World Cup’s Credibility Is Red Carded After Trump’s Call

After four weeks of dazzling action on the pitch, it may be an off-field scandal that comes to define this summer’s World Cup. Fifa’s decision to allow America’s star striker, Folarin Balogun, to play in a last-16 match against Belgium, despite having been sent off in the previous game against Bosnia and Herzegovina, is in clear breach of the association’s own rules. The move has been greeted with outrage pretty much across the board.

Extraordinarily, Fifa, international football’s governing body, has not only so far declined to give any detailed reasoning for its decision to suspend what would be a standard one game ban following Balogun red card. The reversal appears to result from direct pressure from the White House. Media reports suggest that Donald Trump made three calls to Fifa, starting from Wednesday, to ensure that the red card was overturned. The White House has said that the call was made to understand why Balogun was sent off and the reason for the suspension.

Whether Balogun deserved to be sent off is debatable. It’s also of secondary importance when compared to the the potential reverberations of this seismic intervention from Fifa.

Naturally, the decision has been met with anger and bewilderment from the wider footballing community outside the US, not least by the Belgians, who must now prepare to face the US men’s national soccer team’s (USMNT) most dangerous player with 24 hours notice. The Belgian FA’s statement promising to explore “all potential options” in the name of “[safeguarding] the legitimate rights of all participating teams and to protect the fundamental principles of fair play in our sport”, suggests that they have no intention of taking this lying down.

Uefa, the governing body for football in Europe, has released a statement expressing “our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision”.

The statement said that the one-match suspension rule following a red card is “not a discretionary option”. “It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension.”

Zooming out from the immediate fallout, this episode feels like a microcosm for the health of global football more broadly. In simple terms, this appears to be a case where an apparently settled disciplinary decision has been reversed due to political lobbying. In that context, the White House’s alleged intervention has prompted familiar and uncomfortable questions about the disciplinary authority of Fifa, bringing ever more attention to the opacity of the organisation’s processes.

Scrutiny must particularly fall on Gianni Infantino. Keen observers will be aware of the Fifa chairman’s form when it comes to sucking up to the Maga regime. Despite maintaining an official stance of political neutrality, the build up to this World Cup has been defined by images of Infantino pandering to Donald Trump’s ego, by parading in Maga hats and awarding him concocted peace prizes.

But this latest act may finally prove a bridge too far. Infantino now appears to be actively undermining the sporting integrity of the very game he leads to keep in with the US president.

A question of trust

Ultimately, this story boils down to a question of trust and sporting integrity, two themes that sit at the heart of my own research into football support as a form of living heritage. Unlike monuments or historic buildings, living heritage survives because communities continually transmit specific values and experiences across generations.

The World Cup is one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon. Its cultural significance does not arise solely from unforgettable matches, moments and performances. Rather, it emerges from the rituals and shared experiences that surround the tournament: supporters travelling across continents, families gathering to watch matches together, stories passed between generations. And, most importantly, the collective belief that the competition not only represents the ultimate prize of international football – but a fundamentally fair one.

That belief in fairness is particularly vital here. The World Cup matters because billions of people accept that victories and defeats are earned within a legitimate competitive framework. They celebrate triumphs because they broadly trust the competition. They accept disappointment because they trust the rules. Those shared assumptions underpin the tournament as a form of living cultural heritage.

When Fifa so flagrantly departs from established procedures and appears to willingly submit to political influence, that foundation is fundamentally damaged.

Once supporters begin to question not simply the outcome of individual refereeing decisions, but the legitimacy of the system itself, it corrodes the implicit trust and uncomplicated beauty of the game itself. Once lost, those things are exceptionally difficult to rebuild.

That is why governance can never be dismissed as a dry administrative concern. Transparent procedures, accountable institutions and genuine independence are the pillars upon which the legitimacy of the World Cup and football at large rests.

Football’s greatest tournament derives its power from the belief that every nation competes according to the same rules. If Fifa is prepared to abandon that principle in the face of political pressure it risks sacrificing something far more valuable than its own credibility. It risks undermining the very trust that has made the World Cup the most important sporting event on Earth.

Folarin Balogun’s availability against Belgium may make headlines for a day or two. The far bigger story is that Fifa has invited the world to wonder whether the rules of the World Cup are still applied equally at all.