FIFA clearing Folarin Balogun to play for the United States against Belgium one day before their World Cup knockout match was always going to send the soccer world into hysterics.
The situation was practically engineered for an international soccer meltdown, with a controversial red card, a suspended one-match ban, President Donald Trump reportedly getting involved and the United States getting its leading scorer back just in time.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE
But while the reaction has been loud, the central claim coming from some critics — that FIFA just invented a brand-new loophole for the Americans — is not quite right.
Balogun was initially expected to miss Monday’s Round of 16 match after being shown a red card in the Americans’ win over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The card came after a VAR review determined Balogun had stepped on the ankle of Bosnia defender Tarik Muharemovic.
The call was controversial from the beginning. U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino said it was unjust, and midfielder Weston McKennie questioned the decision after the match.
“Obviously the referee made a decision that he made, but I think it’s questionable,” McKennie said. “I think there’s been many other plays like that throughout the tournament on other players that a card wasn’t given at all. It’s disappointing.”
Balogun later said he thought a yellow card “would have been fair.”
Still, under FIFA rules, a red card generally triggers an automatic one-match suspension. That is why Balogun was expected to be unavailable against Belgium.
Then FIFA stepped in.
The governing body suspended the implementation of Balogun’s automatic suspension for a one-year probationary period, which means he is eligible to play Monday night. If Balogun receives another red card during that probationary period, the suspended sanction can be enforced along with any additional punishment.
Europe, naturally, handled this decision with great composure and perspective.
Just kidding.
Belgium’s federation said it was “astonished.” UEFA claimed FIFA had “crossed a red line.” Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote, “Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies.”
That last part sounds nice. It also leaves out the inconvenient detail that FIFA relied on an actual rule in its disciplinary code.
As OutKick previously reported, FIFA cited Article 27, which allows a judicial body to “fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure.” In other words, FIFA did not necessarily erase the red card. It just suspended enforcement of the automatic ban.
This is where the “unprecedented” argument starts to fall apart. Because FIFA has recently used the same basic mechanism for a much bigger name: Cristiano Ronaldo.
Ronaldo received a red card against Ireland in a World Cup qualifier in 2025, which initially put him in danger of missing World Cup matches for Portugal. Instead, FIFA used Article 27 to suspend part of his punishment. Ronaldo served one match in a pre-tournament game, while the remaining portion of the suspension was delayed under a probationary period.
So if the argument is that FIFA has never used this disciplinary flexibility to help a star player avoid missing a major World Cup match, that is simply not true.
Of course, the Balogun case is not identical to Ronaldo’s. Ronaldo’s red card came in qualifying, and Balogun’s came during the World Cup itself.
But “different” and “unprecedented” are not the same thing.
Ronaldo is the most obvious comparison to Balogun, but FIFA’s suspension rules have not been nearly as rigid as the outrage suggests. Ecuador’s Moises Caicedo and Argentina’s Nicolas Otamendi also avoided carrying pending punishments into the World Cup.
While those cases were not the same as Balogun’s Article 27 situation, they do show FIFA’s disciplinary system isn’t fixed for the sole benefit of the United States.
There is also older World Cup history of a red card not automatically leading to a player missing the next match. At the 1962 World Cup, Brazil star Garrincha was sent off in the semifinal against Chile. At that time, red cards did not automatically trigger next-match suspensions the way they do now. A disciplinary panel reviewed the case and let him off with a warning, allowing him to play in the final.
Brazil won.
Again, that does not make the Garrincha case identical to Balogun’s. Soccer’s disciplinary rules have changed dramatically since 1962. But it does weaken the idea that a player being sent off and still being available for the next World Cup match is some never-before-seen American conspiracy.
The real issue here is not whether FIFA had a rule available. It did. The real issue is optics.
Trump reportedly called FIFA president Gianni Infantino after the match and urged FIFA to review the red card. He later thanked FIFA for “doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!”
That was always going to make European soccer fans combust. It is one thing for FIFA to apply a disciplinary provision. It is another thing for the U.S. president to get involved.
The optics are messy. No one is denying that. But messy doesn’t mean illegal or unprecedented.
Even England coach Thomas Tuchel, who questioned where this process could lead, admitted the original Balogun decision was not a red card.
“I think first of all to be very clear that it is not a red card [for Balogun],” Tuchel said.
That is the part getting buried under all the outrage. A lot of people seem to agree the original call was harsh. The United States already played the final 30 minutes against Bosnia and Herzegovina with 10 men because of it. Pochettino said the Americans had been “punished enough” after what he called a “completely unfair” decision.
Now Balogun is back for Belgium, and Europe is furious. Which is maybe understandable, but them’s the breaks.
FIFA did not invent Article 27 for the United States. It did not create the idea of suspended disciplinary punishments overnight. And it certainly did not wait until Balogun’s red card to discover that its judicial body has discretion in disciplinary cases.
The Americans got a huge break. No argument there. Balogun is the team’s leading scorer in the tournament, and losing him for a knockout match would have been a massive blow.
But if Europe wants to be mad, it should at least be mad accurately.
