FIFA’s Balogun decision: Why was it so controversial?

On Thursday 2 July, Americans watching the beautiful game for the first time this summer were introduced to a core experience for football fans – a downright terrible officiating error from VAR that disadvantages your team.

Folarin Balogun, the starting striker for the USMNT and arguably their star performer of the tournament, was sent off in the 64th minute of their round of 32 clash against Bosnia and Herzegovina. VAR intervened, deeming a collision with Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic worthy of a red card. Despite the sending off, the US scored again to progress to the last 16, but FIFA rules demanded that Balogun would be suspended for their next match.

This provoked outrage from the Americans. Their first point, and this must be acknowledged, is that this was an insanely harsh sending off. Although Balogun did step on Muharemovic’s foot, this was unintentional and really a coming together between two players. Bosnia did not appeal for a red card on the field, and referee Rafael Clauss did not give one – in fact, the challenge was not even adjudged to be a foul by the Brazilian, who gave a throw in to the United States. VAR however, as it so often does, sent the referee to the monitor and showed him a slow motion replay of the collision, and as all football fans know, once the referee goes to the monitor, the decision is all but made.

Immediately after the match, head coach Mauricio Pochettino said the US would appeal the decision. It’s not surprising that he said this – appeals processes are standard for most of the major leagues in European football, including the Premier League, La Liga and Ligue 1, where Pochettino has managed before.

Quickly it emerged, however, that this would not be possible. FIFA informed all teams before the tournament began that there would be no appeals system in place during the World Cup. When the US federation and various media outlets asked FIFA if there was any mechanism by which Balogun’s red card could be appealed, FIFA sources confirmed there was not.

It is here I should add my personal view that this is a silly system. You don’t have to watch very much football to know that referees make bad decisions all the time, and VAR often fails in its intended purpose of correcting them – or, as in this case, actually makes it worse. That the US was set to go into a world cup knockout game without their striker due to a contentious decision does not seem fair, and the idea that an objectively wrong decision could not be corrected is certainly not.

With that said, however, what unfolded next was one of the most egregious examples of blatant corruption directly affecting the outcome of the pitch in sporting history

We all know that FIFA is a corrupt organisation, and it has been for quite some time now – most historians date this to the election of Joao Havelange as FIFA President in 1974. In 2015, 14 FIFA officials were indicted on charges relating to the awarding of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a process undeniably rigged and driven by bribery. The previous World Cup in 2018 is widely speculated to have been awarded to Russia over England by dubious means as well. Gianni Infantino, the current president, has made no secret of his extremely close relationship with President Donald Trump, which goes far beyond the cordial and professional interactions he has had with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, the other co-hosts of this World Cup. In December, the draw for the tournament was turned into an appalling tribute to Trump, at which he was awarded a made-up ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ to satisfy his own ego (Infantino insists this will be an annual award, we await with baited breath to discover whether the 2026 prize will be won by Benjamin Netanyahu or posthumously awarded to Colonel Gaddafi). At the Club World Cup last year Infantino and Trump lifted the trophy with winners Chelsea, and although the final of this year’s edition is yet to occur, FIFA has confirmed that it will occur again in New Jersey on Sunday.

It is no surprise, then, that when news broke on Monday that FIFA had taken the unprecedented decision to invoke a never-used-before rule to suspend Balogun’s ban and rule him eligible for the round of 16 clash against Belgium, suspicion and speculation that Trump was involved were immediately afoot.

It was a decision that lacked any legitimacy or standing – not just in that the decision went against the precedent set by every disciplinary case in the history of the World Cup, but in the manner in which it was delivered. Both the US and Belgium found out through the media before the decision was officially communicated – indeed, Belgium were only informed when they approached FIFA to ask if it was true. The decision, it has since emerged, was taken by one singular official from FIFA’s disciplinary committee, who despite having never decided a case before in his career did not consult any of the committee’s 17 other members.

Laughably, Balogun’s red card was not even overturned – the ban was simply pushed back for a year, with no justification provided. When England asked to appeal the red card given to Jarell Quansah the following day against Mexico, their request was denied and Quansah’s ban was increased from one game to two.

Infantino, for his part, immediately insisted the decision was taken “independently,” but he made a key strategic blunder in deploying this strategy: he gambled on Donald Trump keeping his mouth shut and not taking credit for anything. “I asked for a review,” said Trump at a White House press conference, a smug grin on his face as he gloated to the cameras. Trump detailed how he and his four man taskforce, including executive director of the White House’s World Cup operation Andrew Giuliani, lobbied FIFA to overturn the decision. Trump accused the “suspect” referee of bias against the US, and called the decision a “great injustice.” We can trust the President’s judgement because, as he told us, he “understand[s] sports really well,” a fact he proved by then admitting he had never heard of a red card and didn’t know what it meant just 30 seconds later.

Understandably, the Belgians were outraged and asked FIFA what on earth they were playing at

In a gesture of goodwill, FIFA emailed the Belgian FA back and said they had the right to appeal the decision … except the non-existent reasoning for the initial suspension of Balogun’s ban was not provided so they had nothing to base their appeal on. And they were appealing to FIFA, not an independent body. And they also had less than three hours to submit their appeal, and were informed of this at 2am. You will be stunned to hear they lost their appeal and Balogun played 90 minutes of the match the following day.

Thankfully, despite the best efforts of their President to rig the scales in their favour, the United States were dismantled by a focused and vengeful Belgian side, who ran out 4-1 winners. Balogun, for his part, was unable to contribute anything meaningful. Perhaps the US side were affected by the noise surrounding the game and this contributed to their poor performance – it would not be a surprise. The best US players play in Europe and know just how farcical the decicion was. Balogun himself, who has never lived in the US and only qualifies due to having been born in the US whilst his parents were on holiday (a rule by which Boris Johnson is also eligible for the USMNT), “knew it would be controversial.” Defender Chris Richards, who plays for Crystal Palace, thought it was AI when he saw the news on social media. After the match, Belgium manager Rudi Garcia revealed Balogun had spoken to him before the match and that he had told the striker it wasn’t his fault.

Even if the US were not hindered by the saga, it is clear it only served to boost the Belgians. This was a team playing with fire under its belly, and they looked a far better side than they had at any other point in the last five years. Midfielder Youri Tielemans revealed the players met the night before and decided the only way to deal with the injustice was to “do the talking on the pitch.” Despite losing one of their best players to injury, Amadou Onana, at 0-0, they did this did both metaphorically – through their emphatic 4-1 win – and literally, when striker Romelu Lukaku chose to celebrate the fourth goal by wheeling away towards FIFA’s executive box, pointing at Infantino and yelling “F*ck you” at the top of his voice.

After the match, the Belgian players mocked the vanquished Trump by performing his signature ‘Trump dance’ to the song ‘YMCA’

In some ways, then, justice was done. The attempts to rig the tournament in the United States’ favour failed, and Trump and Infantino were handed major embarrassment on the world stage. The fact that this act of corruption did not work, however, should not distract from the fact it was attempted on our beautiful game.

Yes, football has had corrupt forces at work behind the scenes for quite some time now, but it has always been over hosting, or satisfying a sycophantic despot who cares more for his own ego than the wellbeing of his people. This crossed a new threshold in trying to directly influence the outcome on the pitch. Before the match, the Belgian FA warned FIFA and the US Federation it would not let the matter rest and intended to take this as high as they can, likely to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a body independent of FIFA. Had the US won the match, it is possible an expedited hearing could have resulted in the hosts being expelled from their own world cup, with Belgium reinstated. Not only would any victory have been secured with the help of an ineligible player, but the official FIFA rulebook dictates that any attempt at political interference is a breach of FIFA’s core values and, given the stakes, the moment Trump contacted Infantino brought whether or not the US could legitimately remain in the competition into question. One hopes that Belgium continue to pursue FIFA and Infantino with the same fervour having won, to ensure such an abuse of power never happens again.

This was a decision that brought the integrity of the game into disrepute. Ours is a sport of subjective calls, fan anger and – yes – mistakes. Players make mistakes, like unintentionally stepping on an opponent’s foot during a collision. Officials make mistakes, like sending said player off for it. And organisations make mistakes like not putting in place a proper structure to appeal decisions when the match officials get it wrong.

All of these mistakes, however, do not bring into question the fairness, integrity or honour of football. FIFA’s decision was not simply a ‘mistake’ or a misjudgment. It was a calculated and deliberate decision by the people responsible for writing the rules to disregard them at the behest of an egotistical maniac for whose affection their amoral President craves. That this attempt to ruin the beautiful game ultimately failed is irrelevant. The name ‘Balogun’ will now always be synonymous with the entitlement, arrogance and disregard for the ideals we hold dear endemic within the organisations and people running football, and indeed the world. This decision was a travesty, and we should all be very, very angry about it.