i have also noticed this, more generally i’ve been baffled by the whole general phenomenon of people approaching the world cup entirely through a moral and decolonial lens, in every match they want to know who is on the side of good, who represents the wretched of the earth, and who is the evil oppressor… truly insane way to think about sports! obviously you can’t get rid of politics entirely here, any contest between states will be political because states are political constructs, granted, sure, but sports are fundamentally unlike other kinds of political contest, no one is liberated if the match goes to the “good” colonised nations, and no one is enslaved if it goes to the former colonialists, it’s all entirely on the level of symbols, and when we’re solely in that realm it’s very apparent that every nation, however “progressive,” is founded on an immense act of violence against the subject. for instance since we’re already talking about them i love argentines but i do feel a cold touch of dread whenever i encounter one who’s frothingly angry about the falklands. oh, so you happened to personally come to the conclusion that the legal status of some barely inhabited rocks is a question of urgent justice? and you just so happen to come from the country where everyone else has the same opinion? it’s like encountering a torture victim: look what they’ve done to you, look how this artificial identity has colonised your brain. if we absolutely must make football into a contest between good and bad then i think the only way to go about it is to support the side that’s the least nationalistic, the most embarrassed about its national symbols, and the least likely to whip up its population with silly irredentist claims. of the four countries still playing, the one that best fits the bill is england, which by sheer coincidence happens to be where i’m from