Ban U-turn Means U.S. Star can Face Belgium: How Did We Get Here?

There’s only one place to kick off: with the dramatic exclusive from The Athletic which shook the World Cup yesterday. Folarin Balogun is available to play for the USMNT against Belgium tonight.

This isn’t a drill. He’s genuinely expected to be part of the squad in Seattle. U.S. President Donald Trump is delighted (I dare say the States as a whole must be relieved) but the question you’re asking is “How on earth…?” And yes, that was our response, too.

We were all blindsided by the news because the red card shown to Balogun in the last 32 — imposed after he trod on the ankle of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarik Muharemovic — resulted in an automatic one-match ban. More than that, FIFA sources made it clear afterwards that the forward had no right of appeal. Case closed, or so we thought.

The USMNT, and head coach Mauricio Pochettino, immediately began planning for Belgium in the round of 16 without him. Balogun spoke publicly to accept his fate, encouraging everybody to refocus and move on. Poch’s team were bound to be weaker without him, a potentially fatal blow in the context of America’s quarter-final ambitions.

Then, from nowhere yesterday morning, it emerged that FIFA was using tournament rules to negate his punishment. At no stage previously had the governing body indicated that the red card was even under review. Balogun is now free to start in the last 16, and he surely will — he’s been the USMNT’s main man at these finals. But how did we get here?
 
Trump’s call to Infantino
How Trump’s call to Infantino helped ‘free’ Balogun, and sparked a huge World Cup controversy
Jamie Squire/Getty Images
What’s seriously lacking is any explanation from FIFA. On what basis is it justifying the intervention? What went on in the background after Wednesday’s sending off? Within an hour of the news breaking, Trump (who is yet to attend a World Cup match and has otherwise left the finals alone) took to Truth Social to write: “Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right and reversing a great injustice!”

The New York Times later reported that a call had been made by the White House to FIFA to request a review of the Balogun incident. The Athletic has since learnt that Trump spoke to FIFA president Gianni Infantino directly, and that legal advice from the White House was passed to U.S. Soccer. I’d strongly suggest reading this extraordinary breakdown of events, put together by Adam Crafton and Dan Sheldon. FIFA is yet to respond to it.

Belgium, predictably, reacted furiously and demanded formal clarification. Head coach Rudi Garcia called it “April Fools”. FIFA hasn’t rescinded Balogun’s red card. It simply suspended his ban (which article 27 of its disciplinary code seemingly allows it to do). Four days after the fact, it was a bolt from the blue. And it drew inevitable comparisons with the organisation’s prior handling of a certain Cristiano Ronaldo.
 
Ronaldo and article 27
Last November, Ronaldo was sent off in Portugal’s penultimate World Cup qualifier for throwing an elbow at a Republic of Ireland player. In theory, that meant a three-game ban — and since those games had to be competitive ones, he was looking at missing the first two group fixtures of this World Cup.

FIFA, however, decreed that the then 40-year-old would only miss one match. The rest of the ban would be suspended for a “one-year probationary period”, allowing Ronaldo (one of football’s most high-profile personalities, don’t you know) to appear at the World Cup from the outset. The judgement was final.

Ronaldo also benefited from article 27, which states that “the judicial body may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure”. Balogun is the latest recipient of clemency (though it should be said that his dismissal was contentious. In contrast, few people thought Ronaldo didn’t deserve a red card).

Many feel, this writer included, that Balogun should not have been sent off in the first place. But that’s besides the point. FIFA’s reasoning is without clarity, and while Pochettino reckons justice has been served, none of the parties involved are shedding light on the machinations behind this U-turn. Regardless of where you stand, the process is unacceptably opaque.

Credit The Athletic