Suspending the suspension – is the Balogun decision the last straw on the back of FIFA’s ethical camel?

By Roddy Cairns - posted 11 July 2026

In a World Cup that has already thrown up its fair share of shocks and controversies, perhaps none can match the fallout from the bombshell revelation on Sunday 8 July that USA striker Folarin Balogun would be available to play in their last-16 match against Belgium the following Monday night. Balogun – the host nation’s top scorer at the tournament with an impressive 3 goals – was shown a straight red card in the USA’s last-32 win over Bosnia-Herzegovina. That would usually attract an automatic one-match ban, to be served in the following match (i.e. the Belgium game). However, on Sunday FIFA announced that the ban would be suspended for a year, meaning that Balogun was free to play in the big match against the Belgians.

It then emerged that the unexpected reversal came after a direct intervention by US President Donald Trump, who called FIFA President Gianni Infantino on the previous Thursday to ask him to review the decision, because he “didn’t think it was a foul”. Trump subsequently welcomed the announcement of Balogun’s availability in a post on a social media platform he owns, in which he thanked FIFA for “reversing a great injustice”.

It is safe to say that the perception of ‘injustice’ has now very much shifted, with both partisan and neutral football people looking on aghast at FIFA’s decision. The Belgian FA r(the RBFA) said it was “astonished” by the decision, stating that it challenged “the fundamental principles of ethics, fair competition, and the interests of football as a whole”. Meanwhile, UEFA (the continental confederation for European football) released a damning statement saying that the decision “crossed a red line”, expressing its “disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision”.

This blog post will seek to provide a thorough analysis of the main legal elements surrounding the Balogun decision, and in particular will:

  • review the rules under which the decision was made, as well as the relationship between them in the event of conflict, to ascertain whether FIFA acted within its own rules in making the decision;
  • Consider FIFA’s historic approach to such situations, and what bearing (if any) that has on the present case;
  • Analyse the political aspect of the story, and how this relates to FIFA’s rules and ethical standards;
  • Discuss potential routes to challenge the decision.

What do the rules actually say?

The key regulatory provisions can be found in 2 places:

Article 10.5 of the Regulations states, with no ambiguity, that “If a player or team official is sent off as a result of a direct or indirect red card (second caution), they will automatically be suspended from their team’s subsequent match. In addition, further sanctions may be imposed.”

This appears to leave little to no room for any other outcome – there is no caveat to the rule, no exception given and no circumstances which seem to allow for anything less than a one-match suspension where a red card has been given. The rule appears clear – the one match ban which is given for a red card during the World Cup is non-negotiable and cannot be appealed. If this was followed, it is clear that Balogun would not have been eligible for the USA v Belgium game.

In reaching its decision to suspend the ban, FIFA pointed to Art 27.1 of the Code, which states that FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee “may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure.” This does, on first reading, appear to offer some discretion to the Disciplinary Committee to overrule a suspension of this type.

However, such discretion is not absolute, Art 27.1 must be read in the context of both other provisions in the Regulations, the Code and FIFA’s own previous behaviour.

Relationship between the Regulations and the Code

It is not clear from the provisions of the Regulations or the Code which one is to take precedence in the event of any conflict between them. Regulations Article 1.7 states that the Regulations “govern the rights, duties and responsibilities of all member associations taking part” in the World Cup, and are also “binding on all parties participating and involved in the preparation, organisation and hosting of the FIFA World Cup 26”. From this the message is clear – member associations (such as Belgium’s RBFA) are not only bound by the Regulations, but obtain rights under them – which can be enforced against the tournament organisers (in this case, FIFA).

Regulations Article 1.8 then seems to give the same status to “The FIFA Statutes and all FIFA regulations in force” at the time of the event (which would include the Code) – i.e. these, too, “shall apply to and be binding on all parties participating and involved in the preparation, organisation and hosting”.

Regulations Article 7.1 goes on to say that “Disciplinary infringements are dealt with in compliance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code in force.”

From the above, it is clear that the Code is relevant and in force in dealing with disciplinary matters at the World Cup, but not clear which of these two documents (if any) is superior.

Provisions in the Code

In any event, the provisions in the Code seem to mostly complement the provisions in the Regulations.

Most crucially, Art 66.4 mirrors Regulation 10.5: “A sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match. The FIFA judicial bodies may impose additional match suspensions and other disciplinary measures.”

Again, this leaves little room for ambiguity – the word “automatically” suggests a complete lack of discretion here, at least as regards the one-match ban. There is a discretion for the imposition of an additional suspension, but no suggestion of any scope for the one match ban to be removed.

In a statement, the RBFA added that “the automatic nature of such a suspension was also explicitly reaffirmed in FIFA World Cup circular No16, which was distributed to all participating member associations on 12 May 2026”. Per Regulations Article 1.7, such circulars are also binding on both the member associations and FIFA.

Art 27 of the Code must be read and interpreted in this context – in circumstances where the Code, the Regulations and a binding circular all make clear that the one-match suspension is both automatic and a minimum sanction (subject to being increased in more severe situations, but not reduced below one match), there is a strong argument that the Disciplinary Committee’s discretion under Art 27 extends only to the suspension of the “additional match suspensions and other disciplinary measures” discussed in Article 66.4, not to the automatic one-match ban.   

Art 9.1 of the Code states that decisions made by the referee on the field of play “are final and may not be reviewed by the FIFA judicial bodies”, with Art 9.2 offering a limited exception to that in situations where the referee’s decision “involves an obvious error (such as mistaking the identify of the person penalised”, in which case the Disciplinary Committee “may only review the disciplinary consequences of that decision”. There is no possibility of mistaken identity in Balogun’s case, and, while some pundits may consider his red card to be a little harsh, it certainly does not fall into the category of an obvious error. This seems to further limit how much FIFA can get involved, even if it feels (or President Trump feels) that a red card was given in error.  

FIFA’s previous behaviour

Even if FIFA was able to show that its Disciplinary Committee’s discretion under Article 27 could extend to suspending the automatic one match ban, such discretion could not be applied arbitrarily.

The reality is that this is a step that FIFA has never taken before. Indeed, the BBC reports that there have been 188 other red cards at previous World Cups, and only one player ever did not subsequently serve a one-match ban. That was in 1962 (before the current rules on automatic bans were in place), when Brazil’s Garrincha escaped a ban after being sent off, but only after the president of Peru called Peruvian referee Arturo Yamazaki to ask him to tone down his testimony, and then the Uruguayan linesman who had originally instructed the sending off failed to turn up at the hearing. That 64-year-old aberration aside, FIFA has consistently enforced the idea that a World Cup sending off will lead to at least a one-match ban.

There were 11 other players red carded in this World Cup prior to Balogun’s sending-off, with England’s Jarell Quansah soon joining their ranks in his team’s 3-2 victory over Mexico. All others have so far served their suspensions unquestioningly (although it is likely that lawyers for other member associations will now be reviewing their position in light of the Balogun news).

Having consistently taken the same approach for so many years, FIFA could find itself legally constrained from taking a different view of the powers of its Judicial Committee. In the previous Court of Arbitration for Sport decision of Gibraltar FA v FIFA (CAS 2014/A/3776), the CAS Panel held that FIFA’s monopoly position meant that is was in a position “analogous to that of a state legislator” – a position which came with “special responsibilities” to the members it regulates, including a duty to “respect general principles that also constrain legislators and governmental administrations, including the non-retroactivity of laws and rules, good faith, and procedural fairness.” In that particular situation, the Panel held that FIFA could not change the way it interpreted the word “country” in its Statutes – having previously admitted non-sovereign states to membership, it could not now interpret the rules as allowing only recognised independent states (and thus could not exclude Gibraltar on that ground).

A similar argument could be made here – FIFA has consistently acted on the basis that the one-match ban for a red-carded player at a World Cup is automatic, and cannot be overturned (i.e. that the power under Article 27 does not extend to removing the one-match automatic ban). Member associations have also proceeded on that basis (including in situations where they considered the red card to be harsh or unfair). There has never previously been any suggestion that Article 27 could be used to simply wish away such a ban, even on the say so of a powerful politician (who happens to be a personal friend of the FIFA president). In those circumstances, FIFA could be held to be precluded from taking this action, and held to their previous interpretation of Articles 27 and 66.

The requirement for political neutrality

Of course, this whole fiasco also appears to engage one of FIFA’s key and most fundamental rules – Article 4.2 of the FIFA Statutes, which requires the organisation to remain “neutral in matters of politics and religion”. FIFA’s Code of Ethics (s15.1) further requires Infantino and other FIFA office bearers to “to “remain politically neutral, in accordance with the principles and objectives of FIFA, the confederations, associations, leagues and clubs, and generally act in a manner compatible with their function and integrity” in all of their “dealings with government institutions” (s15.1). FIFA projects similar requirements onto its members associations and continental confederations, both of which are required to include provisions in their statutes guaranteeing neutrality in matters of politics and religion (Arts 15(a) and 23(a)).

Infantino’s close relationship with Trump, including his decision to invent a “Peace Prize” to award to the controversial US President, has already called this rule into question. But there is no doubt that the direct intervention of an elected politician, resulting in a legally questionable decision to effectively remove a ban on that country’s star player, has the stink of direct political interference all over it.

Therefore, even if the decision of the Judicial Committee could somehow survive the various other legal issues with it which are outlined above, it may find itself (along with Infantino) falling foul of the neutrality provisions, which are in place specifically to stop this sort of thing from happening.

The Ronaldo situation

There is one recent situation where FIFA has, in fact, taken a prima facie similar approach to the present case. Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo received a red card for elbowing Ireland’s Dara O’Shea in a qualifier in November 2025. Ordinarily, violent conduct would result in a ban of “at least three matches” (Art 14.1(h) of the Code). However, FIFA decided to suspend two of those matches for a year, leaving Ronaldo to serve one match in a game against Armenia and free to compete when the World Cup proper started, under Articles 27 and 25.4 of the Code (the latter of which, in a confusing overlap with Article 27, allows the Disciplinary Committee to “scale down the disciplinary measure to be imposed or even dispense with it entirely”).

A cynical move aimed at getting one of the world’s most marketable footballers on the pitch at its showcase event? Perhaps, and the reaction of neutral fans was similar (if not quite as vitriolic) as to the Balogun decision. However, there are two key elements which differentiate the two decisions, and mean that the Ronaldo decision is not a valid precedent for Balogun.

Firstly, in Ronaldo’s case the FIFA decision did not contravene the automatic one-match ban – indeed, Ronaldo was made to sit out one match just like everyone else, and it was matches 2 and 3 of his ban which were suspended. That is perhaps not a massive differentiation, given that the additional two matches for violent conduct are expressed in Article 14.1 as a “minimum” which a player “shall” serve for violent conduct.

Perhaps the bigger differentiating factor is that, unlike Balogun, there was precedent for the Ronaldo decision. On multiple previous occasions, FIFA has allowed players to serve a lesser ban: examples include Lauren Koscielny (France, 2014), Mario Mandžukić (Croatia, 2014), Phillip Cocu (Netherlands, 2006), and Saeid Ezatolahi (Iran, 2018). In all cases, the players served at least one match, but FIFA used its discretionary powers to reduce their ban below the otherwise automatic three matches and thus to compete in some or all of the World Cup.

Appeal and other consequences

The RBFA indicated in its initial statement that it was “investigating all options” – but what options are there, and what fall out might we see to the decision?

Article 9 of the Regulations and Article 18 of the Code both make provision for a member association to lodge a ‘protest’. Although the two sets of provisions are slightly contradictory, the rule appears to be that a protest against the eligibility of a player can be made within 24 hours of the completion of a match he played in (Art 18.1), an if he is found to have been ineligible then his team will forfeit the match and pay a minimum fine of €6,000 (Art 19.2).

Similarly, Article 60 of the Code gives the FIFA Appeal Committee jurisdiction to decide on appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, such appeal to be lodged within three days of the notification of the grounds of the decision. However, Article 62 states that this is restricted to those who were a party to the Disciplinary Committee proceedings, and those whose player has been sanctioned. Belgium are neither, as the Balogun red card happened in a game not involving them.

There was much confusion as to whether Belgium had already appealed in advance of the match with the USA – their statement claims that, upon seeking a copy of the original Disciplinary Committee decision and information about the process followed and relevant rules, FIFA informed them that it was treating such correspondence as an appeal and declared it inadmissible.  The RBFA went on to say that, as of the day of the match, they had “still not received any decision or any explanation from FIFA regarding this matter.”

FIFA’s position (as set out in a statement later on Monday) is that the Belgians had indeed launched an Appeal, and that the appeal was ruled inadmissible by its Appeals Committee “on the grounds that the RBFA is not a party to the proceedings and, as such, has no standing to appeal the decision”

Even if the RBFA were not eligible to make a pre-match protest or appeal, it seems clear from Article 18 that they do have the right to protest the players availability in the 24 hours following the match.

Thereafter, “once all internal legal challenges have been exhausted”, a member association can bring a challenge to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Reg 8.3, FIFA Statutes Article 49-50). Such appeal must be made “within 21 days of receipt of the decision in question” – given the RBFA claim they have yet to receive a full and reasoned decision, there is a strong argument that this clock has yet to commence ticking. With CAS having set up an ad hoc division for the duration of the World Cup, the matter could have been dealt with in a far shorter time period; the maximum time limit for a decision is set at 48 hours from the lodging of the appeal application (Article 19 of the dedicated World Cup 2026 Arbitration rules), but CAS ad hoc divisions at the Olympics have been known to make a decision in shorter timeframes to accommodate competition schedules. However, again the RBFA would only be in a position to decide whether to make such an appeal once they had access to the full and reasoned Disciplinary Committee decision, which they do not seem to have.  

There is also a question mark over whether CAS would accept jurisdiction to hear such a dispute – Article 50(3)(b) of the FIFA Statutes says that CAS “does not deal with appeals arising from…suspensions of up to four matches or three months (with the exception of doping decisions)”. FIFA’s lawyers might bring a jurisdiction challenge to any appeal on the basis of this provision, although the RBFA might justifiably argue that they are not challenging a mere suspension, but a substantive decision of the Disciplinary Committee under Art 27.

Had USA won the Belgium match, CAS proceedings would have had to proceed very quickly and it would have been a test of the Court’s ability to operate at the sort of speed it prides itself on during the Olympic Games. However, with Belgium having comfortably won the last-16 match, any appeal of the decision now becomes non-urgent, and somewhat academic.

Belgium appear to be keen to take any further action – an updated statement released on Tuesday after their victory stated that the RBFA “will continue to pursue the ongoing FIFA matter off the pitch” and also “remains committed to advocating for a review of the current FIFA regulations and their application”.  It is safe to say that sports lawyers and football fans alike will be hoping that they do appeal the decision on a point of principle, giving the CAS an opportunity to hold FIFA to account for its breach of its own rules.

The biggest outcome to this incident, however, is likely to be an ongoing headache for FIFA. Now that the federation has opened Pandora’s box by allowing Balogun’s red card to be effectively overturned, every member association which receives a red card will try to go down that route. England’s manager Thomas Tuchel has already raised the question of whether this now allows his side to overturn Quansah’s red card from their win over Mexico, or even Declan Rice’s early yellow card. Tuchel may have been speaking hypothetically, but you can bet that lawyers at football associations the world over will now seriously consider such an approach any time one of their country’s players is red carded.

Concluding thoughts

This is just the latest episode in a long line of developments that have angered football fans all over the world in the run up to and during this World Cup: Trump’s ‘Peace Prize’; the use of dynamic pricing and resale tactics to maximise FIFA profits at fans’ expense; the treatment of the Iranian team; and the denial of visas to supporters, team officials and even Africa’s top referee. Although the people of the USA have helped to provide unforgettable memories for the fans who did make it to the World Cup, there’s no doubt that all of this has left a sour taste in the mouth of many, and has led to the non-governmental organisation FairSquare launching a massive ethics complaint against Infantino.

However, among all the chicanery and bare-faced profiteering which has accompanied this tournament at every turn, there was one thing that appeared to be sacrosanct – on the pitch, everyone was playing by the same rules. The brilliance of Messi, Mbappe, Haaland or even Balogun would decide who wins the tournament, not the cynical machinations of men in suits in Washington or Zurich. This decision sends that final, most sacred cow to the slaughter. To quote UEFA’s blistering statement: “When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined.” Among FIFA’s many regulatory sins, this appears to be the one infringement that fans simply will not stand for.

The saddest thing of all is that up until that point the USA had been a genuinely refreshing presence at this World Cup, having cut a swashbuckling swathe through the tournament (in contrast to Belgium, who had struggled to find their flow). People were talking about the host nation as a dark horse for the tournament, and many neutrals were backing this likeable, multi-ethnic team (noting that, if President Trump had his way, people in Balogun’s situation would not be eligible for US citizenship and thus would not be playing for the country at all). However, the Balogun situation changed all of that, and it is likely that Belgium were backed by more than a few neutrals as they demolished the Americans 4-1 to progress deservedly to the quarter finals, their players celebrating the 4th goal by mimicking Trump’s signature, and much derided, dance moves.  In the end, no amount of machinations by FIFA or the White House could outweigh the talent and drive of the scorned Belgians. As the official Belgian National Team Instagram account put it in a post at full time with a picture of Romelu Lukaku celebrating the fourth Belgian goal: “overturn this”.

Belgium progressed to the next round, leaving their players to put this controversy behind them and look forward to future challenges. However, for FIFA, the fallout from this latest grubby decision threatens to carry on long after the Red Devils fans’ celebration hangovers have receded.

Thanks to Antoine Duval for his editorial input into this blog post.