On the menu today: Somehow, you knew that this year’s World Cup tournament could not end without an extremely controversial referee decision, an intensely disputed interpretation of the rules, and President Trump ending up in the middle of it. Read on.
World Cup Dust Up
Even the most enthusiastic soccer fan will readily agree that FIFA, or the “Fédération Internationale de Football Association,” has a long and sordid history of corruption.
Numerous studies and books have been written about the organization’s graft and dishonesty; the journal article “Whose Game? FIFA, Corruption and the Challenge of Global Governance,” published in the European Journal of International Law in 2019, gives one of the most detailed summaries of the bribery-filled, sleazy selection process of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, as well as indictments of a total of 29 present and former FIFA officials for corruption in the organization — including allegations of racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering.
Back in 2014, the HBO comedian John Oliver did a whole segment about how he hated the rampant corruption within the “comically grotesque organization,” but couldn’t resist being a soccer fan anyway.
FIFA has an amazing ability to negotiate generous deals with host countries. This year, under a deal negotiated with the U.S. Treasury Department, national associations can seek exemption from U.S. federal income tax on their 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament earnings by applying for tax-exempt status under section 501(c). All 48 participating teams received $2.5 million in preparation money, $10 million in qualification money, and, separately, $16 million for team delegation costs and increased team ticketing allocations. (Players, coaches, and support staff remain subject to U.S. federal income tax on U.S.-source income.)
As you probably noticed, this has already been a phenomenally successful year for the U.S. men’s national team. Our guys won two of the three games in the group stage, won our group, and qualified for the knockout rounds. They won a game in the knockout rounds for only the second time in team history. Tonight, the U.S. team takes on Belgium; a win tonight would make it the most successful year for U.S. men’s soccer in the World Cup ever.
During the U.S. victory in the Round of 32 game against Bosnia and Herzegovina, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun stepped on Tarik Muharemović’s ankle. In soccer, the on-field referees are aided by something called video assistant referees or VAR, somewhat akin to instant replay in the NFL.
After the VAR, referee Raphael Claus gave Balogun a red card. This not only ejected him from the game and forced the U.S. team to play with ten players to the eleven on the opposing side, but it also automatically barred Balogun from the next game. Balogun is one of the U.S. team’s stars, scoring three goals in four games so far.
Almost immediately, experienced outside observers argued that a red card was an excessive punishment for non-intentional contact with another player. Former FIFA referee and Fox Sports rules analyst Mark Clattenburg, speaking on Fox after the game:
“When I watched this in real speed, I thought it was a coming together of two players,” Clattenburg said after the game. “What you see is Balogun’s challenge does catch his opponent on the back of the leg, and when [his foot] comes down, it catches [Muharemović’s] ankle. The problem is, the requirement of the red card [means there] has to be some speed, there has to be some force and there has to be some malice. This lacks that.”
“But what it does have is,” Clattenburg continued, “it endangers the safety of the opponent because of that foot-on-foot challenge, which could’ve ended with a broken ankle. So, what they are doing is looking at the consequence of the challenge. However, in my opinion, this didn’t endanger the safety of the opponent. Balogun doesn’t even look for the foul. It was an accidental challenge, and for me this doesn’t reach the [requirements] of a red card, and it shouldn’t have been a VAR intervention.”
ESPN’s Andy Davies, a veteran referee in the English Premier League, wrote:
Balogun can feel unfortunate to be red carded in this situation as, in my opinion, this was not a red card offense. With both players challenging for ball, the contact from Balogun on Muharemovic, while it looked bad in slow motion, was purely accidental and an unfortunate result from two players challenging for possession of the ball in a normal football movement.
VAR made their recommendation to the referee based on slow-motion and still replays, which is not aligned with VAR protocols, as these should be used for only point-of-contact purposes in a red card tackle situation. Once at the screen, however, it would have been a surprise if the referee did not send off Balogun considering the pictures he was presented by VAR.
Former Premier League referee Graham Scott, offering analysis for The Athletic:
Balogun’s actions are all part of the normal rough and tumble of football, he is never out of control and the contact is accidental.
But the replays make for grim viewing, as Muharemovic’s ankle buckles and he is clearly in distress — no simulation here.
I would prefer tackles like this to produce cautions at worst. [Lionel] Messi was let off completely, and there is nothing reckless about Balogun’s actions either.
In the spirit of the law, Balogun was unlucky. But in its recent interpretation, a red card was inevitable.
The referee could have given Belogun a yellow card, which is basically a disciplinary warning. If a player gets two yellow cards in the same match, it is the equivalent of a red card.
Unsurprisingly, upset fans began to speculate about Brazilian referee Raphael Claus. While Claus did testify in corruption investigation a few years ago, there’s no indication that the investigation focused on his work as a referee:
Claus was invited in 2024 to speak before Brazil’s parliamentary inquiry into match manipulation and sports betting. That inquiry, known as the CPI for the Manipulation of Games and Sports Betting, examined concerns around suspicious betting activity and allegations involving Brazilian soccer.
The important distinction is that Claus being invited to provide testimony was not the same as him being charged, punished or found guilty. Brazilian reports at the time described him as one of the referees the committee wanted to hear from, with his appearance requested because of his experience and status as one of the country’s leading officials.
So, it looked like a familiar story — the United States, never a soccer powerhouse, starts to gain some momentum . . . until a bad, and some would say a suspiciously bad, call by a referee puts them at a disadvantage.
Except . . . we now have a president who is the lone recipient of the “FIFA Peace Prize,” which was invented in December. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Trump administration went to work to rectify the consequential bad call:
For Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Andrew Giuliani, the executive director of the White House’s World Cup task force and son of Rudy Giuliani, the borderline call was an injustice that demanded executive intervention.
Starting that night, Lutnick and Giuliani organized several phone calls with Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter. . . .
Trump, who was instrumental in bringing the World Cup to the U.S. and views its success as a matter of personal pride, didn’t want the ejection to cast a shadow over the tournament. So the president instructed his team to find a way to lift the suspension, the people said. . . . They discussed challenging FIFA’s use of slow-motion replay to decide whether Balogun’s stepping on an opponent’s ankle constituted a red-card offense. . . .
In the 24 hours after the game, as U.S. Soccer publicly bemoaned that it had no recourse to appeal the decision (and no obvious replacement for Balogun on the roster), Trump picked up the phone to the one person he knew had the power to put things right. . . .
The FIFA president agreed to look into it, but didn’t commit to overturning it, one of the people said.
By the time Trump and Infantino spoke again days later, however, Infantino was ready to tell him that the suspension was being lifted, some of the people said. FIFA had deployed a little known provision, known as Article 27, which it says allows its Disciplinary Committee to exercise its discretion when reviewing sanctions.
Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code states, “The judicial body may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure.”
Now, it’s possible that without the U.S. team’s pressure, and/or Trump’s phone call, FIFA might have recognized the bad publicity from a bad call unfairly suspending the biggest scorer on the U.S. team in the knockout rounds, particularly in a year when the American public is really getting into the game. (Television ratings for the U.S. matches on Fox have been fantastic — much higher than expected. Whether or not Americans love soccer itself, Americans love watching American athletes win things. And the ratings for non-U.S. matches have been pretty high, too. More than 10 million Americans watched the English-language broadcast of Brazil and Morocco’s tie in mid-June.)
But the narrative has already taken shape: Trump called FIFA, and FIFA subsequently rescinded the red card. Trump fans want to believe their man made it happen, because it shows their man is the true global power who can make Europeans bend to his will with just a phone call. Trump critics want to believe the president made it happen too, because it shows their hated foe as a man who believes in breaking the rules and intimidating others.
Of course, much of this debate about Trump is overlooking or handwaving away the fact that Balogun really didn’t deserve a red card for unintentionally stepping on Muharemović’s ankle. If you’re reaching the correct outcome under the rules, can it still be called a corrupt process? Do the folks upset about Balogun’s reinstatement realize they’re arguing that an exceptionally bad call by the ref must be kept in place, to protect the so-called integrity of the game?
And even if Trump did make Infantino feel pressure to rescind the red card . . . as our Jeff Blehar put it, “If FIFA is corrupt, why shouldn’t it sometimes be corrupt for us?”
As you would expect, the Belgians are apoplectic, issuing a statement that they are “astonished” by FIFA’s decision:
However, Article 66.4 of the same FIFA Disciplinary Code clearly provides that a red card (sending-off) automatically results in a suspension for the team’s next match, as has been the case for all previous red cards issued during this FIFA World Cup.
Furthermore, and irrespective of the above, the decision is in direct contradiction with the provisions of the FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations.
This statement is the public relations equivalent of flopping. “Oh, we’ve been so wronged! We’re such victims! This is such an injustice!”
There’s also an outside chance that the decision gets reversed before game time:
Sources briefed on the matter, speaking anonymously to protect relationships, have now told The Athletic the [Belgian soccer] federation has now formally written to FIFA to appeal the matter, and the right to appeal has been granted. Both U.S. Soccer and the Belgian federation were asked to make submissions by 5am PST on Monday morning, which has exasperated the Belgians who have not received the decision by FIFA to review, as it is not made public.
As our Phil Klein observes, the Belgians would not be throwing this fit if they felt confident about their chances against the U.S. with Balogun in the lineup.
You can’t begrudge the Belgians for being upset. Soccer is a big deal over there; winning in that sport matters as much to them as winning in football, baseball, basketball, and World Wars matters over here.
Go, Team USA!
ADDENDUM: According to the “views” measure on X, more than 3.5 million people have read my jotted-off X post envisioning Nate Bargahtze’s version of George Washington attempting to explain soccer’s offsides rule. Somehow, it is the things I put the least work into that find the widest reach.