Nikki McCann Ramirez
View all posts by Nikki McCann Ramirez July 6, 2026
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 05: FIFA President Gianni Infantino and U.S. President Donald Trump on the red carpet prior the FIFA World Cup 2026 Official Draw at John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on December 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. Tasos Katopodis/FIFA/Getty Images Donald Trump admitted to personally pressuring FIFA officials to vacate a one-game suspension for Folarin Balogun after the American striker received a controversial red card during last week’s match against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the World Cup round of 32.
“I asked for a review because I didn’t think it was a foul,” Trump told reporters on Monday.
FIFA rules explicitly prohibit government interference on behalf of players or federations. According to a Sunday report from Politico, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House FIFA World Cup Task Force executive director Andrew Giuliani — son of Rudy Giuliani — immediately moved to challenge the red card by involving the top levels of American government. Trump reportedly placed a direct call to FIFA President Gianni Infantino asking for the decision to be reviewed, while Lutnick and Giuliani suggested that White House attorneys be involved in the supposed appeal.
On Sunday, Balogun’s one-game suspension was vacated in exchange for a one-year probation. The referee’s on-field decision to award Balogun a red card was not overturned. The White House seemed to brag about Trump’s supposed role in ensuring the outcome, sharing a post from Lutnick invoking the “Trump Card” on social media.
Belgium and international football federations reacted with outrage. While FIFA publicly insisted that the decision had come after an independent review by an 18-person disciplinary committee, Belgium alleged that the official process had been circumvented almost entirely. In a statement issued Monday, the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) indicated that it is moving to challenge the decision, and accused FIFA of stonewalling their organization’s request for detailed information regarding the appeals process, and the governing body’s reasoning for the decision.
“As its only response, FIFA sent a letter to the RBFA stating that it considered this correspondence to constitute an appeal, that a judge had been appointed, and that the RBFA had only a few hours to complete that appeal. No information whatsoever was provided by FIFA,” the RBFA wrote. “For an appeal to be admissible, FIFA’s own regulations state that the reasoned decision must first have been communicated to the appellant. While the RBFA was merely seeking legitimate explanations, FIFA itself created an appeal and immediately ensured that it would be declared inadmissible.”
Editor’s picks
The 250 Greatest Albums of the 21st Century So Far
The 100 Best TV Episodes of All Time
The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
100 Best Movies of the 21st Century
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) — which oversees the prestigious Champions League and the European Championship — said the decision “crossed a red line.”
“Football, like any other sports, relies on rules, which are the basis for fair, honest and transparent competition. Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case not. A minimum automatic suspension of one match following a red card is not a discretionary option and does not require the decision of a competent body to be enacted,” UEFA wrote. It “cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension.”
Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter — who oversaw years of shady dealings for the right to host the World Cup — even objected, declaring this all a little too egregious. “Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies. If a U.S. President intervenes with the FIFA President — and a player is suddenly cleared before a World Cup knockout match — the question is unavoidable: Quo vadis, FIFA?”
In a statement issued hours before kickoff between the U.S. and Belgium, Infantino acknowledged that he had received a call from Trump, claiming that he “explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies.”
Related Content
What Makes America Great Was on Display in D.C. — Just Not at Trump’s Celebration
Where to Watch the Mexico vs. England World Cup Game Online for Free
Where to Watch Brazil vs. Norway in the 2026 FIFA World Cup for Free
Trump Said a Bunch of Weird Stuff About History in July 4th Speech
“I read the decisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree,” he added. “What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them.”
Infantino did not address the allegations made by Belgium that their request for an explanation and appeal were de facto denied.
Infantino’s cozy relationship with Trump has been a major point of focus in the lead up to the tournament. Last year, Infantino even created and awarded Trump a bogus “FIFA Peace Prize.” On Monday, in front of the press in the Oval OfficeSen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) thanked Trump for “getting rid of that ridiculous red card.”
“It was spectacular. There was a reason the FIFA trophy sat here for as long as it did,” Cruz added, referencing the gold FIFA Club World Cup trophy Trump displayed in the Oval Office for weeks.
But hey, if the United States is moving to embrace the sort of backroom dealings that have tainted FIFA’s history, perhaps they truly are a footballing country.
