“It’s a soccer match. Nothing more to it. Period.”

That’s how Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni described his team’s upcoming World Cup semifinal against England to journalists.

No one believes him, least of all Argentinians themselves.

For many in the South American nation, the match is more than a stepping stone toward the World Cup title. It is a long-awaited chance to restore their national pride, over four decades after the British established de facto control over a cluster of islands in the South Atlantic.

For Argentina’s President Javier Milei, the timing couldn’t be better. Unpopular at home over multiple corruption scandals and rampant inflation, yet buoyed by his close alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump, he has sought to rally Argentinians around the flag by breathing new life into the dispute which claimed 649 Argentine and 255 British lives.

“Argentina is a very polarized country, like so much of the Americas. But this is an issue that unites everyone,” said Rebecca Bill Chavez, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for western hemisphere affairs under former President Barack Obama.

“It doesn’t matter in Argentina: Left, right, center — you’re all for the Malvinas, as they call it,” Bill Chavez adds, referencing the name Argentinians use for the Falklands.

On Saturday, five days before the match, Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno came out swinging with a lengthy opinion piece in the conservative daily “La Nación.”

The Malvinas, he argued, were Argentinian “by history, by right, and by conviction” and the Brits guilty of an “illegal occupation.”

On the eve of the game, the country’s vice president, Victoria Villarruel, amped up the rhetoric in a post on X that referred to England as “invaders” and “usurping pirates.”

It is the latest in a series of jabs at Westminster, marking a notable shift for the government of Milei, who distinguished himself from his predecessors by taking a relatively moderate — and domestically sensitive — stance on the Falklands.

He has openly praised Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister who sent troops to the islands in 1982. And he seemed to accept the results of a 2013 referendum in which 99.8 percent of the Falklands’ residents voted to remain under British rule (only three people voted against).

One day, Milei fantasized in a speech on Veterans Day in April just last year, the islanders might find Argentina so attractive that they’d “vote for us” voluntarily.

But that was then.

This April he announced on X that the Falklands “were, are and will always be Argentine.”

The jingoistic post came hours after Reuters reported that an internal Pentagon memo had suggested Washington could review its diplomatic support for the British position on the Falklands in retaliation for its foot-dragging on Iran.

Milei’s brashness, and the absence of a U.S. response, is evidence of his close relationship with the White House under Trump, notes Bill Chavez.

“In the past, if an Argentine government had made such a statement, I think it would have caused real tension in the U.S.-Argentine relationship,” she said.

But she cautions that neither the leaked memo nor American support for Argentina’s acquisition of F16s in 2025 under the Biden administration indicates an actual shift in U.S. policy on the Falklands.

For Milei, the Falklands issue is not straightforward either.

If the topic becomes too central, “Milei loses,” said Andrés Gilio of Opina Argentina, a pollster.

In a survey it conducted in April, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 79 percent, argued the country should pursue sovereignty over the islands “without concessions.”

“Either Milei ‘Malvinizes’ his discourse, aligning himself with public opinion but straining relations with the United States and blurring his ideological profile, or he remains faithful to his ideas, downplaying the sovereignty claim, at the risk of going against most of society’s wishes,” said Gilio.

So far, Milei has pressed the Falklands issue in international forums while refraining from a real confrontation.

The Argentinian Foreign Ministry declined to comment in time for this article’s publication.

Argentina has faced England five times at the World Cup, rarely without drama. Seared into Argentina’s national memory is the 1986 quarterfinal, just four years after the Falklands war, when Diego Maradona scored two historic goals.

“Although before the match we kept saying that football had nothing to do with the Falklands War,” Maradona would later write in his biography, “we knew that many young Argentine boys had died there, that they had been killed like little birds.”

This time around, Argentina’s players and fans have been anything but subtle, invoking the conflict long before they were drawn to face England. After winning against Egypt, the team’s players were filmed belting out a song calling for an Argentine World Cup victory, “for Malvinas,” in a video since gone viral.

Off-pitch, there have been skirmishes between British and Argentinian fans even as jubilant Argentine supporters have celebrated victories by singing “Whoever doesn’t jump is an Englishman.” As a precaution, FIFA has barred two of its English referees from officiating any Argentina matches.

Asked about the flaring tensions, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this week that “The Falkland Islanders are British with the right to determine their own future.” Starmer, he said, was “solely focused on the semi-final and securing a spot in the final.”

But perhaps the strongest plea for restraint has come from Argentinian veterans.

“Sport is not war,” the April 2 veterans group wrote in a statement widely circulated by Argentinian media on Monday.

“The World Cup semifinal is a sporting event of global significance, not an armed act of revenge or historical compensation.”

Source link