Jacobin⁠60%

Even Donald Trump Couldn’t Ruin the World Cup ⁠83%

By David Goldblatt⁠98%

7/19/2026, 8:35:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 85.5% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,002 faulty-reasoning hits from 193 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,737 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.90% of the article peer group.

As the World Cup comes to an end, we’ve seen unprecedented levels of direct political interference in the organization of the tournament. 
FIFA president Gianni Infantino gave his friend Donald Trump a blank check to exclude anyone he liked from the United States, even referees, and Trump himself notoriously weighed in after a US player received a red card before their game against Belgium. 
We spoke to football historian David Goldblatt about the way this World Cup has unfolded and whether anything can be done to break the stranglehold of figures like Infantino on the game. 
This is an edited transcript from Jacobin’s Long Reads podcast. 
You can listen to the interview here. 
Daniel Finn 
This isn’t the first time the World Cup has been staged in a controversial host country: going back to the early years of the competition, you had the World Cup in Italy under Benito Mussolini in 1934, then you had it in Argentina under the military regime in 1978, and of course we’ve had Russia and Qatar in the last decade. 
How does this experience compare with those? 
David Goldblatt 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 14.5%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 43.0%David Goldblatt: 18.1%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic43.0%This article: 31.6%David Goldblatt: 10.5%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic31.6%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%David Goldblatt: 13.8%Jacobin: 6.8%Framing Effect20.7%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%David Goldblatt: 1.4%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 53.9%David Goldblatt: 31.8%Jacobin: 8.1%Negativity Bias53.9%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%David Goldblatt: 7.3%Jacobin: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error21.8%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 8.6%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.4%David Goldblatt: 14.3%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias11.4%This article: 31.6%David Goldblatt: 10.5%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect31.6%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 8.6%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 43.0%David Goldblatt: 47.0%Jacobin: 8.0%Hasty Generalization43.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.3%David Goldblatt: 25.6%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion38.3%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.8%David Goldblatt: 7.3%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.8%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 53.4%David Goldblatt: 17.8%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal53.4%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%David Goldblatt: 1.4%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 21.8%David Goldblatt: 7.3%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection21.8%This article: 85.5%David Goldblatt: 60.6%Jacobin: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice85.5%This article: 11.4%David Goldblatt: 3.8%Jacobin: 3.2%Indoctrination11.4%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 10.0%Jacobin: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%David Goldblatt: 7.3%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%David Goldblatt: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

193 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.