Half of voters (50 %) believe FIFA sacrificed sporting fairness by shielding the four favourites until the semi-finals. Only 13 % defend it, while 38 % have no opinion: one of the largest pools of hesitation in the archive, on a subject where the accusation is hard to prove.
Among men, hesitation dominates and nobody defends FIFA. Women are the only group to produce outright opposition, while still backing the accusation by a majority.
Age sets two blocs against each other. The 18-24s carry the accusation and the 45-54s endorse it completely, while the 25-34s reject it just as completely. The over-65s unanimously refuse to take a side.
The debate is more cautious than the vote, and that is what makes it interesting. Its most endorsed contribution comes from a voter with no opinion, who nonetheless puts it bluntly: never seen refereeing this bad at a World Cup. Here the gut feeling precedes the accusation.
The thread's most constructed voice, also from the undecided side, states the problem precisely: preventing the four favourites from meeting before the semi-finals gives the impression that fairness has been reduced, but we may never know whether the decision came purely from the rulebook or from other considerations. It is an accusation that can be neither proved nor dismissed.
The defence, opposite, fits in one sentence: they simply played better than the rest, with an ironic exception made for Argentina. The round therefore ends on an unusual split: a majority accuses, a minority denies, and the next largest group declines to conclude for lack of evidence.