Fifa has responded to Uefa in a heated exchange regarding the lifting of USA striker Folarin Balogun’s suspension, accusing the governing body of hypocrisy in its criticisms of the decision.
In a statement released prior to the USA’s round of 16 match against Belgium, Fifa’s disciplinary committee chair, Mohammad al-Kamali, asserted that “the overturning of red cards is a common disciplinary measure” within Uefa’s leagues, adding that “yet this has never raised concerns about crossing any ‘red line’”.
The organization defended its contentious choice to revoke Balogun’s suspension, labeling it “nothing new in the modern game” that reflects practices commonly seen in modern football.
Uefa, in a strongly worded response issued on Monday, accused Fifa of violating “Reviewing the legal consequences of red cards in football is nothing new in the modern game,” that jeopardizes the integrity of the World Cup. This criticism stemmed from the decision allowing Balogun to compete against Belgium, despite rules indicating that a red card leads to an automatic one-match ban.
Balogun’s unexpected reprieve, after he received a red card in the USA’s last-32 victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina, marks an unprecedented event in World Cup history. This decision followed extensive lobbying efforts from Donald Trump and other prominent officials in the White House.
“For instance, in the majority of top-tier leagues belonging to Uefa-affiliated member associations the overturning of red cards is a common disciplinary measure, yet this has never raised concerns about crossing any ‘red line’. “And again, it should be emphasised that in the decision under scrutiny, the red card was not overturned. Suspending the effects of a red card based on an explicit provision of the applicable regulations is a much more balanced measure.” Fifa stated. “The Fifa disciplinary committee (as any other Fifa judicial body) is independent as provided by the Fifa statutes and the Fifa disciplinary code,”
“The chairpersons, deputy chairpersons and other members of the Fifa judicial bodies fulfil the independence criteria as defined in the Fifa governance regulations to ensure their impartiality. “Secondly, the Fifa disciplinary committee did not reverse the referee’s on-field sending-off of Mr Balogun but rather the Fifa disciplinary committee upheld the one-game suspension of Mr Balogun as a result of the red card he was shown on July 1, 2026. “Article 66.4 of the Fifa disciplinary code states that ‘a sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match’. Similarly, Article 10.5 of the regulations for the Fifa World Cup 26 provides 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’. “Consistent with article 27 of the FDC, the Fifa disciplinary committee decided to suspend for a probationary period of one year the implementation of the automatic match suspension it imposed under Article 66.4 of the Fifa disciplinary code and Article 10.5 of the regulations for the Fifa World Cup 26. Said suspension of the implementation was decided considering all of the specific circumstances surrounding the incident and evidence available. “Under article 27 of the FDC, the Fifa disciplinary committee has the discretion to suspend the implementation of any disciplinary measures so long as they do not relate to match manipulation – which, of course, did not occur here. It should be added that employment of article 27 of the FDC is not unprecedented, as similar decisions have previously been issued during the Fifa World Cup 2026 qualifiers. “There are no provisions in the Fifa disciplinary code and the regulations for the Fifa World Cup 26 that prohibit the Fifa disciplinary committee from exercising its discretion under article 27 of the Fifa disciplinary code. The exercise of such discretion is fully consistent with the general guiding principles for the determination of the applicable disciplinary sanction pursuant to article 25 of the Fifa disciplinary code.”
Although al-Kamali’s statement did not mention Trump’s involvement, it emphasized that the disciplinary committee acted independently from Fifa’s executive branch, which is presided over by Gianni Infantino.
Fifa remained silent on the matter until Trump publicly disclosed his role, stating during a press conference at the Oval Office that he had contacted Infantino to request a review of the red card.
Infantino later issued a statement asserting that he had no prior knowledge of the disciplinary committee’s decision until after it was made public. “I read the decisions of the Fifa disciplinary code when they are issued,” he remarked. “Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree.”
Belgium continues to express outrage over Fifa’s ruling and is contemplating escalating the issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
