The controversy has erupted in the middle of the World Cup. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has publicly acknowledged that he called the president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, to ask for a review of the red card shown to the American forward Folarin Balogun, who was finally able to play in the round of 16 match against Belgium.
"All I did was ask for a review, because I didn't think it was a foul. There is no infraction since it's two kids going for a run and they collide. Furthermore, the rules for red card sanctions are not fair," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
The American president's words come after FIFA decided to set aside the automatic suspension derived from the expulsion, a measure that has generated strong controversy due to possible political influence in a decision that, in theory, belongs exclusively to the organization's disciplinary bodies.
Belgium studies actions and denounces unequal treatment
The decision has not been well received in Belgium. The Belgian federation has expressed its displeasure at FIFA's change of criteria and is studying possible courses of action, considering that the American team would have received preferential treatment.
The case has also drawn criticism from various sectors of European football, where several leaders believe that FIFA's actions may have compromised equal treatment among participating teams. For example, in a strong statement, UEFA stated: "When those who ensure compliance with the rules no longer guarantee it, the integrity of the game is compromised and the credibility of the competition is undermined. Likewise, this decision sets a precedent in the current tournament, where similar situations will now require equal treatment, to the detriment of the competition."
UEFA statement on the Balogun case: ⬇️https://t.co/9LQDx8waKe
— UEFA (@UEFA) July 6, 2026
Can we speak of abuse of power?
From a legal point of view, the answer is not simple. The fact that a president calls the highest official of a private sports organization does not in itself constitute an abuse of power. For that qualification to be sustained, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Donald Trump used the powers inherent in his office to illicitly force or condition a sporting decision.
What the episode does raise is a debate about possible political interference in a competition that, according to FIFA principles, must be conducted with absolute independence from governments. The key issue is not so much the call itself, but whether that conversation actually influenced the decision made by the disciplinary committee that ultimately allowed Balogun to play.
FIFA in the Spotlight
If it were proven that the decision was a consequence of pressure exerted by a head of state and not a strictly legal or sporting assessment, the main responsibility would fall on FIFA itself.
The organization, based in Zurich and constituted under Swiss law, bases a large part of its legitimacy on the independence of its disciplinary bodies and on equal treatment for all national federations.
Action conditioned by external pressure would be a significant blow to the organization's credibility and would open the door to sporting appeals and possible internal investigations.
What does the FIFA Code of Ethics say?
The FIFA Code of Ethics does not expressly contemplate the case of a head of state calling to influence a disciplinary decision, but it does establish several principles that could be compromised if political interference were proven.
Among these is the duty to protect the integrity and reputation of football, as well as the obligation for members of judicial bodies to act with full independence and impartiality, without accepting external pressure or instructions.
Likewise, the Code penalizes the abuse of position, conflicts of interest, and any conduct that could compromise the credibility of competitions organized by FIFA.
The penalties provided do not fall on the institution as a whole, but on individuals subject to the Code of Ethics—officials, committee members, referees, or federation officials—and can range from warnings and fines to temporary suspensions or disqualifications from holding positions related to football.
Severe reputational damage
Beyond the possible legal consequences, the biggest risk that FIFA faces at the moment is reputational. The organization has historically defended its autonomy from governments and political powers. In this regard, the credibility of referees, disciplinary committees, and appeals bodies depends precisely on their decisions being perceived as independent of any pressure, and this chapter has raised many doubts.
Could the United States be expelled from the World Cup?
It is, as of today, an extraordinarily improbable scenario. FIFA Statutes contemplate sanctions for national federations when there is governmental interference in their internal functioning, but they do not provide for the automatic expulsion of a national team because the head of state of their country attempts to influence a disciplinary decision.
To adopt a measure of such gravity, it would be necessary to prove that the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer) participated in or promoted the action, something for which there is no record.
In the event that a violation of the independence of the disciplinary bodies were proven, the most probable scenario would involve reviewing the decision adopted, opening an internal investigation, and, where appropriate, holding the implicated leaders accountable.
For the moment, the controversy has opened an unprecedented debate on the limits of political influence in international football and on FIFA's ability to preserve the independence of the planet's biggest sporting competition.