Category News

Two games, six points, 11 goals – Spain are making their mark at Euro 2025.

After a convincing opening five-goal win over Portugal and a 6-2 thrashing of Belgium, La Roja are through to the knockout stage in Switzerland.

As world champions and the top-ranked side in the tournament, Spain already had a target on their back – now they have underlined why they are favourites.

“It’ll take something special to outdo them or get a win over them”, ex-Scotland captain Rachel Corsie told BBC Radio 5 Live.

“Spain deserve all the credit they’ve had so far. It’s a daunting task for whoever has to face them as the tournament progresses.

” It’s a Spanish side that are nothing short of exceptional. “

Former England forward Eni Aluko told ITV:” Spain are the team to beat.

Portugal offered little resistance in Spain’s Group B opener, but Belgium proved a different challenge, twice equalising after going behind.

But each time the Red Flames responded, Spain replied instantly to restore their lead and regained complete control when Esther Gonzalez netted their third.

The rest of the game was spent largely in Belgium’s half, with Mariona Caldentey, Claudia Pina and Alexia Putellas scoring in the final half an hour to round off a successful evening for Spain in Thun.

After going 12 shots in a close first half, Montse Tome’s side stepped up a gear after the break to increase their total to 33.

Corsie claimed that “they have a little bit of everything.” They have dynamic players, dynamic players, and exceptional individual talent, one v.

Elisabet Gunnarsdottir, Belgium manager, claimed that during their second-half performance that she “wanted to cry” when she entered the dressing room.

“I really cherished seeing my players give everything they had,” Gunnarsdottir said.

“They] Spain understand the game on a different level than anything we will see at this tournament.”

They are so adept at making strategic decisions. They use the box if you give them space or time to maneuver it.

Spain can camp outside the opposition’s box with Patri Guijarro dominating play from the base of their midfield and Putellas and either Aitana Bonmati or 18-year-old Vicky Lopez in front.

And they are prepared to try their luck if they can’t get the ball to one of their forward players.

The concern for rival Spain? In their post-game press conferences, both Tome and Putellas claimed that Spain had “room for improvement.”

Emma Byrne, the former Republic of Ireland goalkeeper, said on ITV, “I still think there is a lot more coming from Spain. Even though they are winning, they haven’t had their best in a while.

You can see that, but I still don’t believe we’ve seen Spain fully flown yet. “They have got the quality. It has been seen in a few moments.

The scary thing is that there is more to come.

Spain have demonstrated they don’t rely on just one player with their two games’ scores, with seven different ones appearing on the scoresheet.

Spain’s captain and center-back Irene Paredes showed up to head home a set-piece, which is in contrast to their short, intricate passing and high possession count.

Caldentey’s long-range goal over the top contributed to Putellas’ goal against Portugal, and that was another example.

By being more direct, Spain have given their country a distinct style. Vicky Losada, a former Spain midfielder, said that adding a long ball is an additional thing to win competitions because it is very difficult to break down when teams go 5-4-1.

Are Spain’s forces unstoppable, then? Their opponents must identify and exploit any weaknesses that Tome’s side may have.

Belgium at least demonstrated how unstoppable their defense is.

Their main points are “going forward” and “being in possession.” Belgium managed to score goals and chances today that could have been better, according to Corsie.

That will give teams and nations that they’ll encounter later a little hope, and how you can see how vulnerable they can be.

“It’s understanding that if you can find that initial combination to break their press when you do win the ball, there’s a lot of place to play with.”

Belgium were successful because they had to break it with two passes, and that’s where they did it.

After all, Spain has recently been defeated. In the Nations League this year, England defeated them, and they lost to Brazil and Germany during a subpar Olympic campaign.

The other teams look at that and could make use of it to their advantage, Corsie continued, and Spain will be disappointed that they have given Belgium so little opportunity.

Wimbledon’s Centre Court served as the ideal metaphor for the current conflicts between people and machines for a brief period of time on Sunday afternoon.

Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Sonay Kartal’s British opponent, was aware of the impact’s long backhand that had landed her. She claimed that the umpire also did it. Television replays provided proof.

The electronic line-calling system, which indicates that humans have undergone a complete replacement this year following earlier trials, remained silent.

Minutes passed quickly. The human umpire ultimately decided that the situation should be rehearseen.

Pavlyuchenkova blew it this time. She won the game before telling the umpire that the game had been “stolen” from her. She pondered whether Kartal’s Britishness might be to blame.

Later, it became apparent that the person had unintentionally turned the line judge off, which was a more mundane but still essentially human reason.

Disgruntled discussions continue that the tech does not deserve a place among Wimbledon traditions, in contrast to Pimm’s, and strawberries.

Without any human judges to yell at, John McEnroe might have been much less well-known at the time of his heyday.

Britain’s Emma Raducanu recently expressed “disappointment” with the new technology after posing questions about its decisions during her game on Friday.

Pat Cash, the previous champion at Wimbledon, disagrees.

He told the BBC, “The electronic line-calling is unquestionably superior to the human eye.”

“From day one, I have always been for it.” Sometimes there will be computer errors, but players generally are content with them.

The issue of line-calling not being 100% this week has been the subject of numerous discussions with players and coaches. However, it still outperforms people.

He is correct in saying that the technology is consistently more accurate than the human eye in various sports. The notorious “Hand of God” goal from 1986 would probably not have passed through artificial intelligence, according to Diego Maradona.

The company Hawk-Eye has created Wimbledon’s electronic line-calling (ELC) system.

It records balls served on each court using 12 cameras, as well as keeping track of the players’ feet while they play. A team of 50 human operators manage the entire thing, and the data is continuously analyzed with the aid of AI.

The ELC’s decisions are sung in 24 different human voices, each recorded by a member of the tennis club and tour guide.

The All England Lawn Tennis Club claims AI is not used to directly officiate the footage, but it may do so through artificial intelligence. Sally Bolton, the club’s CEO, told the BBC that she believes it to be the best in the industry, and that the club maintains its confidence in the technology.

She said, “We have the most accurate officiating we could possibly have here.”

Why, then, do we not have greater faith in this technology?

One reason for this is that Cambridge University professor Gina Neff claims that there is a collectively very strong sense of “fairness.”

We believe that humans are much more adept at understanding the context right now than the machine is in many areas where AI is influencing our lives, she said.

The machine decides its decisions based on the set of rules it has programmed to apply. What’s the right call might not feel like the fair call, but people are really good at including multiple values and outside considerations as well.

It isn’t fair, in the opinion of Prof. Neff, to frame the debate as whether humans or machines are “better.”

She said, “We have to get the intersection right between people and systems.”

To make the best decisions, we must use the best of both.

The foundation of what is referred to as “responsible” AI is human oversight. Using the tech as fairly and securely as possible, in other words.

Someone must be monitoring what the machines are doing, somewhere.

Not that this is going to work in football, where the video assistant referee, VAR, has long drawn out controversy.

For instance, it was officially identified as a “significant human error” when a crucial goal was decided offside in a match between Tottenham and Liverpool in 2024, leading to a barrage of fury when it wasn’t and being declared a “significant human error.”

Even though chief football officer Tony Scholes acknowledged that “one mistake can cost clubs,” the Premier League claimed VAR was 96.4% accurate during “clear match incidents” last season. Norway is reportedly about to stop doing it.

A perceived lack of human control, according to entrepreneur Azeem Azhar, who writes the tech newsletter The Exponential View, contributes to our reluctance to rely on technology in general.

In an interview with the World Economic Forum, he said, “We don’t feel we have agency over its shape, nature, and direction.

Because systems we previously used don’t work as well in the new world of this new technology, it forces us to change our own beliefs very quickly.

Our apprehensions of technology extend beyond just to sports. The first time I watched a demo of an early AI tool that had been trained to identify early cancer signs from scans, it was incredibly accurate (it was years before the NHS trials today), far superior to human radiologists.

According to its developers, the problem was that those who were diagnosed with cancer did not want to learn that a machine had found the cancer. Before they agreed to it, they sought the consent of several human doctors, ideally several of them.

Similar to autonomous vehicles, which have millions of miles of driving distance on roads in nations like China and the US, and data indicates that they have fewer accidents than humans. However, a survey conducted by YouGov last year suggested that 37% of Brits would feel “very unsafe” inside one.

Although I didn’t feel unsafe when I went there, I did feel a little bored once the novelty had faded. And perhaps that is at the heart of the debate over tech in the sport of refereeing.

What [sports organisers] are trying to achieve, and what they are achieving using technology, according to golf Monthly’s general editor Bill Elliott.

For a few minutes on Sunday afternoon, Wimbledon’s Centre Court became the perfect encapsulation of the current tensions between humans and machines.

When Britain’s Sonay Kartal hit a backhand long on a crucial point, her opponent Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova knew it had landed out. She said the umpire did too. Television replays proved it.

But the electronic line-calling system – which means humans have been fully replaced this year following earlier trials – remained silent.

Minutes ticked by. The human umpire eventually declared the point should be replayed.

This time Pavlyuchenkova lost it. She went on to win the match but, in that moment, she told the umpire the game had been ‘stolen’ from her. She wondered aloud if it might be because Kartal was British.

It later emerged the reason was a more mundane, but still quintessentially human reason: someone had accidentally switched the line judge off.

That simple explanation hasn’t stopped disgruntled discussions that – unlike strawberries, Pimm’s and tantrums – the tech does not deserve a place among Wimbledon traditions.

John McEnroe might have been a lot less famous in his prime if he hadn’t had any human judges to yell at.

More recently, Britain’s Emma Raducanu expressed “disappointment” with the new technology after querying its decisions during her match on Friday

Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash disagrees.

“The electronic line-calling is definitely better than the human eye,” he told the BBC.

“I have always been for it, since day one. Computer errors will come at times, but generally speaking, the players are happy with it.

“There have been a lot of conversations with players and coaches about the line-calling not being 100% this week. But it is still better than humans.”

He’s right: the tech is demonstrably more accurate than the human eye across various sports. Diego Maradona’s notorious ‘Hand of God’ goal at the 1986 World Cup would probably not have got past artificial intelligence.

Wimbledon’s electronic line-calling (ELC) system has been developed by the firm Hawk-Eye.

It uses 12 cameras to track balls across each court and also monitors the feet of players as they serve. The data is analysed in real time with the help of AI, and the whole thing is managed by a team of 50 human operators.

ELC has a rotation of 24 different human voices to announce its decisions, recorded by various tennis club members and tour guides.

It may use artificial intelligence to analyse the footage, but the All England Lawn Tennis Club says AI is not used to directly officiate. The club also says it remains confident in the tech, and CEO Sally Bolton told the BBC she believes it’s the best in the business.

“We have the most accurate officiating we could possibly have here,” she said.

So why don’t we trust this kind of tech more?

One reason is a collectively very strong, in-built sense of “fairness”, argues Professor Gina Neff from Cambridge University.

“Right now, in many areas where AI is touching our lives, we feel like humans understand the context much better than the machine,” she said.

“The machine makes decisions based on the set of rules it’s been programmed to adjudicate. But people are really good at including multiple values and outside considerations as well – what’s the right call might not feel like the fair call.”

Prof Neff believes that to frame the debate as whether humans or machines are “better” isn’t fair either.

“It’s the intersection between people and systems that we have to get right,” she said.

“We have to use the best of both to get the best decisions.”

Human oversight is a foundation stone of what is known as “responsible” AI. In other words, deploying the tech as fairly and safely as possible.

It means someone, somewhere, monitoring what the machines are doing.

Not that this is working very smoothly in football, where VAR – the video assistant referee – has long caused controversy.

It was, for example, officially declared to be a “significant human error” that resulted in VAR failing to rectify an incorrect decision by the referee when Tottenham played Liverpool in 2024, ruling a vital goal to be offside when it wasn’t and unleashing a barrage of fury.

The Premier League said VAR was 96.4% accurate during “key match incidents” last season, although chief football officer Tony Scholes admitted “one single error can cost clubs”. Norway is said to be on the verge of discontinuing it.

Despite human failings, a perceived lack of human control plays its part in our reticence to rely on tech in general, says entrepreneur Azeem Azhar, who writes the tech newsletter The Exponential View.

“We don’t feel we have agency over its shape, nature and direction,” he said in an interview with the World Economic Forum.

“When technology starts to change very rapidly, it forces us to change our own beliefs quite quickly because systems that we had used before don’t work as well in the new world of this new technology.”

Our sense of tech unease doesn’t just apply to sport. The very first time I watched a demo of an early AI tool trained to spot early signs of cancer from scans, it was extremely good at it (this was a few years before today’s NHS trials) – considerably more accurate than the human radiologists.

The issue, its developers told me, was that people being told they had cancer did not want to hear that a machine had diagnosed it. They wanted the opinion of human doctors, preferably several of them, to concur before they would accept it.

Similarly, autonomous cars – with no human driver at the wheel – have done millions of miles on the roads in countries like the US and China, and data shows they have statistically fewer accidents than humans. Yet a survey carried out by YouGov last year suggested 37% of Brits would feel “very unsafe” inside one.

I’ve been in several and while I didn’t feel unsafe, I did – after the novelty had worn off – begin to feel a bit bored. And perhaps that is also at the heart of the debate about the use of tech in refereeing sport.

“What [sports organisers] are trying to achieve, and what they are achieving by using tech is perfection,” says sports journalist Bill Elliott – editor at large of Golf Monthly.

We’ve reached the second round of group-phase fixtures at Euro 2025, and with it comes the chance of teams either securing their place in the knockout stage, or being eliminated.

England and Wales are both in trouble after opening-game defeats, while world champions Spain were ominously impressive.

The top two teams from each of the four groups will progress to the quarter-finals, with the sides in third and fourth eliminated.

If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points at the end of the phase, the following criteria will determine their rankings:

Through to the quarter-finals: Norway, Spain

Remaining fixtures (all times BST): Finland v Switzerland & Norway v Iceland (both 10 July, 20:00)

Norway became the first team to secure their place in the quarter-finals with a win over Finland on Sunday, combined with Switzerland’s victory. They are guaranteed top spot because of their head-to-head record against both teams.

Hosts Switzerland go into the final round of games knowing a point would see them progress via goal difference.

Finland need to beat Switzerland to go through.

Remaining fixtures (all times BST): Italy v Spain & Portugal v Belgium (both 11 July, 20:00)

Spain progressed following the second round of group games, after they beat Belgium and Portugal failed to win against Italy.

The Spanish will win Group B if they avoid defeat versus Italy in the final round of games.

Italy will go through as group winners if they beat Spain, or as runners-up if they avoid defeat.

Portugal can only progress as runners-up if they beat Belgium, Italy lose to Spain and there is a six-goal swing between them and the Italians.

Remaining fixtures (all times BST): Germany v Denmark (8 July, 17:00), Poland v Sweden (8 July, 20:00), Poland v Denmark & Sweden v Germany (both 12 July, 20:00)

Eight-time winners Germany will progress to the last eight on Tuesday if they beat Denmark and Poland fail to beat Sweden.

Sweden, who have progressed in the past eight tournaments, will be through if they win and Germany avoid defeat.

Remaining fixtures (all times BST): England v Netherlands (9 July, 17:00), France v Wales (9 July, 20:00), England v Wales & Netherlands v France (both 13 July, 20:00)

The Netherlands, who won the tournament in 2017, will progress if they beat England and France avoid defeat by Wales.

France will be through if they beat Wales and England fail to beat the Netherlands.

Defending champions England will be out if they lose to the Netherlands and France are not beaten by Wales.