El Partido (The Match) is a sports documentary film by Juan Cabral and Santiago Franco, based on a non-fiction book by the same name written by Andres Burgo, detailing the match and its various aspects, as also its sporting, political and cultural dimensions, after more than 300 interviews. The movie was premiered at the 2026 Cannes film festival and was nominated for the L’Œil d’or.

Before the game, fans from both countries had several fights in the streets of Mexico City and inside the Azteca. The book and the documentary claim that several England fans were hospitalized while some of their flags were stolen by Argentine barra bravas (organised hardcore supporter groups).

‘There was violence, there were bullfights, there were bottles, stones and flags that changed hands,’ Argentine newspaper Clarin recalls.

Burgo said the fan fights inside the Azteca were relatively mild compared to what happened outside the stadium between English hooligans and their Argentine counterparts. This was when the Mexican authorities had already predicted trouble ahead of the match, with troop deployment almost 25 per cent more than that for other matches, in addition to plain-clothed police personnel infiltrating supporter groups and Mexican and British law enforcement being in constant touch. The two sides consisted of fan groups representing various clubs, who came together for the common cause during this one match.

After Argentina won on the pitch, the violence moved to the streets near the Azteca. The testimonies gathered by Burgo place the biggest clash about a hundred metres from the stadium. Members of the Boca bar, at least two members of the Unión de Santa Fe fans and an English group were the participants.

Eye-witnesses & participants

Claudio Varela, a member of the Boca Bar and one of the interviewees, recounted that the English fought with fists and the Argentines responded with bottles. He said that the conflict began with an attempt to snatch a flag from one of the England supporters.

“It’s true that I fought for a flag, that I jumped from the box, but I don’t remember many more details. I can also say that the fight happened later, already outside the Azteca,” Raul Gámez, one of the protagonists, was quoted as saying by Clarín.

According to Varela, the hooligans fell back during the first clash, but then regrouped and began throwing stones. Luis Luchi Flores, linked to the Union bar, claimed that the Argentines pushed their opponents back, although later the English found debris in the vicinity and responded from a distance. The debris were remnants of the devastating earthquake that had hit the Mexican capital in September 1985.

The Argentines seemed to have bragging rights off the pitch too.

‘What does seem to be proven is that some English flags ended up in the possession of the Argentines. Among them were flags linked to Chelsea and West Ham, displayed as war trophies during the match. Within the culture of the barras, the capture of a flag has a value that exceeds the object: it means appropriating the identity of the rival and demonstrating superiority. Those rags functioned as material evidence that the clashes had existed and helped to consolidate the idea of an Argentine victory,’ Clarin wrote.

The accounts provide another dimension to the events of June 22, 1986. Apparently, about 50 Scottish sympathisers, historically at odds with the English and linked to the Celtic club, provided the Argentine side information about the movement of English groups. Some Mexican gangs and local groups may also have participated in the ambush.

What exactly happened that day is difficult to fully confirm as the story has become a combination of facts, partial memories, self-interested versions and testimonies difficult to verify.

‘Perhaps that is why the battle is still being told four decades later. Not because we know exactly what happened, but because the gaps allowed each protagonist to complete the story in their own way. Maradona’s game needed 10 seconds to reach eternity. The fight between barras and hooligans needed 40 years of stories to become a myth,’ Clarin interpreted.