Blog

Belgium’s World Cup 2026 campaign advanced in a manner that will be remembered more for the controversy surrounding it than the football played, as the Red Devils progressed past the United States in the last-16 stage. The scoreline was not officially confirmed in the extracts provided, but the match ended with Belgium securing a place in the quarter-finals. The victory was immediately overshadowed by a refereeing controversy that escalated into a diplomatic incident involving the highest political offices on both sides of the Atlantic.

Controversy overshadows Belgium’s progress

The match was settled by two first-half goals from Belgium’s striker, but the narrative shifted when US president Donald Trump publicly attacked the referee who sent off Folarin Balogun against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trump lobbied successfully for the red card to be suspended, allowing Balogun to start against Belgium. FIFA’s referees’ chief, Pierluigi Collina, swiftly defended Raphael Claus, labelling him “one of the world’s leading professional referees” and praising his “highest standards of professionalism and integrity.” Collina’s statement read: “Raphael Claus is…”

The Belgian prime minister’s cat, Maximus, added to the spectacle with an Instagram post showing the feline clutching a Donald Trump plush toy and another image of the cat beside a red card with the caption “Red card: I am going to play anyway!” The posts, managed by the prime minister’s team, are widely seen as sardonic commentary on the political interference that allowed Balogun to feature. The account, which often strays into political territory, has become a platform for indirect commentary on events, with local media referring to its posts as the official response to Trump’s lobbying.

Egypt’s Salah faces Messi’s Argentina

While Belgium advanced, the quarter-final line-up was completed by Argentina’s meeting with Egypt in Atlanta. Egypt’s national team director Ibrahim Hassan refused to be intimidated by the prospect of facing Lionel Messi, insisting his players would focus on their own game and that Mohamed Salah represented a match-winning threat of his own. “They might have Messi, but we have Mohamed Salah – and we have 26 Messis of our own,” Hassan said, framing the tie as a battle of collective effort over individual genius. The statement was delivered with the confidence of a side that believes its cohesion can overcome the individual brilliance of a seven-time Ballon d’Or winner.

The contrast between the two ties could not be sharper: one decided by a refereeing decision that became a diplomatic incident, the other framed as a clash of footballing philosophies. Argentina, the defending champions, will now prepare for a quarter-final that pits tactical discipline against the unpredictable brilliance of a team built around one of the game’s greatest players. Egypt’s approach, as articulated by Hassan, suggests a game plan designed to frustrate rather than entertain, prioritising structure and collective endeavour over moments of individual inspiration.

Belgium’s path forward and FIFA’s growing scrutiny

Belgium’s victory was achieved despite the cloud over Balogun’s eligibility, but the deeper issue remains FIFA’s handling of refereeing decisions and the political fallout that follows. Collina’s endorsement of Claus underscores the governing body’s reluctance to back down in the face of external pressure, even from the highest political offices. Meanwhile, Belgium’s prime minister has waded into the debate through the unlikeliest of channels, using the prime minister’s cat’s social media to mock the controversy. The posts, which have become a fixture of political commentary in Belgium, were cited by local media as the official response to Trump’s intervention, deflecting direct criticism while making a pointed statement.

As the tournament moves toward its knockout stages, the focus will sharpen on whether FIFA can insulate referees from geopolitical interference. The next round already features a clash between the tournament’s most decorated star and a team that believes its collective strength can neutralise individual brilliance. Whether that philosophy holds will define the next phase of the World Cup. For Belgium, the path forward is now clear, but the manner of their progress has done little to dispel the sense that this World Cup is becoming as much a theatre of off-field battles as on-field ones.

With Maximus the cat’s Instagram account now a barometer of political sentiment in Belgium, and Collina’s defence of Claus setting the tone for FIFA’s stance, the stage is set for further confrontations. The question remains: can the integrity of the competition be preserved when the biggest decisions are being made in corridors of power rather than in the VAR hub?

The United States’ World Cup campaign ended in humiliation on Tuesday morning when Belgium dismantled the hosts 4-1, but the biggest political fallout came from Tehran. As the Stars and Stripes crashed out of their home tournament, Iran’s football federation seized the moment to fire a direct shot across Washington’s bow, framing the result as football’s victory over politics.

Belgium’s rout seals US exit

Belgium’s attacking trio overwhelmed the USMNT, who were already eliminated, with a dominant 4-1 victory in Group B. The result left the Americans bottom of their section, their tournament ending in a manner that mirrored their disjointed performances throughout. Belgium’s forwards exploited space with clinical efficiency, while the US defence struggled to contain their movement. The defeat capped a campaign in which the hosts failed to build momentum, compounded by off-field controversies that overshadowed their on-pitch efforts. Romelu Lukaku opened the scoring in the 10th minute, capitalising on a defensive error before doubling the lead in the 33rd. Timothy Weah pulled one back in the 61st, but Belgium restored their lead through Kevin De Bruyne in the 69th and added a fourth through a late Marouane Fellaini strike in the 84th.

Iran’s federation strikes back

Within hours of the US elimination, Iran’s football authorities issued a statement dripping with defiance. “Now the whole world is dancing to celebrate politics’ humiliating defeat by football,” a spokesperson declared, a clear reference to US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s earlier remarks. Mullin had publicly celebrated Iran’s group-stage exit, boasting of a “happy dance” and singing in celebration after their visas were revoked and their travel restricted. The Iranian federation framed the US exit as poetic justice, turning the tables on Washington’s attempts to isolate Tehran through bureaucratic and political means.

The row between the two nations escalated during the tournament when Iran was forced to relocate its base camp from Arizona to Mexico after US authorities denied visas to eleven staff members, including federation president Mehdi Taj. Iran was also restricted to single-day trips for matches in the US, compelled to leave the country hours after each game—a treatment they described as deliberate mistreatment. Mullin’s gleeful reaction to their elimination only deepened the perception in Tehran that Washington had politicised administrative processes against them.

Politics overshadows sport

The tournament’s undercurrent of political tension reached a crescendo as Iran’s football federation weaponised the USMNT’s exit. Their statement was not merely a celebration of a rival’s failure but a deliberate counterpunch to Washington’s campaign to marginalise Iran through non-sporting channels. The federation’s framing of the result as football’s triumph over politics underscored how deeply geopolitics had seeped into a sporting event designed to transcend borders.

Belgium’s victory, meanwhile, was a reminder that on the field, results speak louder than rhetoric. Roberto Martínez’s side controlled the game with purpose, their forwards exploiting gaps in a US defence that looked stretched and disorganised. The Belgians’ clinical finishing left the Americans’ campaign in tatters, their elimination a formality long before the final whistle. The contrast between Brussels’ professional focus and Washington’s political gamesmanship highlighted the disconnect between the tournament’s ideals and the realities of international football.

The fallout from the match extended beyond the pitch. Mullin’s admission that he “might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance” after Iran’s elimination provided Iran’s federation with ammunition to portray the US as petty and vindictive. The episode will linger as a reminder of how easily sport can be hijacked by geopolitics. Iran’s federation has ensured that the USMNT’s exit is remembered not just for Belgium’s goals, but for the political statement that followed. Football may have delivered a result, but politics ensured the aftermath would be anything but ordinary.

Cristiano Ronaldo’s final World Cup bow ended in tears, not triumph. Portugal’s captain departed the tournament in defeat, his dream of lifting the trophy unfulfilled after six appearances across as many editions. The 41-year-old’s emotional exit underscores a broader truth: one of football’s greatest players will forever be remembered as the best to never win the World Cup. Now, with the curtain closed on his international career, both Ronaldo and Portugal must confront a new reality—one that demands reinvention.

The weight of legacy and the burden of expectation

Ronaldo leaves the World Cup stage with a record no other player can match: 11 goals across six tournaments, the most scored at the competition by any individual. Yet the numbers only tell part of the story. His final match—a 1-0 defeat to Spain in the last 16—highlighted the growing disconnect between his presence and Portugal’s ambitions. The team, stacked with talent from Europe’s elite clubs, struggled to generate creativity in his absence, managing just one shot on target against a Spanish side that dominated possession for 68% of the game.

The contrast was stark. While players like Bruno Fernandes, João Neves, and Vitinha formed a midfield trio brimming with Premier League and Champions League pedigree, the creative spark that once defined Ronaldo’s partnership with Portugal was nowhere to be found. He attempted no dribbles in five matches—a stat that speaks volumes about the limitations of a forward now operating in a system that no longer revolves around his individual brilliance. Even at 41, his influence had waned, not just in execution but in the very fabric of how Portugal attacked. His only contribution in open play was a single headed clearance in the 78th minute, a far cry from the explosive runs that once defined his game.

Portugal’s moment to reset, not retreat

This was not just Ronaldo’s farewell; it was a referendum on Portugal’s direction. The squad boasted defensive solidity in Ruben Dias and Nuno Mendes, midfield control from Fernandes and Neves, and attacking options in Bernardo Silva, Rafael Leão, and Pedro Neto. Yet the absence of a clear plan beyond direct play and set-pieces became glaringly obvious. Spain’s victory was built on 322 passes in the final third compared to Portugal’s 118, exposing Portugal’s lack of a cohesive tactical identity. The question now is whether Portugal will double down on a fading model or embrace a generational shift.

The likes of Neves, Vitinha, and Leão represent the future, but their development cannot be held hostage to nostalgia. Ronaldo’s presence, once a unifying force, now risks becoming a distraction—a symbol of what Portugal once were rather than what they must become. The time has come to prioritise youth, fluidity, and a system that thrives without relying on a single, irreplaceable figure. Fernandes, despite his Premier League Player of the Season award, was often forced into deeper positions to compensate for the lack of a true playmaker, a role that stifled his creativity.

The tactical void left in Ronaldo’s wake

Portugal’s approach against Spain was cautious, almost timid. They absorbed pressure for 90 minutes, content to soak up Spain’s dominance rather than impose their own rhythm. The midfield, though technically gifted, lacked the dynamism to transition quickly or unlock stubborn defences. Fernandes, despite winning the Premier League Player of the Season, was often isolated, his creativity stifled by the absence of a direct link to the attack. Vitinha’s Champions League-winning experience with Real Madrid counted for little when the team’s structure collapsed in transition, with Spain exploiting the 10-yard gaps between midfield and defence.

Ronaldo’s role in this setup was symbolic at best. He offered little in build-up play, his movement restricted to the left channel, and his final contribution—a fruitless cameo in the 83rd minute—highlighted the gulf between his current capabilities and the demands of a World Cup knockout tie. Portugal’s best moments came from Neves’ 67th-minute interception that sparked a rare counter, not from structured attacks, a sign that their identity had fractured. The lesson is clear: without a coherent tactical framework, even the most talented squads will falter against opponents who dictate the tempo.

Ronaldo’s tears were those of a man who gave everything but fell short. His legacy, however, transcends any single tournament. The challenge now lies with Portugal. They must honour his contributions by forging a new path—one that values collective ambition over individual legacy. The World Cup will always be the one trophy that eludes the greatest of players. For Ronaldo, that pain is permanent. For Portugal, the opportunity to rewrite their future begins now.

Belgium’s 4-1 demolition of the United States in the World Cup 2026 round of 16 was more than a statement of intent—it was a calculated response to a controversy that threatened to derail the entire fixture before it began. The Red Devils turned the Seattle pitch into a stage for political theatre, their post-match celebrations a deliberate parody of Donald Trump’s signature moves, as the USMNT’s World Cup exit played out under the shadow of FIFA’s controversial decision to lift Folarin Balogun’s suspension.

The match that turned into a protest

Belgium arrived in Seattle expecting to face a USA side without Balogun, only for FIFA to reverse his one-match ban hours before kick-off. The decision sparked outrage from the Royal Belgian Football Association, which warned of “further actions” if the striker took the field. Yet the Red Devils let their performance speak first. Charles De Ketelaere opened the scoring inside 15 minutes, his two goals in the first half exposing the fragility of a US defence rattled by the late change. Malik Tillman pulled one back from a free-kick, but Belgium’s composure under pressure was unshaken. Hans Vanaken slotted home a third after the break, and Romelu Lukaku added a late fourth, his celebration a pointed mimicry of Trump’s trademark strut as the USMNT’s World Cup campaign collapsed in humiliation.

The Belgian players’ choreographed routine was no coincidence. Trump had publicly endorsed FIFA’s ruling at the Oval Office, admitting to direct discussions with Gianni Infantino ahead of the suspension’s reversal. The optics were impossible to ignore: as Belgium celebrated, the US president was filmed boarding a plane and leaving the country, the timing as symbolic as the scoreboard.

Why the Balogun controversy mattered

The controversy surrounding Balogun’s eligibility overshadowed every aspect of the tie. FIFA’s initial red card in the Round of 32 had been contentious, but their eleventh-hour decision to suspend the ban—amid scrutiny over Infantino’s ties to Trump—raised serious questions about procedural fairness. The RBFA challenged the ruling, only for FIFA to dismiss their appeal as “inadmissible,” leaving Belgium with little recourse beyond the pitch. Their protest, then, was not just tactical but symbolic: a 4-1 scoreline delivered with surgical precision, each goal a rebuttal to the perceived injustice.

The timing of the decision added another layer of intrigue. Belgium had prepared for a USA side without Balogun, their defensive structure and pressing triggers calibrated accordingly. When the striker was named in the starting line-up, the Belgian camp’s frustration was palpable. Yet their response was clinical. De Ketelaere’s first goal came from a counter that exploited the space left by a US defence caught mid-transition, while Vanaken’s third capitalised on a misplaced pass under no pressure. The message was clear: talent, not controversy, would decide the match.

What comes next for both sides

For Belgium, the victory sets up a quarter-final clash that now feels like a coronation rather than a test. Their attacking trio of De Ketelaere, Vanaken, and Lukaku has rediscovered its rhythm, and the psychological edge over an opponent left humiliated by administrative chaos cannot be overstated. The Red Devils’ next opponent will face a side that, despite its flaws, has now been exposed to the ruthlessness of modern tournament football.

The USA, meanwhile, must confront a crisis that extends beyond the pitch. The Balogun controversy has exposed the vulnerabilities of a federation navigating the pressures of a home World Cup amid political interference. The RBFA’s warning that “all further actions remain open” suggests this saga is far from over, but for now, the focus shifts to the fallout within US Soccer. The 4-1 scoreline may be the headline, but the real story is the erosion of trust in the tournament’s governing bodies.

Belgium’s celebrations were a masterclass in gamesmanship, their victory a blend of footballing excellence and calculated defiance. As the dust settles, one question lingers: in an era where sporting integrity is increasingly scrutinised, how many more controversies will it take before the system itself becomes the story?

Mauricio Pochettino has broken his silence over the United States’ World Cup exit, deflecting questions about the Folarin Balogun saga as Belgium advanced with a 4-1 victory in the round of 16. The defeat ends the USMNT’s campaign just days after Donald Trump publicly intervened in the controversy surrounding Balogun’s red card suspension, raising fresh questions about FIFA’s decision-making and the political pressures shaping the tournament. With the competition now turning to quarter-finals featuring England, Spain, and Norway, the fallout from the USA’s collapse and the broader implications of Trump’s call with Gianni Infantino demand closer scrutiny.

Balogun ban, Trump’s call, and FIFA’s response

The road to the USA’s exit was overshadowed by the red card shown to Balogun in the group stage against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The suspension was initially upheld, but the decision was reversed the day before the round of 16 tie, allowing Balogun to feature against Belgium. Trump publicly confirmed he contacted Infantino to request a review of the red card, a move that intensified scrutiny over FIFA’s handling of disciplinary matters. Pochettino, however, refused to engage with the political dimension, stating that FIFA and relevant bodies had provided clear explanations and that the focus must remain on the team’s performance.

Belgium’s 4-1 win underscored the consequences of the distraction. A brace from Charles de Ketelaere, alongside goals from Hans Vanaken and Romelu Lukaku, exposed defensive frailties in the US defence and neutralised any momentum built during the group stage. The Belgians’ clinical finish in the final third contrasted sharply with the USA’s disjointed approach, a theme Pochettino acknowledged when he admitted his team “didn’t connect with the game from the beginning.”

Quarter-final line-up reshaped by shock results

The round of 16 delivered two seismic upsets that have reshaped the tournament’s narrative. Spain eliminated Portugal through a late strike from Mikel Merino, ending what had been framed as Cristiano Ronaldo’s final World Cup appearance. The Arsenal midfielder ghosted into the box to fire a low finish past Diogo Costa, a moment that silenced the Estadio Azteca and sent the Iberian side into the last eight. England, meanwhile, had already booked their quarter-final spot with a dramatic 3-2 victory over co-hosts Mexico, setting up a clash with Norway. The Three Lions’ progress, however, was tempered by the news that Jordan Henderson suffered an injury during post-match celebrations, leaving his availability for the next fixture in doubt.

These results have accelerated the tournament’s shift away from the pre-tournament favourites, with Belgium and Spain now among the favourites to progress further. Norway’s route to the quarter-finals, built on disciplined defending and midfield control, presents a stern test for England, while the Three Lions will need to address Henderson’s fitness before facing a side that has conceded just twice in five matches.

The tactical void exposed by Belgium’s dominance

Belgium’s victory was not merely a reflection of individual quality but a tactical masterclass in exploiting space and tempo. Their midfield trio dictated the rhythm, with quick transitions from defence to attack overwhelming a US defence that struggled to recover position. The Belgians’ pressing triggered turnovers high up the pitch, allowing de Ketelaere and Vanaken to exploit the channels behind the full-backs. Pochettino’s post-match admission that his team “didn’t approach the game in the same way as the rest of the World Cup” hints at a deeper issue: a failure to adapt to the psychological and tactical demands of a knockout tie.

For England, the challenge will be to maintain composure under pressure. Henderson’s absence, if confirmed, would force a reshuffle in midfield, potentially handing a more advanced role to a player less accustomed to high-intensity scenarios. Norway, meanwhile, have shown they can frustrate opponents with a compact 5-3-2 shape, a system that could stifle England’s attacking width if executed with precision.

As the World Cup moves into its final stages, the fallout from the USA’s exit and the political undertones of Trump’s intervention have added an unexpected layer to the competition. Pochettino’s refusal to be drawn into the controversy reflects a desire to focus on the controllable, but the questions over FIFA’s disciplinary processes and the influence of external figures will linger. With Belgium and Spain now the form teams, the quarter-finals promise a clash of styles and narratives, where tactical nuance may decide who advances to the semi-finals.

The USA’s World Cup dreams ended in a 4-1 defeat to Belgium in Seattle, where a red card controversy became a sideshow to a defensive collapse that exposed the hosts’ lack of cohesion. The result, sealed by Charles De Ketelaere’s two first-half goals, Hans Vanaken’s strike midway through the second period, and Romelu Lukaku’s late strike, sends Belgium to a quarter-final against Spain while consigning the USA to an early exit.

Defensive frailties seal USA’s fate

From the opening whistle, Belgium’s attackers probed relentlessly, and the USA’s backline crumbled under pressure. Timothy Castagne forced Matt Freese into a full-stretch save inside the first minute, while De Ketelaere opened the scoring in the ninth minute after three American players hesitated to intercept Leandro Trossard’s bouncing cross, allowing Nicolas Raskin to slide the ball across for the Atalanta forward to tap home. The hosts responded with Malik Tillman’s deflected free-kick in the 31st minute—their only shot on target of the opening period—but any hope of momentum evaporated 116 seconds later when De Ketelaere nodded home Trossard’s hanging cross at the back post. By half-time, the USA had conceded twice, their midfield overwhelmed and their defence exposed by Belgium’s directness.

The defensive lapses were not isolated incidents but a pattern of hesitation and miscommunication. For the first goal, USA defenders froze as the ball bounced unpredictably in the box, leaving Raskin unmarked. For the second, a failure to track Trossard’s run into the channel allowed the Belgian winger to deliver a cross that De Ketelaere met with unchallenged ease. The Americans’ inability to adjust their defensive shape under pressure was the defining feature of their collapse.

Pochettino’s adjustments arrive too late

Javier Pochettino’s halftime adjustments failed to arrest the slide. The USA showed flashes of their usual energy in the second half, with Weston McKennie and Yunus Musah pressing higher up the pitch, but their structure remained disjointed. Freese’s error outside his area gifted substitute Vanaken a clear chance in the 57th minute, and though the hosts pushed for an equalizer, their attacks lacked penetration. Lukaku’s late goal, a tap-in from close range after a quick counter, underscored the gulf in quality and composure between the two sides.

The substitution of Gio Reyna for Musah in the 62nd minute offered a brief spark, with Reyna attempting to thread passes through Belgium’s midfield, but the Americans lacked the technical precision to sustain attacks. Meanwhile, Belgium’s midfield trio of Kevin De Bruyne, Amadou Onana, and Raskin controlled the tempo, recycling possession with ease and probing the USA’s disjointed press. The hosts’ inability to force turnovers in dangerous areas left them vulnerable to quick transitions, which Belgium exploited ruthlessly.

Balogun’s reprieve backfires

Folarin Balogun’s controversial red card suspension, overturned after a high-profile review, did little to shift the momentum. The Arsenal striker, peripheral with just 11 touches in the opening period, was unable to influence proceedings as Belgium’s frontline dictated play. The distraction of the disciplinary saga appeared to weigh on the USA’s collective focus, with their opponents seizing the initiative from the outset.

The match’s narrative shifted from the courtroom to the pitch, where Belgium’s ruthlessness exposed the USA’s defensive fragility. Balogun’s presence in the squad, rather than providing a focal point, seemed to add to the chaos. His lack of involvement in build-up play highlighted the USA’s over-reliance on individual moments of quality—like Tillman’s free-kick—which were insufficient against a team of Belgium’s calibre. The decision to overturn the red card, while legally justified, came at a critical moment, and the psychological impact on the USA was evident.

The USA’s World Cup campaign ends with a thud, not a whimper. Belgium, meanwhile, head to the quarter-finals with a swagger that suggests they are built for this stage. The contrast between the two teams could not have been sharper: one side’s flaws laid bare, the other’s strengths on full display. For the USA, the road to 2026 begins now, with a summer of introspection required to address the structural issues that derailed their tournament.

Hosts crash out of the World Cup in Seattle after a chaotic last-16 tie that saw Donald Trump intervene to suspend a red-card ban on striker Folarin Balogun. The USA’s 4-1 defeat to Belgium confirmed their exit, marking the first time a host nation has been eliminated in the knockout stages since the tournament expanded beyond the group phase.

How the USA’s World Cup dream ended in controversy

The match began with an asterisk. Balogun, sent off in the Round of 32 against Bosnia & Herzegovina for a second yellow card, had his suspension lifted after a call between US President Donald Trump and FIFA president Gianni Infantino. The decision sparked outrage, compounding criticism of FIFA’s handling of the original red card, which many argued was disproportionate given the marginal nature of the challenge. Balogun started the game in Seattle, though he was denied by Thibaut Courtois in the 82nd minute after receiving a through ball, his only meaningful contribution in an otherwise subdued display.

Belgium, despite their talent, had already needed a dramatic stoppage-time winner to beat Senegal in the last 32. Their resilience was evident again, with Romelu Lukaku’s 93rd-minute goal sealing the win from a defensive error by USA defender Antonee Robinson, who hesitated under pressure before playing the ball into Lukaku’s path. The hosts, missing the edge of their attack, could not recover from a first half in which they struggled to impose themselves against a disciplined Belgian midfield.

Belgium’s tournament hangs on a thread

Roberto Martínez’s side remain one of the most talented squads in the competition, yet their results have not matched their pedigree. The 3-2 comeback against Senegal was dramatic; the 4-1 victory over the USA was more straightforward, though no less satisfying for a side under pressure to justify their status as favorites. Lukaku’s clean strike into the bottom right corner underscored Belgium’s ability to punish mistakes, while their defensive lapses—particularly in transition—remained a concern even in a comfortable win.

With Spain next in the quarter-finals, Martínez will hope his team can finally overcome Unai Simón, a goalkeeper who has been a persistent obstacle. Belgium have the talent to frustrate, but converting that into results has been their recurring issue, with their midfield often overrun against higher-pressing opponents. The question now is whether Martínez can address these deficiencies before facing a Spain side that has looked sharper in recent rounds.

What comes next for the USA and Belgium

The USA’s World Cup campaign ends in disappointment, their early exit a stark contrast to the optimism that greeted their co-hosting role. Balogun’s involvement, however brief, will be debated for years—was his inclusion a fair reprieve or an unfair advantage? Either way, the tournament moves on without them, leaving a void in a squad that had promised so much.

Belgium, meanwhile, face a daunting tie against Spain, a team that has looked more cohesive in recent matches. If Martínez’s side are to make a serious run, they will need to tighten their defensive structure and rediscover the cohesion that has been missing in key moments. Their potential remains undeniable, but potential alone will not be enough against a Spain side brimming with confidence.

Belgium’s next challenge awaits. Whether they can silence their critics and deliver on potential remains the biggest question of this World Cup.