2026 World Cup: Cancellation of Balogun's red card, the

One of the rare certainties in the history of world football has just been shaken: at the World Cup, a direct exclusion meant suspension for the following match. However, the lifting of the red card inflicted on Folarin Balogun, star striker of the United States, marks a controversial turning point. Sent off during the USA's victory against Bosnia-Herzegovina in the round of 32, Balogun was supposed to miss the round of 16 against Belgium, scheduled for Monday. From now on, he will be able to hold his place, despite what the traditional regulations dictate.

With three goals, Balogun is a key element of the American selection. His file joins that of Garrincha during the 1962 edition, where the sanction had already met an incomplete fate, but in a context openly marked by the negotiations of the time. The current decision raises all the more questions as nothing in FIFA regulations envisages this type of appeal: an exclusion from the World Cup is supposed to be final.

This measure was taken without any justification being put forward by the governing body of world football, which simply invoked article 27 of its disciplinary code. This article, broad in its wording, gives FIFA the power to suspend all or part of a sanction, but its application to a case of direct red in the world final phase is a first.

Image

According to information relayed by CBS News, this decision followed a telephone exchange between the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the President of FIFA, Gianni Infantino. Now, many are questioning the fairness of such an approach, especially since none of the eleven other players expelled during this World Cup benefited from similar treatment. The reactions are strong, particularly on the Belgian side: the federation expressed its “astonishment” on Sunday and denounced a flagrant inconsistency with the official texts.

This decision accentuates the vagueness around the application of sanctions, reinforced by the absence of official explanations. Several previous cases, such as the partial suspension of Cristiano Ronaldo for a red taken during qualifying, had at least given rise to a statement of the facts. Nothing like that here. The confusion is such that former defender Micah Richards believes it “loses credibility to the tournament”.

For other teams and in particular players affected by more severe exclusions, this precedent raises the question of equal treatment. And observers point out the risk: coaches could now increase the number of appeals to demand reduced sentences, contesting the relevance of automatisms defended for so long by FIFA.

This controversy, in an already tense context around the use of VAR, sanction criteria and the preparation of the host nations, risks weighing heavily on the rest of the competition. FIFA is more than ever expected to explain the reasons and guarantee a fair and transparent application of its disciplinary code.