AZE.US
President Donald Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino after U.S. striker Folarin Balogun was shown a red card. Soon afterward, FIFA suspended the player’s automatic one-match ban, allowing him to face Belgium.
Technically, the red card was not overturned. FIFA used Article 27 of its disciplinary code to suspend the punishment for one year. But in practical terms, the result was the same: a player who was expected to miss the next match was allowed back onto the field.
There is no confirmed evidence that Trump threatened Infantino or told him he would “cancel him instead of VAR.” Still, the sequence of events was striking.
Trump made the call. FIFA reconsidered the punishment. The U.S. president then publicly thanked the organization for correcting what he described as a major injustice.
It is possible to argue that Balogun did not deserve the red card. The challenge appeared careless rather than deliberate. But the larger issue is no longer the quality of the refereeing.
What happens when France, England or Belgium considers a VAR decision unfair? Should their presidents call Infantino as well? And would FIFA listen just as carefully to the leader of a smaller country that is not hosting the World Cup and does not represent a multibillion-dollar market?
The 2022 World Cup generated about $6.3 billion for FIFA, while the organization reported $7.6 billion in revenue for the full 2019-2022 cycle. FIFA initially projected roughly $11 billion in revenue for the 2023-2026 cycle, driven largely by the expanded World Cup in North America.
The United States is the tournament’s largest commercial market and its main host.
Infantino may be wealthy, powerful and largely insulated from the ordinary pressures of the football world. But this episode suggested that even the man who controls global football understands who controls the biggest tournament on earth.
VAR reviews the referee.
Trump, apparently, reviews VAR.
AZE.US