Inside the Messi Allegations Rocking the World Cup & Rogan Gets JD Vance to Slip Up About Epstein

PDS Published 07/16/2026

• Messi and Argentina Favoritism Allegations Swirl as U.K. Urges FIFA Probe

  Why you've got the Lionel Messi World Cup rigging allegations just blowing up right now. Rogan and JD Vance bombshells on Epstein and Israel expose a lot, including a MAGA ticking time bomb. I'll be live tonight to cover and break down Trump's controversial primetime address with your favorite DeFranco and Georgia State House candidate Lindsey DeFranco. So be subscribed and have all notifications turned on. And Trump's teleprompter guy reportedly got busted betting on Trump's speeches. We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand-new Philip DeFranco Show, your daily dive into the news.

  Starting with this: Is FIFA rigging the World Cup Final?

  That's something you've seen many people asking and saying as Argentina has been advancing through the knockout rounds. You have them officially securing their spot in the finals after beating England in another stunning comeback.

  And if you've been on World Cup Twitter, which is a very special version of Twitter, you've probably seen a wide array of largely AI-generated memes that show Argentina's Messi often depicted as a princess, a baby, or a woman cozying up with FIFA president Gianni Infantino. The memes all kind of hit on general themes, too, talking about rigging games, handling bribe money—you know, you get the idea.

  It's also not just AI memes. You've got so many people broadly accusing Messi of cheating. You've had things like this TikTok with over 2.2 million likes that just baselessly alleges that he paid millions of dollars for extra penalty kicks. Others have also argued that FIFA rigged the tournament to give Argentina a clearer path to the semifinals. Or you've got people claiming that the team was set up with easier games and that they didn't face off against any of the top ten teams in the FIFA rankings before their match against England. Then you're seeing plenty of allegations of referee bias.

  I really want to stress to you, these are just some of the theories that have been floating around out there.

  But also, I should note, this is by no means the first time that there have been allegations about FIFA's favoritism toward Argentina spreading online. They've been calling Messi "FIFA's princess" since the last World Cup in 2022, which Argentina won.

  While you had a lot of people sharing a lot of feelings about the Argentina–Cape Verde game, the favoritism allegations really came back in full force this year after Argentina beat Egypt 3–2 in the final minutes of their game.

  And that one was especially contentious because the refs voided an Egyptian goal due to a foul but apparently declined to review a later potential foul by Argentina shortly before they scored the winning goal.

  It wasn't just soccer fans spreading the favoritism theories. The coach of Egypt's team called the game unfair and said that the team suffered an injustice. He even explicitly suggested that FIFA may have rigged the game to favor Argentina, saying, "Perhaps they wanted to keep the world champion in the competition. Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running."

  And it's now been reported that Egypt has officially filed a complaint challenging the results and asking for an investigation into that referee.

  Though, of course, FIFA officials and the manager of Argentina's national team have denied the allegations of favoritism.

  That's also not where the controversy ends because you have many U.K. leaders and fans calling for the team to be investigated after some players held up a political banner following their semifinal win yesterday.

  The banner in question translated to, "The Malvinas are Argentine," with that being in reference to the islands located 300 miles off the coast of Argentina, which are also known as the Falkland Islands.

  So, just for a quick history lesson here: while many different countries have claimed the islands over the past several centuries, they've been under de facto British rule since the U.K. reestablished control in 1833.

  But Argentina has always claimed that the islands were illegally taken. And in 1982, the military government invaded in order to try and take them back, initiating the Falklands War, which lasted 74 days and actually ended during the '82 World Cup when Argentina surrendered.

  Riveting.

  Also, since that war, Argentina has still claimed sovereignty over the islands, though 99.8% of the island's residents voted to remain under British rule during a 2013 referendum. Literally only three people voted against it.

  Leading up to yesterday's game, you had numerous Argentinian leaders painting the match against England as this broader political statement. That actually included the vice president saying that the game isn't just another match while referring to the English as "invaders" and "usurping pirates."

  So it's not surprising that that banner made its way to the pitch, with some outlets noting that it appears to have been handed down by fans in the crowd who were photographed holding it earlier.

  But you also have it appearing to violate FIFA's rules for both players and stadium content, both of which strictly prohibit displaying or wearing any materials with political messaging.

  And so, as a result, while you had leaders in Argentina cheering on the message, you had numerous U.K. officials calling for a formal probe, with a spokesperson for Prime Minister Keir Starmer telling reporters:

  "The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are. Our position is unchanged. Self-determination rests with the islanders, and our commitment to the Falklands will never change."

  Adding that any potential sanctions are a matter for FIFA.

  But as far as what that punishment would be, that remains unclear, though I will say there is some past precedent. During a warm-up game for the 2014 World Cup, Argentina's players held up a banner with the same message about the Falklands, a move that resulted in a $37,000 fine from FIFA.

  But now you have some speculating that this could be much more serious because this isn't a warm-up—it was an official match.

  Then another possibility is that FIFA might sanction the players who held up the banner. And that's also something they've done in the past, suspending individual players for a game or two after they made political statements.

  But that said, it could be a while before any potential punishments are handed down, and experts say that it's unlikely anything is going to happen before the final.

  But then, at the same time, you're seeing widespread questions about FIFA's political neutrality at this World Cup.

  Right? Infantino, the FIFA president, has been widely panned for his close ties with Donald Trump, who he's cozied up to in the lead-up to the tournament. That relationship received even more backlash after FIFA reversed a red card suspension for the United States.

  Was it Donald Trump's request, though? It didn't fucking do anything for the game—we still lost 4–0.

  But then also, Trump is a big ally of Argentina's president, and they're both reportedly set to sit with Infantino during the final.

  And so, kind of to bring it full circle, even if you don't buy the whole Messi/Argentina favoritism accusations, it is true that FIFA has pulled some incredibly questionable moves recently, which also isn't that great for an organization that has a deep history of controversy.

  For now, we'll have to wait and see how all this plays out. And that goes for investigations, probes, as well as who's going to win the World Cup.

  Which, hey, a question for you: Who do you think is going to win the World Cup?

  But also, Argentina and FIFA are not the only ones who found themselves in some tricky waters, because next up is this Joe Rogan and JD Vance situation.

• JD Vance Addresses Epstein and Iran on Joe Rogan’s Podcast

  You got to hand it to him, it's a wild one, right? This new interview really tested both of them on some crucial controversies inside of this MAGA civil war we've seen play out over the past year and a half, namely the Epstein files and the war in Iran.

  You've had Joe Rogan being among the many conservative voices who have been slamming the Trump administration on both of those fronts. Though I also, of course, have to add an asterisk there, because that hasn't stopped Joe Rogan from being a very willing prop of the administration, whether it be him with the biggest smile on his face being buddy-buddy inside of the Oval Office or on the White House lawn.

  But yesterday, what you saw is that when they got together, Vance addressed both of these things on his podcast, even admitting that they botched the release of the files.

  "We absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files. Like, we just did. But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No. I think we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning."

  To which you might understandably respond, but your boss was the main person trying to make it so nothing got released. He very transparently made it his mission to knock Republicans who supported this thing from the beginning out of Congress, namely Thomas Massie. And then, of course, you had Marjorie Taylor Greene leaving.

  You then also had Rogan bringing up Pam Bondi, pressing Vance on things like the former AG doing that big performative binder release, with Vance saying:

  "I think Pam was trying to respond to the political moment. I think she overstated what we had and what we didn't have. And I think that she, you know, got roasted for it publicly."

  Ultimately, Vance claimed that the big issue with the files isn't actually with the Trump administration, but rather errors made way back during the investigation in 2007 and 2008.

  And so, even while seemingly admitting that Trump and his DOJ missed the mark, he still ultimately defended them.

  "We eventually collected six million documents as part of the effort."

  People say the president was forced into releasing the documents. Again, the idea that Donald Trump could not have killed that legislation, especially with the United States Senate, is a joke. He absolutely could have killed it.

  "I've never seen a single piece of credible evidence that the United States engaged in wrongdoing with minors. Ever. So when the president says 'the hoax,' that's what he's talking about, this Democratic idea that he somehow was a pedophile. It's absurd."

  But to that I would just say no. He seems to be deflecting a very specific argument.

  There are plenty of people who want the release of the Epstein files that don't actually think Donald Trump himself is a pedophile.

  There are definitely other issues, like the fact that he literally had to pay just a ton of money over sexual abuse.

  But there are also plenty of people that think Donald Trump didn't want the release of the Epstein files, and even still had a hand in what was and wasn't released because he either wanted to protect or still have leverage over a bunch of other rich people, right? Elites. A lot of the people that he surrounds himself with or who have supported him.

  Because a lot of people in this country think that it's not really left versus right. Sure, there is that stuff at play, but it's rather top versus bottom, the elites versus everyone else.

  And then also with this, while you have Vance saying that he believes there is likely a bigger conspiracy behind it, we just don't know.

  Saying that he is the Vice President of the United States, he just can't do a thing to get to the bottom of it.

  "There was something he was doing where he was trying to either influence people or compromise people. Correct. So it's not there's some sort of an operation that was just there. There is a story there, and you know, I will go to my deathbed believing there's a story there, but I can't prove it."

  And for me, I will say it was very wild to watch this happen. Like, how are you on the inside? Like, literally one extra Filet-O-Fish for Trump away from being the President of the United States, going, "If only there was a way to be on the inside and figure this out."

  You've literally installed loyalists everywhere that matters.

  Funny enough, you had a lot of people making fun of Vance, pointing to an Onion—or I guess now InfoWars—video where they're like, "The conspiracy goes almost all the way to the top, but not quite there, because that would be Trump. But, you know, right around here."

  So yeah, you have Vance doing this conspiracy-bro thing while also officially being the Vice President of the United States and not giving any more information.

  And actually, I'll say the timing here was interesting because Epstein was also the main focus of politics yesterday as the House Oversight Committee continued its interviews. It also came up repeatedly during Blanche's confirmation hearing.

  And also just this week, we learned that the Trump DOJ has so far refused to turn over unredacted files to the state of New Mexico amid its investigation into Epstein and his infamous Zorro Ranch.

  You got the state's attorney general accusing the Trump administration of obstructing this inquiry, withholding information, and refusing to cooperate.

  For its part, the DOJ wrote:

  "Federal law, court orders, and privacy protections for victims and witnesses do not allow us to release millions of unredacted documents. To capitulate to their demands would be to break federal law."

  Is that what the New Mexico AG is suggesting?

  And if you feel like the last part of that statement was kind of petty or antagonizing, you're definitely not alone.

  What we're actually seeing is that doing that is not a winning strategy when it comes to Epstein. You have polling from earlier this year that found that over half of Americans say that the Epstein files have lowered their trust in the country's political and business leaders.

  Seventy-five percent still think the United States is hiding information about Epstein and his clients.

  But then that also wasn't the only contentious issue that J.D. Vance touched on while talking to Rogan.

  Because you also had them talking about what Rogan himself called a betrayal and a terrible decision: the war in Iran.

  And there, what you saw was Vance kind of having to toe the line again of defending Trump while also playing into a MAGA base that is losing interest.

  "I think that the goal is certainly good, which is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And I think that there are obviously a lot of questions about how best to achieve that."

  Rogan: "If it was your call, would you have done exactly the same thing?"

  Vance: "Well... the president said publicly that JD was less enthusiastic about it, I think was the exact phrase that he used. I mean, my attitude toward this, man, is, you know, as the vice president, I'm not a public commentator. My job is to give the best advice I can to the President of the United States."

  So here, it really felt like he was trying to do this dance to still have a possibility of being president in 2028.

  "I'm saying as long as the president's making legal and ethical choices, it's my job to make sure that his missions are as successful as possible."

  Even if he personally would have done that thing.

  And so he's worked on negotiations. He's worked hard on that, he says, but it's also not his job to talk about what he thinks.

  As far as what the American public thinks, Americans do not like this war.

  In fact, just this morning, The Washington Post put out a poll showing that overall approval is just 29% for this war.

  And what you see is things like a separate recent YouGov poll finding that 77% of MAGA Republicans believe that the war is the right decision. It's just 31% for non-MAGA Republicans.

  And so it's not just divisive for the country. It is very divisive inside of his own party.

  You have many, including big voices like Tucker Carlson, calling it Israel's war, not the U.S.'s.

  And you had The Wall Street Journal noting Republicans have long seen support for Israel as an unshakable tenet of GOP orthodoxy, but a younger generation of influential conservatives is pushing to change that.

  And actually what you saw there was Vance sort of cater to that side when he ramped up his critiques of Israel while speaking to Rogan.

  "Right now, Israel is losing the public opinion battle in the United States of America. Israel is an ally, like France or like the United Kingdom. We're going to have disagreements with them. We're going to have agreements with them."

  "Do they try to influence American politics? Yes. Like I said earlier, a lot of other countries do. To the extent that Israel does? Because some are better at it than others. I think the Israelis are definitely more effective at it than most, but I wouldn't say that they're the only effective country by any means."

  And again, a lot of the way that he's been talking about these things, it does seem like he's trying to think about 2028.

  That makes sense because we've talked about the Pew Research polling that came out recently.

  And even with Republicans, especially younger Republicans, this is just not popular.

  Netanyahu, the people around him, the people who have enabled this, they have possibly messed up Israel's PR generationally.

  And personally, I'll say I'm very interested to see how Vance continues this apparent balancing act in the years to come in hopes of getting the support that he needs.

• Sponsored by Mint Mobile

  And then there's even more that we got to dive into in just a minute.

  But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, I've realized one of the easiest ways to accidentally waste money is to never question the bills that show up every month. Your phone bill—it's usually one of those bills. It's on autopilot, and years later you're still paying for a plan you probably wouldn't choose today.

  Well, right now, today's sponsor, Mint Mobile, is offering a summer promo of 3, 6, or 12 months of premium wireless for 15 bucks a month. That's any plan—even Unlimited.

  And so naturally, one of my first questions would be, okay, well, what is the catch?

  And it turns out that switching is easier than I expected. Bring your unlocked phone, keep your number, and activate online in minutes with eSIM. No store visit required.

  And then coverage, of course, was the other thing I cared about. Mint runs on the nation's largest 5G network, reaching 98% of Americans, and 4G LTE reaches 99%, so you're not giving up coverage to save money.

  And you choose the plan that fits how you actually use your phone, from 5 gigabytes all the way to Unlimited.

  Hey, if you're still on the fence, every plan comes with a seven-day money-back guarantee, so there's very little risk in giving it a shot.

  Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Scan the QR code or go to Mint Mobile DeFranco and get 3, 6, or 12 months of premium wireless for 15 bucks a month. That's any plan, even Unlimited.

  And again, that's Mint Mobile DeFranco.

MINTMOBILE

Shop plans starting at 15 bucks a month at https://www.mintmobile.com/DEFRANCO. Thank you to Mint Mobile for partnering with us on this video!

• Kevin O'Leary Sued for Saying Critics of His Utah Data Center Are Chinese Agents

  We've got to talk about how celebrity investor and alleged human man Kevin O'Leary accused two Utah residents of acting as Chinese agents, seemingly because they had the audacity to question his plan to build a massive data center in the state, then admitted to having no evidence to back this up.

  And now he, along with Fox News, is being sued for all of this, while you have that project continuing to face incredible pushback.

  And it's just one high-profile example of how data centers are becoming an increasingly important issue in American politics. And a big key thing is that it doesn't seem to be falling neatly along party lines.

  But starting with the shark—though I would say he seems more like an oversized albino goblin—let me introduce you to the strangers that he decided to make his enemies.

  You have Gabby Finlayson, who's a political strategist with a firm called Elevate Strategies. Then you have Josh Kantor, a lawyer who founded and serves on the board of a progressive nonprofit called Alliance for a Better Utah.

  They and their organizations are all named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

  And you have their problem with O'Leary going back to May 11th when he decided to go on Fox Business and claimed that he had an analysis showing that foreign actors were spreading misinformation about his data center.

  Then you also had him adding specifically, "We found two cells inside of Utah."

  And you see and hear him specifically mention Josh, his colleague Taylor and their nonprofit, as well as Gabby and her organization.

  "I'm calling out Taylor, Josh, and Gabby operating in Utah. I want a forensic audit. Who's funding their platforms? Who is it? These are proxies for the Chinese government. That's my argument. And if they're not, because I want them to be able to defend their name, Taylor, Josh, and Gabby, come out, come out wherever you are. Let's audit your books. They should thank me for this promotion I'm giving them right now. If they have nothing to hide, they'll open their books. It's the CCP at work here. There's no question about it."

  And so then with that, Josh and Gabby were reportedly shocked to all of a sudden be called out on national television, not least because they hadn't even been prominent critics of the data center.

  Their organizations apparently only collaborated on a few social media posts against the project and Utah officials who supported it.

  Also according to the lawsuit, the groups played virtually no role in the organized opposition.
  
  But that allegedly did not stop O'Leary from repeating similar accusations against them during at least ten separate appearances on Fox News over the following weeks, including falsely accusing them of criminal acts like acting as unregistered foreign agents and money laundering.

  You then saw all of that leading to a lawyer sending him a letter last month asking for a retraction.

  So you had O'Leary then posting a statement on his Instagram saying that he had no evidence that China or the Chinese Communist Party had been funding Josh or Gabby.

  You then also had the Fox News host, who appeared really more than happy to amplify O'Leary's claims, issuing a similar correction.

  "Fox News Media is likewise aware of no evidence that they are funded by, or acting at the direction of, or in coordination with Chinese interests in opposing Kevin O'Leary's projects. Fox News Media apologizes for the error."

  The plaintiffs' lawyer was like, "Come on, too little, too late," saying the damage had already been done.

  Telling The New York Times:

  "These are people whose lives have been completely upended."

  You have the lawsuit specifically alleging that they've suffered devastating reputational harm, significant economic losses, severe emotional distress, and ongoing threats to their physical safety.

  While it doesn't specify a dollar amount, they are seeking compensation.

  Now, at least as of this recording, O'Leary hasn't commented.

  Though Fox News, which is accused of letting O'Leary push those accusations without questioning, qualifying, or verifying them, did issue a statement through a spokesperson.

  "Fox News Media publicly corrected the record on every program where on-air guest Kevin O'Leary's comments were made, all of which was extensively publicized. We will vigorously defend against this lawsuit."

  Though I will tell you, I mean, we've heard that in the past, like before when the network agreed to pay almost $800 million to settle a defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over the network's spread of misinformation related to the 2020 election.

  We're going to keep our eyes on this, right? We need to see where this case ends up.

  I'm very interested in it just because of who's involved.

  In the meantime, it's worth noting that this is only the latest twist in the drama surrounding O'Leary's data center because you have a separate lawsuit in Utah state court brought by Alliance for a Better Utah and several other individuals alleging that the construction approval process violated the rights of local residents.

• Trump’s Teleprompter Operator Bet on President’s Speeches

  But then from that, your final block. Today I want to cram in some more news you need to know, starting with the fact that it looks like Trump's teleprompter guy profited tens of thousands of dollars by placing bets on speeches on the prediction market, Kalshi.

  That's what you have ABC News reporting. His name is Gabriel Perez. He's been operating Trump's teleprompter since 2016.

  And according to ABC News, sources say that he's in talks with federal regulators to settle allegations that he used his inside knowledge of the president's speeches to win more than $100,000.

  As far as how you got things to this point, you have Kalshi's lead lawyer saying:

  "Our surveillance team promptly flagged and referred these trades to the CFTC, and we are cooperating in assisting regulators."

  You had them seemingly finding something suspicious and reporting it.

  One of the things I found most fascinating is that apparently this guy was day trading.

  Reportedly, sources say investigators uncovered times when Perez would back out of certain bets mid-speech when Trump skipped over a portion of the speech that included a word he had previously bet would be mentioned.

  Which makes sense because you even have Trump saying that he goes off prompter 80% of the time.

  As far as what happens next, it might not actually be that much.

  Reportedly, regulators are willing to settle with Perez. He'll just have to give back his profits and not make bets like this moving forward.

  To me, it feels like an insanely small slap on the wrist for just an ever-growing, emerging problem.

• Ellison Family Accused of Cutting Illegal Deal With Trump for WB Acquisition

  Also, you've now got the news about the chaos with the Paramount–Warner Bros. merger that we have to talk about.

  Because a Paramount shareholder just filed a lawsuit against Larry and David Ellison, saying they made illegal deals with the president to get the merger approved.

  The guy behind it is Paul Robbins, and he's claiming that the Ellisons won the bidding war for Warner Bros. by promising sweeping changes at CNN and other personal benefits to President Trump.

  And he says that they planned to funnel cash to him by settling his legal claims against CNN and cut out any anchors that he doesn't like.

  Notably, this isn't the first time we've heard something like this.

  Last year, you had Trump himself even nodding to a $16 million side deal with the Ellisons for additional ads and public service announcements, all wrapped up in his 60 Minutes lawsuit.

  Also adding to that, since the Paramount–Skydance deal last year, the lawsuit says that the Ellisons have remade CBS in the president's favor.

  They were talking about getting rid of DEI initiatives.

  They hired the former president of a conservative think tank to lead the review of any complaints about their news coverage.

  Probably most notably, or at least most obvious to everyone out there, we've seen 60 Minutes hosts either leave or be let go from the network.

  And so now that we're hearing talks of these same side deals coming with this merger, you've got people saying America's richest people want to turn America's most important media outlets into propaganda machines for the president.

  "This is bad for democracy."

  The Paramount side says these are just recycled allegations, saying:

  "No commitments from either David or Larry Ellison have been made to any government officials."

  And adding:

  "We remain confident in the merger's fundamentals and will continue toward closing."

  But I will say it seems like they may have a tough road ahead of them.

  And that's because, on top of this most recent lawsuit, 12 states have also just filed a separate antitrust suit to block the merger.

  And that's in addition to the Writers Guild of America filing one as well, claiming that it would limit opportunities for writers and lead to pay cuts.

  But that, my friend, you beautiful bastard, is the end of today's show.

  Depending on when you're watching this, I might literally be live right now again with my amazing wife and also Georgia House candidate Lindsey DeFranco.

  And we'll break down or react to whatever the hell this speech is going to be.

  I'll see you then.