FIFA has spent the past month selling this World Cup as a festival of scale, spectacle and technological certainty. But one extraordinary decision over Folarin Balogun’s red card managed to give the tournament a lawless feel.
By suspending Balogun’s ban on the eve of the United States’ last-16 match with Belgium, FIFA has in one fell swoop undermined the referee, reduced the authority of VAR and left us all wondering what a red card at a World Cup is actually worth.
Balogun was sent off after a video review for stepping on Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic’s foot in the round of 32. In normal football logic, that should have been the end: a straight red, an automatic one-match suspension and a price paid for what the referee had assessed on the pitch. Instead, FIFA invoked Article 27 of its disciplinary code to suspend the ban for one year, meaning Balogun would only serve the ban if he committed a similar offense again.
The same article was invoked to suspend Cristiano Ronaldo’s three-match suspension for an elbow to the face during the European qualifiers. The ban would have prevented the Portuguese star from participating in the first World Cup matches.
Belgian coach Rudi Garcia resorted to sarcasm to describe the absurdity of the event: «I didn’t know that at the World Cup, July 5 is now April 1.» More importantly, he added: “We are not defending the national team or the federation, we are defending football.” He has received support from almost all sides, with Norwegian coach Ståle Solbakken calling it “a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad decision” and warning that “if he scores there will always be a question, and Belgium can rightly be furious.”
If a red card shown on the pitch and enforced via VAR can be effectively neutralized before the next match, what exactly is the referee’s authority worth? Raphael Claus may have made a questionable decision, but if FIFA is willing to review the consequences of that decision as it sees fit, referees cease to be final arbiters and become temporary actors in a process controlled elsewhere.
That ‘elsewhere’ is what makes this so dangerous. Donald Trump, as president of the United States, is free to say: “I didn’t think it was a violation” or that FIFA made “a really brilliant decision.” Presidents can cheer on their teams. But if FIFA came to this outcome because the host country’s president «did request a review», it would mark an astonishing low point for the governing body. Gianni Infantino can insist that the disciplinary body is independent, and FIFA can rely on the procedure, but independence is not proven by just saying the word.
What remains is a precedent without a clear boundary. If this red card can be suspended, why not the next one? Balogun ultimately had little impact against Belgium, but that doesn’t matter. The danger lies not in what he did on the field, but in the fact that he was allowed on the field at all. FIFA has taken the clearest sanction in football and turned it into something elastic, political and contingent. For a tournament that claims to be run by rules, it now feels more like the Wild West, where the law only applies until someone powerful decides otherwise.
Published on July 7, 2026
