The firestorm surrounding the World Cup after FIFA reversed a red card given to USA forward Folarin Balogun may be unprecedented and bizarre, but experts say it is not surprising given President Donald Trump’s habit of intervening in non‑political matters.
FIFA dismissed Belgium’s appeal against the reversal of Balogun’s suspension on Monday, calling it “inadmissible,” just hours before the USA‑Belgium knockout match in Seattle.
Balogun received a red card for stepping awkwardly on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarik Muharemovic’s ankle in a 2‑0 USA win during the round‑of‑32, triggering an automatic one‑game suspension that would have kept him out of the last‑16 clash with Belgium—until FIFA announced on Sunday that it had lifted the red card after Trump urged FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review the case.
Although Trump’s relationship with Infantino is well known, a leading sport‑industry analyst says the episode highlights the expansion of Trump’s influence over football’s global governing body.
“Trump’s [Make America Great Again] agenda is now on full display for the world, as is Infantino and FIFA’s pursuit of revenue,” said Simon Chadwick, professor of Afro‑Eurasian sport at Emlyon Business School in Shanghai, in an interview with Al Jazeera. “There has long been an accident waiting to happen.”
While Trump was vocal about World Cup issues before the tournament—including Iran’s participation—he remained silent on football‑related incidents until the Balogun red card controversy.
Chadwick added that, as events unfolded, “it seemed inevitable that Trump would break his three‑week silence and that Infantino would yield to his request.”
Infantino’s damage‑control statement on Monday only reinforced Chadwick’s view.
The FIFA president insisted that FIFA’s judicial committees operate independently and made the decision to reverse the suspension based on the Disciplinary Code and the facts.
He noted, “Yes, I regularly discuss World Cup matters with the U.S. president, and on this occasion I received a call from President Donald Trump, just as I hear from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders, and business executives worldwide on many topics.”
“During our conversation I explained that an independent legal process was underway and that the competent bodies would decide the case in due course. That is how FIFA’s system works, a principle I will always uphold,” Infantino said.
He added that he always reads the rulings, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but always respects the decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them.
Chadwick countered that FIFA’s third‑party interference rules were ignored after Trump’s intervention.
“What occurred in the Balogun case looks highly irregular and a breach of established ethical standards,” he said. “Changing rules mid‑tournament without consultation, under the sway of an often‑chaotic politician, creates a dangerous precedent.”
The decision has provoked outrage toward FIFA, sympathy for Belgium, and a stream of jokes from national‑team coaches wondering whether they, too, could appeal cards given to their players.
After England defender Jarell Quansah was sent off in England’s 3‑2 last‑16 win over Mexico, head coach Thomas Tuchel questioned the ruling.
“Who overturns this decision, when, and on what grounds? How far does this go now? This is strange for me,” Tuchel told reporters at Mexico City Stadium on Sunday.
Even former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who resigned in 2015 amid corruption allegations, joined the criticism.
“Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence, and independent bodies,” he wrote on X. “If a U.S. president intervenes with the FIFA president—and a player is cleared before a World Cup knockout match—the question is unavoidable: Quo vadis, FIFA? Football must never become a playground for political power.”
Chadwick echoed the sentiment.
“It raises many questions: What next? By whom? For what purpose? Who benefits? It appears FIFA has overstepped its mandate, allowing itself to be commercialised, geo‑politicised, and Americanised.”