melody of the words instead. But if I had to give a very broad description, it’s the idea that football – with a capital F, o jogo bonito, the beautiful game – triumphed over catimba: the provocation, the cheating, and the lying. In other words, Spain represented football in its purest form; Argentina represented a catimba. I know that’s going to get me some hate mail.

But let me explain:

​ Was Argentina the bête noire of the competition? Certainly. Is Enzo Fernández the most unpopular player? I’d say most definitely, perhaps only topped by his teammate Leandro Paredes. Does Argentina play rough? Absolutely. The final’s red card over Cubarsí speaks for itself. Do Argentines relish the role of the villain? This is where it gets interesting. And borderline psychotic (but fun).

While the world spoke of karma being served, Argentinians saw a plot by FIFA to dethrone Messi. An international hate campaign against the country involving Infantino, the FBI (yes, you heard that right), the UK Royal Family and Lamine Yamal. Sounds hysterical? It is and it’s also a test case for post-truth society.

For hours on end, Argentine TV shows shared pseudo-theories explaining why their national football team lost the final. First, a ploy by FIFA to crown Lamine Yamal, the 19-year-old Spanish striker, as the next global superstar destined to replace Messi, now 39, in some sort of messianic rite of passage. This one is good, but it’s not my personal favourite. A softer version of this “theory” suggested that Infantino, the FIFA boss, no longer wants the same country to win twice in order to balance out nationalities and bring in more cash.

Then, there was the imminent FBI arrest of the Argentine football association boss, Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia. To be clear, he was not arrested. Still Argentine players, the story goes, began to fear that special forces would break into their locker room, destabilising their game plan. This would “explain” why Messi was caught on tape telling his teammates: “Forget about everything, let’s just play.”

There was also King Charles.

The theory goes that the British Crown sought to punish the Argentine players for a banner waved in their semi-final against England reading: Las Malvinas son argentinas, or “the Falklands belong to Argentina” alongside FIFA. Facing a penalty (allegedly) including a 10-year suspension, the noble Argentines decided they would let Spain win in a game in which they barely touched the ball.

Lastly, there was the politics. Argentina losing the final would be part of a global campaign led by the football Comintern of woke to destroy the country’s reputation, hurt Javier Milei and his chainsaw revolution, and push the left-wing, progressive propaganda of the Spanish instead. Punchy, but overdone. I believe the Russians and a Bolivian army of bots were involved, but the details here became so unhinged that I ultimately lost track of the many twists and turns.

Unfortunately, reality is far more boring than that, and it cannot match the Argentine genius for theatrics – and I mean this as a compliment.

Spain dominated the game, with a 68% possession rate. If you can’t touch the ball, you can’t win. Spain took 20 shots, 11 of them on target, doubled Argentina’s passes, and had a higher accuracy rate too. Argentina had Fernández sent off, while Spain kept their squad practically intact. Scaloni’s substitutions didn’t really make a difference, while bringing on Ferran led to a goal for Spain. Messi looked as though he had disappeared from the pitch, because he did.

So, where is all of this coming from? That’s the question we put to our guests this week on EU News. Some suggested Argentina is a country of high emotions: it’s all or nothing. Football remains an area where they have dominated for decades, even as the country’s economic decline became entrenched. It’s a tough world; so you have to play rough and strike first.

My colleague Michael Reid, who can be forgiven for being English in this feuilleton, told Europe Today that football is far more important in Latin America than it is in Europe when it comes to the social and political fabric of the continent. The cost of losing, and what you’re willing to sacrifice in order to win, is significantly higher for better or worse.

Then there’s the Italian legacy, which in a country like Argentina matters.

Reid told us that, much like in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the Italians turned catenaccio into a winning strategy, Argentines have also embraced a more aggressive style of play. He also suggested that the question of why Argentina plays like that might ultimately be better answered by a psychoanalyst – which is convenient, because the country has one of the highest ratios of psychoanalysts per capita in the world. The psyche matters in sport.

Nonetheless, FIFA is investigating whether Argentina breached football rules during its semi-final against England as a result, and is also studying possible penalties following a physical altercation involving Paredes after the Spain final.

Expect little from FIFA. The federation is too busy laughing all the way to the bank after a successful tournament in terms of revenue and television ratings. For the football giant, this World Cup had a clear goal: breaking into the profitable North American market. Judging by the numbers for the final broadcast simultaneously on Fox, in English, and Telemundo, in Spanish, it did.

Speaking of Infantino, this week the New York Post reported that Trump is eyeing him to lead the United Nations, replacing António Guterres, who is very much disliked by the Americans. The paper reported that the US President sees Infantino as capable of bringing the world together, unlike the “lame” candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring so far. That sounds a lot like Trump.

Lastly FIFA, if you read this, please next time kill the halftime show. We don’t want BTS and Bieber; we want to watch the game with fewer breaks. The Argentines are far more entertaining than any pop star – on and off the pitch.

As always, if you have any comments, email me at [email protected].

– Maria Tadeo

Tariffs, fines and bad blood. Who will blink first?

​Tariffs are back – sort of. This week, the US administration announced a new global tariff of 10 to 12.5%, under Section 301 of the US Trade Act. To justify the new duties, Washington argued that more than 60 countries had failed to prevent forced labour in their supply chains, and should be punished for it.

The White House says it’s about protecting workers. How magnanimous, Ave Trump. Trade experts argue it’s a convenient way to keep tariffs alive after the previous measures were struck down by the courts multiple times.

In case you missed it, the big “Liberation Day” tariffs were blocked by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that President Trump had exceeded his executive authority by design, earlier this year, and the temporary tariffs that replaced them were about to lapse anyway. Timing-wise, it all lines up.

Meanwhile, the EU announced it would fine Google’s search business, a move that could trigger fresh tensions with Washington, as the Trump administration has long viewed Brussels‘ scrutiny of US tech giants as a political Trojan horse.

I sat down with our political correspondent, Luca Bertuzzi, to debrief it all.

Maria: OK, Luca – new tariffs. What does it mean for the EU?

Luca: Well, the legal basis for the new tariffs is preposterous as far as Europe is concerned. As Kaja Kallas argued, labour laws and working conditions in the EU can hardly be compared to those in the US. Leaving that aside, the irony is that these new tariffs are actually good news for the Europeans compared to others.

Maria: So, no panic in Brussels?

Luca: Not yet, but that could change. The new duties remain below the 15% ceiling of the Turnberry agreement and all exemptions are broadly respected. The focus now is on the digital regulation and how Americans may react in retaliation to the Commission fining Google this week. That’s the real issue.

Maria: Indeed, but first, remind us what the Turnberry agreement is?

Luca: Last summer, the head of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, flew to the President’s golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland, hence the name. The EU accepted tariffs that tripled from around 5% to 15% and gave it a thumbs up in a picture that still haunts the Berlaymont. The terms of the deal are clearly beneficial for the US. That was a political choice as European leaders preferred to settle rather than escalate a trade war the way China did, for example.

Maria: It wasn’t really a negotiation, yet Brussels defends it…

Luca: The Europeans took some comfort in securing what Brussels called a non-stackable tariff rate – which basically means 15% is a ceiling, and the US cannot tally up other duties on top. It’s cold comfort, but for companies it really matters. Brussels also locked some exemptions, but not on everything it wanted, and tariffs on steel and aluminium remain at 50% – which is prohibitive.

Maria: Who is paying these tariffs anyway?

Luca: According to the Commission’s data, American importers are now paying roughly €31 billion in additional duties one year after Turnberry. That compares to €8 billion before the tariffs kicked in. It’s quite a significant jump and the correlation is clear. Some of it, companies can absorb, and Trump made it clear he wanted them to, and even suggested retaliation if companies dared show the extra costs linked to tariffs on receipts. But the consumer inevitably pays too.

Maria: Tell me about Brussels hitting Google with a fresh fine this week. Why?

Luca: This fine has been a long time coming. This is about Google self-preferencing in search results and locking app developers into its ecosystem. For years, businesses have complained about what they see as unfair commercial practices – in Europe, but also in the US. So this is really not just about targeting American companies, but of course you could argue it’s always easier to regulate foreign companies than your own.

Maria: It’s punchy, but the amount doesn’t seem much. Was it watered down?

Luca: That’s true. €890 million is a small fine compared to traditional antitrust cases, usually in the order of billions of euros. But however hefty it looks on paper, it’s still just a speeding ticket for a company whose revenues dwarf most national budgets. The real point is whether the Commission can actually make Google change its behaviour on commercial practices very close to its core interests. That’s the real test. Not the size of the fine.

Maria: How will the US respond?

Luca: In a way, it already has. And it’s not looking good. President Trump has vowed to make the EU pay a heavy price for what he sees as an attack on American companies. On Friday, he announced a trade investigation into what he called theft from the Europeans and teased a substantial retaliatory tariff. He didn’t put a number on it, but you see where things are heading…

Maria: That’s a real problem, because regulation is a sovereign matter, right?

Luca: The EU sees this as a red line, applying the law of the land is a matter for Europeans to decide, not foreign powers. It could set a very dangerous precedent and ultimately weaken the EU’s ability to regulate the single market, its biggest economic asset.

If Brussels pulls back, it would also send a signal to other countries that it can be blackmailed into changing regulatory standards- and that opens a whole set of problems. Don’t forget the Chinese are also looking at this.

Maria: Speaking of China, this week the EU also opened investigations into Chinese social media app TikTok, as well as AliExpress. What is this about?

Luca: These investigations are the result of a broader EU effort to make digital services safer, whether from illegal goods or harmful algorithms.

In this geopolitical context, it of course helps to go after Chinese companies alongside American ones – so Brussels can make the case that its rules apply to everyone, regardless of country of origin. But there is a real problem with some of these Chinese sellers and the way they track products that are banned in Europe beyond the geopolitics. Remember the Shein sex doll scandal?

Maria: The sex dolls that looked like children? That was shocking.

Luca: Correct – these are illegal goods, and there is an expectation from European consumers that regulators will do their job. And they are so easy to buy in online marketplaces. The sale of weapons is also a real issue. So these investigations do signal very serious problems beyond the politics of it all.

Thank you Luca.

BEFORE YOU GO, GET IN TOUCH

Next week, as Europe and, certainly, Brussels, prepare to wind down for the summer, I want to use this as an opportunity to give you the floor. Each weekend, I receive your feedback, suggestions and comments. Next week, I’ll be answering your questions in Q&A format in this newsletter. From trade relations to enlargement, the war in Ukraine, Europe’s defence plans and budget talks – get in touch this week with your questions at [email protected].

Thank you for reading Off The Record. I’ll be back next Saturday with more — make sure to subscribe here so you never miss the next issue.

Maria Tadeo

Editor-in-Chief, EU News