FIFA Bent Its Own Rules. It Still Won't Say Why.
There is a sequence of events that FIFA has not disputed. Folarin Balogun, the United States striker, got sent off with a red card during the game against Bosnia-Herzegovina, in which America won with a score of 2-0, on July 1. Getting a red card meant automatic suspension for one game. As a result, Balogun was going to miss the Round of 16 match against Belgium.
On the next day, people inquired if the red card could be appealed, but the officials at FIFA had to say no because according to The Athletic, multiple FIFA officials stated that no appeals are allowed in cases of red cards.
The rules were clear. Balogun would not play.
On July 2, President Donald Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino. According to three people familiar with the conversation, as reported by the New York Times, Trump asked Infantino to review the ban. A US official told
MS NOW that Trump wanted to understand why Balogun had been red-carded and why it had resulted in a suspension. Sports broadcaster Ben Jacobs first reported the call. The White House did not deny it.
On July 6, four days after FIFA's call, the Disciplinary Committee made it known that Balogun's suspension had been lifted.
Citing Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the Disciplinary Committee put Balogun on probation for one year.
Within hours, Trump posted on Truth Social: "Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!"
FIFA has not explained what changed between July 2, when it told reporters no appeal was possible, and July 6, when it reversed the ban. It has offered no statement about the Trump call. It has not said what new information its Disciplinary Committee considered. It cited Article 27 and stopped there.
That silence is where the story lives.
What Article 27 actually says and what it doesn't
Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives the Disciplinary Committee the power to fully or partially suspend the enforcement of any sanction. When it does so, the sanctioned person is placed on probation for between one and four years.
There are no specific criteria listed for when Article 27 should be applied. The committee can use it at its discretion.
This is precisely what Belgium and its lawyers immediately seized upon.As stated in Article 66.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, there is no doubt about the fact that receiving a red card leads to a one-match ban. FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations states in Article 10.5 similar information.
Additionally, it should be noted that there was a circular from FIFA that was issued to all the member associations of FIFA that was named Circular No. 16, which was dated on May 12, 2026 and made the situation more clear and confirmed that a suspension due to a red card is automatic. It was stated again at every match coordination meeting before each game.
The Royal Belgian Football Association's statement was forensic in its precision. It did not argue the emotion of the situation. It argued the rules, clause by clause. "The decision is in direct contradiction with the provisions of the FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations," it said. "The automatic nature of such a suspension was also explicitly reaffirmed in FIFA World Cup 2026 Circular No. 16, which was distributed to all participating member associations on 12 May 2026."
Belgium's position, legally speaking, is that a general discretionary power Article 27 cannot override a specific automatic rule Article 66.4. In law, this is a standard principle: specific provisions typically take precedence over general ones. FIFA has not addressed this argument. The federation said it was "investigating all potential options."
Belgium's coach Rudi Garcia put it more bluntly: "I didn't know that at the World Cup the 5th of July is actually the first of April. It's April Fools."
Norway's coach Ståle Solbakken, speaking after his team had eliminated Brazil the same evening, did not hide his view either.
"I think that's a big mistake by FIFA; it's not a great conclusion. He got a red card, VAR concluded it was a red card, and he was sent off so that means he is suspended for one game. The Belgians will be furious. And what happens if he scores a goal that wins the game?"
He asked the right question. As of this article being written, that match is hours away.
The relationship that makes the silence louder
None of the events that took place on July 6 can be explained without the context of the relations between Trump and Infantino. In fact, considering their relations, one can say that it is the nearest relations between American president and FIFA's president in the history of FIFA.
Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, Infantino has logged more public face time with him than any foreign leader. He attended the White House. He appeared at the World Cup draw. In May 2025, he arrived hours late to FIFA's annual
Congress because he had been with Trump on a tour of the Middle East. In July 2025, FIFA opened office space in Trump Tower in New York placing football's global governing body inside a building tied to the president's own family business. In December 2025, after Trump had publicly and repeatedly lobbied for a Nobel Peace Prize and failed to receive one, Infantino created a new award, the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize and presented it to Trump at the World Cup draw ceremony.
FIFA's own Code of Ethics, under Article 15, requires its officials to remain politically neutral.
Fifty members of the European Parliament, from 13 countries, had already written to FIFA's ethics committee by June 29, formally supporting a complaint filed by the human rights group FairSquare, demanding an investigation into whether Infantino had breached his political neutrality obligations.
The financial disclosure of Trump for the year 2025, it was revealed, which was released shortly before the Balogun ruling, showed that Infantino had given ten tickets worth fifteen thousand dollars to Trump for the FIFA Club World Cup finals at the MetLife Stadium in July 2025 and Trump attended the event and came on field with Infantino to give the trophy.
This is the context in which Trump made his call about a red card at a World Cup his country was co-hosting. None of it proves that the call influenced the decision. What it does is make it genuinely difficult, perhaps impossible, for FIFA to simply assert that the call had nothing to do with what followed.
What FIFA did and did not say
FIFA's formal statement on the Balogun decision was six sentences long. It cited Article 27. The one-year probationary sanction was spelled out, although it was unclear why the matter had been reviewed and what new information had come to light.
The governing body made it clear that FIFA's ruling in this case would be different from other cases which had settled before, but it did not elaborate on the possible reasons. It was also indicated that while Ronaldo was initially banned for three games, this ban was later reduced to a one-game suspension.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the organization has categorically announced there will be no appeal against its decision.. It had reiterated to all 48 member associations at every match briefing that red cards carried automatic suspensions. It had distributed a written circular saying exactly this less than two months earlier. Then it reversed a ban 31 hours before kickoff.
Christina Unkel, a former FIFA referee and referee analyst, told NBC News that the original VAR recommendation should not have been made in the first place, calling it "a bit of a surprise" given the subjective nature of the contact. Former Premier League referee Andy Davies, who analysed the incident for ESPN, concluded Balogun "can feel unfortunate to be red-carded in this situation as, in my opinion, this was not a red card offence."
These assessments suggest the original decision was questionable. But what FIFA did on July 6 was not reverse the red card, it left the red card standing. It simply suspended the punishment that the red card automatically triggered. It confirmed the offence occurred. It removed the consequence.
Sixty-four years of precedent
There is only one precedent for a red card suspension being lifted during a World Cup. This date is from 1962 when Brazil's Garrincha was shown the red card during the semifinal match against Chile. After that, he went on to play in the final, with many records showing that there was some political intervention from two South American presidents. It has also been claimed that a key person in the case mysteriously vanished from the whole disciplinary proceeding.Garrincha was cleared and Brazil won the final.
The parallel is not comfortable for FIFA. In 1962, there was no automatic suspension. The committee had always been due to make a decision. In 2026, the suspension was automatic and the committee had explicitly confirmed it. The mechanisms are different. The shape of what happened, political intervention, an unexpected reversal, a president expressing satisfaction is similar enough to be noticed.
What this costs FIFA, whoever made the decision
The immediate damage is to competitive integrity. Belgium prepared for days without Balogun in the opposing lineup.
Tactical plans were drawn, squad selections made, defensive assignments given. Other teams with suspended players at this World Cup were not offered the same consideration. No equivalent review was announced for any other red card.
The longer damage is to perception. FIFA's independence from political interference is not simply a moral aspiration; it is codified in its own statutes and in the regulations of football's global governing bodies. The IOC, FIFA, UEFA, all maintain rules specifically designed to prevent governmental bodies from influencing sporting decisions.
When a sitting president of the host nation calls the FIFA president about a player's suspension, and that suspension is lifted four days later, and the president publicly celebrates the outcome, the governing body faces an obligation to explain itself clearly. FIFA has not done so.
Those who were present at the Disciplinary Committee will be able to say whether or not the phone call affected the decision. FIFA has not disclosed the people in the committee, the date of when it met, or what issues were discussed.It has declined to answer the most basic questions a free press would ask of any governing body.
Belgium coach Garcia said it plainly: "We are defending football." It was not just rhetoric. The sporting structures that make a World Cup meaningful are the rules, the equal application of those rules, and the independence of the people who enforce them depend on trust. Once that trust becomes a question rather than an assumption, it is very hard to rebuild.
The biggest problem FIFA faces now is not whether it made the right call on July 6. It is whether anyone outside its own walls believes it made that call by itself.
"The biggest problem FIFA faces is not whether it made the right call. It is whether anyone believes it made that call by itself."
Comments