Between this and the C.Ronaldo decision, I wonder if we're headed toward a future change to the automatic red card suspension. Part of what makes a red seem extreme for certain fouls is the automatic suspension.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.
The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face.
The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer.
Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
> Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here
He's their leading scorer.
His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.
This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
>There have been 37 deaths among workers directly linked to construction of World Cup stadiums, of which 34 are classified as “non-work related” by the event’s organising committee.
And regarding the 6500 figure (for the 10 year period 2010-2020) :
>While death records are not categorised by occupation or place of work, it is likely many workers who have died were employed on these World Cup infrastructure projects,
The recent heatwave hitting Europe is said to have cause 1000 excess deaths in a week in France alone (again numbers are projections).
EDIT
Oh ok, after reading the article, it's pretty clear what's happening: it's Trump's oompa-Loompas flagging information that displeases the maga cult
Meanwhile the UEFA was quiet when FIFA used the same Article 27 exception for Ronaldo in 2025 [0].
Maybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have been difficult for them even without Balogun.
If Western European and Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay are in the same boat) teams don't make national selections more meritocratic, the game will eventually shift to West Africa and MENA, especially given how much money is circulating in MENA football in preparation for the 2030 World Cup in Morocco and how diaspora players are increasingly choosing to play for their second citizenship instead.
This is something I see so many people forgetting.
The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.
Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".
With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.
Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.
> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses
With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.
And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.
> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.
You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.
I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?
But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.
Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died.
WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.
How has France no cohesion? It just so happens that they have enough superstars to fill the entire roster. You can remove their top 3 best players and they would still be one of the favorite to win. Cohesion and superstars are not mutually exclusive.
Look at the Paraguay game. When striking, Mbappe was trying to optimize for making goals on his own instead of coordinating with Kone or Rabiot.
There were multiple cases in the Paraguay match when Mbappe attempted a goal in a risky manner instead of passing to Kone or Rabiot who were in better positions to score.
Mbappe is basically concentrating on exclusively getting his own goals because he is on track to beat Messi's World Cup record and unlock a mess of sponsorships 4 years ahead of schedule.
Heck, all my Moroccan friends were rooting for a French win explicitly because they think they have a better shot at winning against France based on how France played against Paraguay.
The same lack of team cohesion has been a hanging albatross for Portugal, Germany, Brazil, and Netherlands as well.
No way, the soccer federations are corrupt? I'm shocked, I tell you.
So you mean to tell me that they are in it for the money and not the love of the game?
At the risk of explaining the joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxnpY0owPkA
It's probably going to come down to a whale bet on Polymarket, and Trump owed someone a call back.
It is tough for Belgium, but I don't expect them to protest too strongly and risk waking up with +10% tariffs on products they export to the USA.
Between this and the C.Ronaldo decision, I wonder if we're headed toward a future change to the automatic red card suspension. Part of what makes a red seem extreme for certain fouls is the automatic suspension.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
> U.S. President Donald Trump called FIFA to ask it to review the case
Gotta cash in that Peace Prize sometimes, I guess
> saying world soccer's governing body had "crossed a red line" and undermined the integrity of the game
Ah yes, the bastion of integrity defending truth and justice.
The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.
The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
Quite especially when the process seems to have been triggered by the head of state of that host nation
So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face.
The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer.
Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
Its not fair that US has to bench their leading scorer due to a mistake either.
So there's no way to please both sides.
But beating someone with one hand tied behind their back should not be preferable.
Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here... What kind of super secret, complex scheme was Belgium creating for Balogun?
> Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here
He's their leading scorer.
His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
It's not about being important, simply fair.
I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.
This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
From the article you linked :
>There have been 37 deaths among workers directly linked to construction of World Cup stadiums, of which 34 are classified as “non-work related” by the event’s organising committee.
And regarding the 6500 figure (for the 10 year period 2010-2020) :
>While death records are not categorised by occupation or place of work, it is likely many workers who have died were employed on these World Cup infrastructure projects,
The recent heatwave hitting Europe is said to have cause 1000 excess deaths in a week in France alone (again numbers are projections).
An article from Reuters is flagged?
This flagging system is clearly not working.
EDIT Oh ok, after reading the article, it's pretty clear what's happening: it's Trump's oompa-Loompas flagging information that displeases the maga cult
Meanwhile the UEFA was quiet when FIFA used the same Article 27 exception for Ronaldo in 2025 [0].
Maybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have been difficult for them even without Balogun.
If Western European and Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay are in the same boat) teams don't make national selections more meritocratic, the game will eventually shift to West Africa and MENA, especially given how much money is circulating in MENA football in preparation for the 2030 World Cup in Morocco and how diaspora players are increasingly choosing to play for their second citizenship instead.
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/nov/25/cristiano-r...
Every major sports league has a history of this inconsistent administration stuff. The goal is ultimately entertainment.
> The goal is ultimately entertainment
This is something I see so many people forgetting.
The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.
Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".
With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.
Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.
> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses
With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.
And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.
> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
That’s all part of the game.
> Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it.
Well, that, and a President who interferes where he has no fucking business whatsoever and a governing body who kowtows to that same President.
This is just flat out cheating. But hey, fuck the rules, right? 'Cause our team got to compete.
It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.
You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.
It was the right outcome, but the wrong process.
> It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA
With a little push from the President and Secretary of the Treasury.
Correct.
Hence: “which in practice will be arbitrary.”
It’s on FIFA to correct for that governance failure by making it less arbitrary via a more universal appeals process.
In any case, the rules were followed to the correct decision. It’s just that these rules as written are arbitrarily applied.
It seems like there are contradictory rules, and FIFA is confused about which to apply.
5 days ago, FIFA said there was no appeal process. Yesterday, there was a magic reversal.
No, those are not at all contradictory, it is entirely consistent.
Two things can be true at the same time:
1. There is no appeals process that USA (or any team) can initiate
2. There is a mechanism that FIFA can initiate to suspend a match ban at their discretion
That is why it's a bad system; as long as it's initiated by FIFA, it will always be arbitrary and capricious.
I do not follow soccer all that closely, but I seem to recall reading about other heads of state appealing the ban of their players.
Sorry, I can't give details - I only have a vague memory of it. Does anyone else recall?
Where is the fun in watching a rigged game.
I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?
But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.
These are basically paid soap operas like American "professional wrestling", and they have quite the following, so what does it matter fake or not?
Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died.
WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.
In soccer? I disagree. In Europe the goal is winning or at least seeing the main rivals not winning anything important. Entertainment is secondary.
How has France no cohesion? It just so happens that they have enough superstars to fill the entire roster. You can remove their top 3 best players and they would still be one of the favorite to win. Cohesion and superstars are not mutually exclusive.
> How has France no cohesion
Look at the Paraguay game. When striking, Mbappe was trying to optimize for making goals on his own instead of coordinating with Kone or Rabiot.
There were multiple cases in the Paraguay match when Mbappe attempted a goal in a risky manner instead of passing to Kone or Rabiot who were in better positions to score.
Mbappe is basically concentrating on exclusively getting his own goals because he is on track to beat Messi's World Cup record and unlock a mess of sponsorships 4 years ahead of schedule.
Heck, all my Moroccan friends were rooting for a French win explicitly because they think they have a better shot at winning against France based on how France played against Paraguay.
The same lack of team cohesion has been a hanging albatross for Portugal, Germany, Brazil, and Netherlands as well.
I read the article and I don’t see where a head of state publicly intervened to suspend the ban?
Cited article says Ronaldo served a one match ban, out of a "customary" three match ban.
Your statement is false. Ronaldo's 3-game-ban was reduced to the 1-game-ban minimum.
In the current case it is about reducing the 1-game-ban minimum to an unprecedented zero game ban.
True, but they were different offenses.