It came like a bolt from the blue, so much so that many Team USA players and staff were completely unaware of the pack of cards being shuffled behind closed doors on Sunday morning.
The extraordinary decision by Fifa to “suspend” Folarin Balogun’s one-match ban for his red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina means the United States will have their star striker available for the last-16 tie against Belgium, who maintain they are “astonished” at the decision. Just thirty-two hours before kick-off in Seattle, head coach Mauricio Pochettino has been handed a massive boost to his hopes of a quarter-final spot.
It is extraordinary because the case seemed closed: Fifa confirmed after the Bosnia match that, rightly or wrongly, there were no grounds for the US to appeal the decision or the sanction. However, the first indications that wheels were perhaps in motion higher up the food chain came on Friday.
Asked about the win against Bosnia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “It was great. They got screwed with that red card. There needs to be an appeal process for that. It’s probably too late for that.”
He was right: it was too late and there is no appeal process. Yet here we are. Notably so absent throughout this World Cup and yet to attend a match, US president Donald Trump posted on Truth Social after Sunday’s decision: “Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right and reversing a great injustice.”
Trump’s alliance with Fifa president Gianni Infantino has been well documented in the build-up, but while Infantino has been criticised for attending two matches a day no matter the cost to the climate, Trump has been conspicuous in his absence. He is scheduled to present the World Cup trophy at the final on 19 July but, as it stands, looks unlikely to turn up to any games before that. To much surprise, his involvement has been minimal. Now, 24 days in, Trump has arrived at the World Cup.
Despite strong opinions on the red card and the lack of consistency over VAR protocols – as illustrated by Lionel Messi’s non-sanction for a near-identical tackle – it was simply accepted that the US would have to cope without Balogun. Right? Wrong, as it turns out
Article 27 of Fifa’s Disciplinary code, titled ‘Suspension of implementation of disciplinary measures’, states that ‘the judicial body may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure.” It adds: “By suspending the implementation of the sanction, the judicial body subjects the person sanctioned to a probationary period of one to four years.”
In essence, that is what Balogun has now received: a suspended sentence. There is a high-profile precedent for this, with Cristiano Ronaldo’s three-game ban for his red card against the Republic of Ireland in November’s World Cup qualifiers. Ronaldo had the latter two games of that ban “suspended” too, making the Portugal captain available from the start of the tournament.
Fifa were widely condemned for that decision then, yet they clearly have not learned their lesson. What is the point of a ban if it can simply be overturned on a whim? What precedent does this set moving forward?
On the pitch, it may actually make things uncomfortable for Pochettino and his players. The US squad have been lauded for their performances and feel-good energy but, now, they will be the most unpopular of quarter-final teams, particularly if Balogun scores on Monday.
Belgium have officially responded, maintaining that they are “astonished” at the decision.
The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) criticised Fifa for using Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code, stating: “The decision is in direct contradiction with the provisions of the FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations, as set out in Article 10.5.”
And the RBFA added: “In order to safeguard the legitimate rights of all participating teams and to protect the fundamental principles of fair play in our sport, both at this FIFA World Cup and at future editions of the tournament, the RBFA is investigating all potential options.”
In the Belgian dressing room, the situation will likely unite the players; bringing a ‘siege mentality’ to right a wrong with their showing on the pitch. On a wider point, after all the focus on the treatment of the Iranian team and the impact of hydration breaks, a protocol Infantino emphasised was due to sporting reasons, this latest controversy raises more questions about the sporting integrity of this tournament.
Yet perhaps most strikingly is Fifa’s two-facedness. While they preach the need for good governance within their member associations – they literally have a programme called ‘Fifa Executive Programme in Governance’ – they are unable to eradicate murmurings of sleaziness within their own organisation. In this case, all it took was a “great American injustice.”
