Were Ghana “Cheated” vs England at the 2026 World Cup? A Full Match Breakdown and What FIFA’s Laws Say About the Denied Penalty

orpmarketing
Jun 24
8 min read

The 2026 FIFA World Cup has already produced its first major officiating storm: Ghana’s Black Stars believe they were denied a clear penalty in their Group L clash with England. Many fans are calling it “robbery”; others say it was a borderline decision that didn’t meet the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) threshold.

This post breaks down:

What actually happened in the England–Ghana game
The specific incidents Ghana are angry about
What FIFA/IFAB’s Laws of the Game say about such situations
Whether the decision can reasonably be called “cheating” or a controversial interpretation

1. Match Overview: England 0–0 Ghana, Group L

Fixture: England vs Ghana, Group L, 2026 FIFA World Cup
Date: 23 June 2026
Venue: Foxborough, Massachusetts (Boston/Gillette Stadium)
Final score: England 0–0 Ghana [1][2]
Referee: Saíd Martínez (Honduras) [2]
VAR: Armando Villarreal (USA) [1][2]

Key match context

Group situation: Both teams had won their opening games (England vs Croatia, Ghana vs Panama), so this match was effectively for control of the group. A draw left both on four points at the top of Group L, and both moved very close to the Round of 32.[3][4]
Statistics:
- Possession: roughly 80% England – 20% Ghana [2]
- Shots: England 19 (3 on target), Ghana 1 (0 on target) [1][2]
- Corners: England 9, Ghana 2 [2]

On paper, England dominated the ball and chances. On the pitch, Ghana executed a compact, defensive game plan and relied on counters. The controversy centers not on who “played better,” but on whether Ghana were denied a legitimate penalty that could have decided the match.

2. The Two Big Incidents Ghana Are Upset About

There were two major refereeing flashpoints involving Ghana forward Prince Kwabena Adu.

2.1 67th Minute: Pickford Collision and Possible Red Card

What happened

Adu was played through towards goal.
England goalkeeper Jordan Pickford rushed out and collided heavily with Adu near the edge of the penalty area.[1]
Adu went down, and Ghana appealed for serious foul play and/or denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).

Decision

Referee’s call: Defensive free kick to England; no foul on Pickford, no red card.
VAR: Did not recommend an on-field review. The incident was judged not to be a clear and obvious error under VAR protocol.[1]

Expert assessment

Refereeing analysts noted that if Adu had clearly had the last touch and was in full control heading towards goal, Pickford could have been sent off for DOGSO.[1]
The official explanation leaned on the idea that the contact was somewhat mutual and not clearly a foul by the goalkeeper, making it borderline rather than obviously wrong.

From Ghana’s perspective, this was the first sign that major calls were going against them.

2.2 79th Minute: Ezri Konsa’s Tackle on Adu – The Denied Penalty

This is the incident that has enraged Ghanaian fans worldwide.

Sequence of play [1][2][5]:

Around the 79th minute, Adu broke through England’s defensive line and entered the penalty area, moving in on goal.
England defender Ezri Konsa made a last-ditch challenge:
- He came in at high speed, airborne, from behind/side of Adu.
- Crucially, replays showed Konsa did not touch the ball at all.
- Instead, he caught Adu on the knee/legs, bringing him down.
Ghanaian players immediately appealed for a penalty.

Decision

On field: Referee Saíd Martínez did not award a penalty. He allowed play to continue.
VAR: Checked the incident but did not send the referee to the monitor. The call stood, on the basis that it was not a clear and obvious error.

What neutral experts said

From multiple respected observers:

Darren Cann (former World Cup assistant referee):
“Konsa makes absolutely no contact at all with the ball, he brings down his opponent. He is airborne, he is out of control, he makes contact with the attacker. For me this was a penalty kick.” [1]
Wayne Rooney (BBC analyst):
“I think that’s a penalty… Konsa takes a huge risk. His feet are off the floor when he comes flying in and he gets the man, not the ball.” [1][5]
VAR-focused analysis on ESPN also described Konsa’s challenge as careless and said England were “fortunate” that the referee and VAR did not call a foul.[1]

In terms of pure football logic: if a defender, inside his own box, goes to ground, misses the ball completely, and brings the attacker down, the default expectation under the Laws of the Game is a penalty.

3. What FIFA/IFAB Laws Actually Say About Penalties

To judge whether Ghana “had a penalty,” we need to anchor this in the official Laws of the Game, which are set by IFAB and enforced by FIFA in competitions like the World Cup.

3.1 When is a penalty kick awarded?

Under Law 14 – The Penalty Kick, a penalty is awarded when:

“A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.” [6]

So the real question becomes: was Konsa’s challenge a direct free kick offence under Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct?

3.2 Relevant offences under Law 12

Law 12 states that a direct free kick (and thus a penalty, if inside the box) is awarded if a player, in a manner considered careless, reckless, or using excessive force, does any of the following against an opponent [7]:

Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Tackles or challenges an opponent carelessly/recklessly
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent dangerously
Pushes an opponent

Key concepts:

Careless: Shows lack of attention/consideration when making a challenge.
Reckless: Acts with disregard to the danger or consequences.
Excessive force: Endangers the safety of an opponent.

For Konsa vs Adu:

Konsa jumped in, with both feet off the ground.
He made no contact with the ball, only with the attacker.
Contact was strong enough to bring Adu down.

On a strict reading, this easily fits:

“tripping an opponent” and
“tackling or challenging in a careless manner” [7]

inside the penalty area, which by definition should trigger a penalty kick under Law 14.

3.3 Where does VAR come in?

VAR is not a second referee re-refereeing the match. Its mandate is limited:

It can only intervene for clear and obvious errors in four situations:
1. Goals
2. Penalty decisions
3. Direct red cards
4. Mistaken identity

In this case:

The on-field referee judged no penalty.
VAR judged that the footage did not show a clear and obvious mistake by the referee under that high threshold.
As a result, the on-field decision stood, even though several neutral experts believe the initial call was wrong.

In other words, the controversy is not about what the Laws technically require—on that, many refereeing experts are clear that a penalty would be the expected decision. The controversy is whether the referee’s interpretation was so poor that it should have been corrected by VAR.

4. Ghana’s Response and Wider Reactions

4.1 Ghana’s coach: “VAR went for coffee”

Ghana head coach Carlos Queiroz was openly furious after the game:

He called the incident a “clear penalty and red card” that was missed.[1][5]
He repeatedly questioned whether VAR was even operating, joking:
“I’m not sure VAR is still working in the World Cup. We still have VAR? It’s working?”“The VAR referee was on vacation second half… Once again, VAR went for coffee.” [1][5]

He also criticized the earlier Pickford collision as another major call that went England’s way.

4.2 Media and pundit view

Across reputable outlets:

BBC, ESPN and other broadcasters highlighted the incident as a major missed call, with several ex-referees and ex-players saying Ghana should have been awarded a penalty [1][2][5].
Match reports from The Guardian and others noted loud appeals from Ghana and described Konsa as having “received the benefit of the doubt” from the referee.[2]

4.3 Has Ghana filed a formal protest?

Based on current reporting up to 24 June 2026:

There is no confirmed public statement from the Ghana Football Association (GFA) that a formal written protest has been submitted to FIFA over this match.
Ghanaian and African football outlets are strongly urging GFA to petition FIFA to at least review the officiating for future assignments, but that’s not the same as an official appeal.

FIFA, consistent with its longstanding practice, has not commented on the specific decision. They rarely, if ever, publicly overrule a referee’s on-field judgment after the fact.

5. So, Were the Black Stars “Cheated”?

Let’s separate emotion from analysis.

5.1 From a rules perspective

Based on IFAB Laws 12 and 14 and how they’re normally applied:

A defender inside his own box:
- Leaves the ground in a desperate challenge,
- Fails to touch the ball, and
- Makes clear contact that brings an attacker down,
…is almost always punished with a penalty kick.

Neutral refereeing experts and top-level pundits widely agree this should have been a penalty to Ghana. The challenge ticks the boxes for a direct free kick offence (careless tackle/trip) inside the area.[1][2][7]

5.2 From a VAR/protocol perspective

However, VAR operates with a very high bar:

The referee’s on-field view and interpretation are given priority.
VAR must see something that is obviously and definitively wrong to intervene.

In this case:

The VAR team decided the referee’s judgment, while arguably poor, did not clearly violate the standard to the point of intervention.
That explains how the no-call survived, but it does not mean the decision was good—only that it wasn’t deemed “clearly and obviously wrong” within FIFA’s current framework.

5.3 Is this “cheating”?

“Cheating” implies intentional bias or corruption—that the referee or VAR team deliberately ignored the Laws to favor England.

What we can responsibly say based on available evidence:

There is strong football and legal (Laws-of-the-Game) justification that Ghana should have received a penalty.
Multiple independent experts think it was a wrong decision.
There is no public evidence of deliberate match-fixing or explicit instruction to favor England.

So, in professional terms:

It is fair to say Ghana were very unlucky and that the decision was highly controversial and likely incorrect under IFAB rules.
It is not yet substantiated to call it proven cheating without clear evidence of intent or corruption.

6. Practical Takeaways for Ghanaian Fans and Observers

According to the Laws, the Konsa challenge is exactly the type of careless tackle that normally results in a penalty when it happens inside the box.
Experts widely back Ghana’s view that a penalty should have been given; the main disagreement is between the referee/VAR team and much of the football world.
VAR’s philosophy—only overturning “clear and obvious” mistakes—can leave teams like Ghana feeling robbed when big, but debatable, calls go against them.
As of now, no official protest outcome has changed the result; the 0–0 stands, both teams move on, but the sense of injustice will linger, especially among Black Stars supporters.

Conclusion

On balance, under FIFA’s own Laws of the Game:

Yes, Ghana had a very strong case for a penalty, and most neutral refereeing experts say it should have been awarded.
The referee’s decision to ignore the appeal—and VAR’s decision not to intervene—was within current protocols but appears, on the merits, to be a serious error in judgment.
Calling it cheating goes beyond the evidence we have; calling it a major, potentially decisive officiating mistake is entirely justified.

For the Black Stars and their supporters, it will feel like history repeating itself: another World Cup, another massive decision that didn’t go their way. And unless FIFA changes the way VAR thresholds are applied, similar controversies are likely to resurface as the tournament progresses.

References

ORP Digital Marketing Agency