Skip to main content

The World Cup’s final four is set. Here’s what you need to know before the final week

(CNN) — We’re going to miss this World Cup when it’s over next week.

We were treated to two brilliant quarterfinals yesterday, which saw both England and Argentina advance to the last four at the expense of Norway and Switzerland.

For England, it was all about one name: Jude Bellingham. I’ve given up on guessing where the 23-year-old plays, he’s sort of just everywhere on the pitch and he netted twice to inspire his team past Erling Haaland’s Norway.

As for Argentina, it has Julián Alvarez to thank after the striker scored an absolute worldie in extra time to help the team through to the semifinal (with a little help from a controversial VAR call).

It means the last four is now complete, so – with no games until Tuesday – it’s time to meet our semifinalists.

The Main Thing: Meet the semifinalists

Despite this being a tournament full of underdog success stories and surprise results, we’ve ended up with the four highest-ranked teams in the semifinals. In many ways, this is the final four that many would have predicted, but it certainly hasn’t been straight forward.

Let’s start with England. Being a fan myself, I don’t think I’ve felt fully comfortable watching any of the games so far this tournament. Yes, it all started well with a 4-2 win against Croatia, but the Three Lions have seemingly struggled to properly kick on and have scrapped their way to this point.

It’s done so off the back of two players, really. Both Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham have scored six goals in the competition, and England would have been knocked out much earlier if it didn’t have these two superstars to rely on.

Even if the team looks disjointed and vulnerable at the back (it really does, most of the time), the talents of those two attackers can get it out of jail. While Kane is a pure goalscorer, Bellingham offers that bit of bite and nastiness that has made England such a hard team to knock out this summer.

With the country looking for its first World Cup title since 1966, there is immense pressure on the shoulders of those two men to keep producing match-winning moments.

England was last in a World Cup semifinal in 2018 but lost on that occasion to Croatia.

England’s opponent, Argentina, is quite similar in many ways. The defending champion has also relied on moments of brilliance to sneak through the knockout rounds, flirting with elimination on more than one occasion.

The team has naturally relied of Lionel Messi to get it out of trouble, and the magic man has duly obliged so far – despite last night being all about his teammate Julián Alvarez.

Much like England, Argentina isn’t a beautiful team to watch, but it knows how to win ugly, and that’s all that counts in tournament soccer sometimes. It is worth noting, though, that Argentina has scored the most goals out of anyone in the competition (17).

It also has the added bonus of experience, with many members of the current squad winning the title back in 2022. You’ve just got a feeling that this semifinal on Wednesday is going to be special – so expect fireworks.

We spoke about the other semifinal in a previous edition of this newsletter, but let’s have a quick recap of what to expect on Tuesday. First, let’s focus on France.

Considered by many to be the tournament favorite, France has barely gotten out of first gear so far this summer. While other teams have crawled to this point in the World Cup, Les Bleus has waltzed its way through the rounds, relying on its ridiculously talented front line.

Kylian Mbappé has been superb yet again, with his pace and directness proving highly effective on the international stage. But he’s supported by the brilliant Ousmane Dembélé and a host of other attackers who makes the team so frightening.

With legendary manager Didier Deschamps leaving his role after this tournament, France will be looking to replicate its 2018 success by sending him away with another World Cup winner’s medal.

The unenviable task of playing France falls to Spain. La Roja was also expected to do well in North America, and while it’s got to this point, it hasn’t set the world alight with its performances.

We are still yet to see teenage superstar Lamine Yamal really thrive, which might have to do with the injury he was nursing coming into the tournament. But the midfield and defense are looking strong, and the team has conceded just one goal the entire tournament (though you feel that stat might be tested when it faces France).

Despite France being the narrow favorite, recent history points more to Spain. After all, Spain beat France in the semifinals of Euro 2024, a tournament it went on to win. It also beat Les Bleus in the Nations League last year.

Whoever wins this semifinal will likely be favorite to win the whole thing on July 19. I can’t wait to find out who it will be.

Inside America’s pay-to-play soccer world

Our colleague Hannah Keyser is out today with a fantastic story that takes a look at one family’s journey through the world of pay-to-play youth soccer, a system that costs thousands and forces hard choices onto parents who want to give their kids every chance to succeed.

In light of the USA’s crashing out of the World Cup in the Round of 16, the nation’s system for bringing kids through the ranks is under scrutiny again and Hannah’s look at how it affects Meliesha and Makenna Johnson is enlightening.

From Hannah’s piece:

Parents across the country who spoke to CNN Sports reported spending thousands of dollars each year to support their kids’ competitive soccer careers. Access to any kind of recreation is a concern. Soccer’s “pay-to-play” model in America is routinely criticized for limiting the country’s success on the international stage at the professional level – a concern that has renewed attention in the wake of the disappointing ouster of the US Men’s National Team from the World Cup this month.

But it’s not just the barrier to entry parents complain about – club fees as high as $3,500 for nine-year-olds in affluent suburbs – it’s the cost to stay competitive. It’s the fear of missing out.

Youth sports across the board are pushing kids, and their families, to specialize sooner and decide how serious they are about the sport – committing to the less demanding participation pathway or the more ambitious performance pathway – earlier. And families find that if they do go the more competitive route, their reward for success is the requirement – perceived, anyway – to spend more.

CNN subscribers can read the full piece here.

Quote of the day

Those were the words from the frustrated Switzerland manager Murat Yakin last night.

They came after yet another controversial refereeing decision that will only stoke an unfounded yet ongoing narrative that Argentina is being helped by officials at this year’s World Cup.

This time, Switzerland forward Breel Embolo was shown a red card after falling foul of the “mistaken identity” protocol being used this summer.

Basically, Embolo had already picked up a yellow card earlier in the match and then, in the second half, he appeared to have been fouled by Argentina’s Leandro Paredes, who received a yellow card himself.

But the video assistant referee (VAR) quickly stepped in, with replays showing that Embolo had sort of thrown himself in front of his opponent. The new protocol allowed VAR to tell the referee that he had mistakenly given Paredes a caution, with the on-field official then booking Embolo for a dive instead (a harsh call, in my opinion).

The second yellow meant the Swiss star was sent off, making progression into the semifinals all that bit easier for the defending champion.

South Africa World Cup midfielder Jayden Adams dies at 25

Some very sad news broke yesterday when it was confirmed that South Africa’s Jayden Adams had died.

The 25-year-old had featured in all three of South Africa’s group stage matches at the tournament but died just a few weeks later.

CNN’s Don Riddell has more in the video above.

World Cup in numbers: 46 million

The Round of 16 match between the USA and Belgium on Monday was the most-watched soccer match in US television history, according to FIFA.

A total of 46 million combined viewers tuned in as the co-host fell to a brutal 4-1 defeat to the Belgians.

The initial figures show FOX averaged 33.1 million viewers (peaking at 41 million) during the game, while Spanish-speaking Telemundo drew a total audience of 12.9 million viewers.

There was a hope this tournament might finally supercharge soccer’s popularity across the USA, and the stats currently show interest is at an all-time high.

The Final Whistle: The spat over Thomas Tuchel’s post-match assessment

After England battled past Norway to reach the semifinal stage of this tournament, manager Thomas Tuchel was less than impressed with the way his team did it.

In truth, and this is coming from an England fan, Tuchel was pretty much bang-on with his assessment in a fiery post-match interview while still on the pitch.

The 52-year-old said he was pleased with the team’s work ethic and mentality but bemoaned its lack of quality on the ball.

“We made life very, very difficult for ourselves today,” he said. “Sloppy, a lot of technical mistakes, not fast enough, not repetitive enough. We were lucky today.”

In the world of media-trained stars saying very little in response to often equally mundane questions, what England’s star man Jude Bellingham responded with was very refreshing.

Having just scored two goals to win his team the game, the attacking midfielder pushed back at his own manager’s comments, in a way only a real leader can do.

“Maybe he doesn’t know what it’s like to play in those kind of conditions,” Bellingham told reporters when he was made aware of Tuchel’s frustrations. “We’ve tried to create a positive environment, and we should continue that going into the final four.”

On the face of it, such a pushback might indicate an unsettled camp, and perhaps some would argue Bellingham was out of line for questioning his own manager. But I actually think the opposite.

Both men spoke from their hearts and weren’t afraid to disagree. Maybe it’s my rose-tinted glasses, but I actually think that shows real promise. If that’s how bullish they are with each other, just imagine what it must be like playing against them.

Ego, if focused in the right direction, is crucial to winning in soccer. England hasn’t had a personality like Tuchel or Bellingham in a long time. It might just prove to be the difference.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

El Gobierno de Trump admite que canceló subvenciones de energía limpia en estados que votaron por Kamala Harris

Los legisladores demócratas acusaron al Gobierno de Trump de abusar de su poder después de que funcionarios admitieran en un documento ante un tribunal federal que recomendaron poner fin a varios miles de millones de dólares en subvenciones para proyectos de energía limpia con base “únicamente” en la “identidad política” de los estados y en si el presidente Donald Trump ganó las elecciones de 2024 en esos estados.En un documento presentado el 15 de julio, que forma parte de una demanda colectiva para revocar la decisión, los funcionarios dijeron que el Departamento de Energía envió a la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto una lista de más de 600 subvenciones que recomendó cancelar a beneficiarios en estados donde la exvicepresidenta Kamala Harris ganó el voto, y que tienen dos senadores que se alinean con los demócratas. En última instancia, la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto (OMB, por sus siglas en inglés) canceló 284 subvenciones en octubre de 2025.La medida está en línea con el impulso más amplio de Trump en su segundo mandato para tomar represalias contra una variedad de oponentes políticos, y con sus agresivos esfuerzos por frenar la financiación federal en estados gobernados por demócratas. A principios de este año, el Gobierno intentó congelar US$ 10.000 millones en financiación para servicios sociales de cinco estados demócratas, antes de desistir de la iniciativa.En febrero, la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias (FEMA, por sus siglas en inglés) liberó más de US$ 5.000 millones en ayuda por desastres largamente retrasada para los estados, pero dejó fuera a varios estados liderados por demócratas donde Trump había tenido enfrentamientos con gobernadores. El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional negó que la política influyera en la decisión.Esos acontecimientos se produjeron durante el apogeo de un esfuerzo sin precedentes del director de la OMB, Russell Vought, por ejercer nueva autoridad y poder sobre el proceso de gasto federal, un impulso que se aceleró rápidamente tras amplias acusaciones de fraude en Minnesota a finales del año pasado.La revelación de la medida del Gobierno para recortar subvenciones en estados donde Harris ganó los votos electorales fue informada por primera vez por el New York Times. Los demandantes en el caso, un grupo de investigadores de la Universidad de California, argumentan que la gestión de Trump optó por la cancelación de subvenciones federales por motivos políticos.En la presentación del 15 de julio, el Departamento de Energía (DOE, por sus siglas en inglés) declaró que “acepta que la inclusión de subvenciones en el aviso de octubre se basó únicamente en la afiliación política del estado beneficiario, es decir, si la ubicación o el lugar de ejecución del proyecto se encontraba en un estado demócrata o no”.El líder de la minoría del Senado, Chuck Schumer, demócrata, calificó la admisión del DOE de “trumpismo sin precedentes y algo a lo que nunca deberíamos insensibilizarnos”.“Trump admite que les quita el sustento a familias trabajadoras para vengarse de los estadounidenses que no votaron por él. Es enfermizo y desquiciado”, escribió Schumer en X. “Su ego es tan frágil que castigará a familias que ya luchan por llegar a fin de mes solo por un poco de venganza”.El representante de Maryland, Jamie Raskin, afirmó que las acciones del Gobierno de Trump constituyen una “profunda traición a Estados Unidos”, y añadió que los fondos deben ser restituidos de inmediato a los estados demócratas.“Esta represalia partidista masiva es espantosa, indignante, peligrosa, ilegal, inconstitucional, antipatriótica y una grave ofensa contra la República”, escribió Raskin en X. “Trump sabía lo importantes que eran estas subvenciones de la era Biden para el pueblo estadounidense, por eso no las recortó a los estados republicanos, pero sí a los demócratas”.La representante de Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, y la senadora de Washington, Patty Murray, ambas demócratas que integran las comisiones de asignaciones en sus respectivas cámaras, declararon en un comunicado conjunto el viernes: “Esta es una admisión asombrosa de que el presidente y su equipo abusaron corruptamente de su poder para destruir empleos dignos y castigar a familias trabajadoras debido a sus opiniones políticas”.“Utilizar al Gobierno federal como arma de esta manera es completamente antiestadounidense”, añadieron las legisladoras.CNN contactó a la Casa Blanca, el Departamento de Energía, la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto y el Departamento de Justicia para solicitar comentarios.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story