Maybe it would have been better for Team USA if it had not been reversed.
Before the reversal the oddsmakers were putting USA vs Belgium at even or slightly in Belgium's favor. After the reversal the oddsmakers had USA as a slight but clear favorite.
I'd expect that if it had not been reversed it might have made USA feel like underdogs with something to prove which sometimes can inspire better play. Also it made have made Belgium overly confident knowing USA was missing its best scorer, which can lead to sloppy play.
After the reversal and the change in the odds USA might have been less inspired and Belgium might have been fired up.
Anyway, whether or not the reversal affected the outcome Belgium slaughtered USA, 4-1, and USA is out.
This annoys me, in a very American way, because whenever USA won a World Cup game Subway was giving a "USA Wins" coupon in their app for a footlong sub for something like $7.99.
Between this and the C.Ronaldo decision, I wonder if we're headed toward a future change to the automatic red card suspension. Part of what makes a red seem extreme for certain fouls is the automatic suspension.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
>There have been 37 deaths among workers directly linked to construction of World Cup stadiums, of which 34 are classified as “non-work related” by the event’s organising committee.
And regarding the 6500 figure (for the 10 year period 2010-2020) :
>While death records are not categorised by occupation or place of work, it is likely many workers who have died were employed on these World Cup infrastructure projects,
The recent heatwave hitting Europe is said to have cause 1000 excess deaths in a week in France alone (again numbers are projections).
> Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums
Qatar is a terrible place when it comes to treatment of workers, but that number of deaths is actually unusually low.
The 6500 figure was the deaths for all foreign workers in Qatar over a 10 year period, a country which uses foreign workers for almost all of its labor force (about 95% is foreign). They have around 2 million foreign workers. Compare to the number of citizens of Qatar which is around 400k.
6500 deaths among those foreign workers over that time period works out to a death rate of around 33 per 100k per year.
Compare that to the death rates for males aged 25-34 in the US, which is somewhere in the 160-250 range. I'm comparing to males in that age range because around 80% of the foreign workers in Qatar are male and they are predominantly 25-39.
Qatar's 5-8x lower death rate than the US still could be an indication that they have a serious problem with worker deaths, but to determine that someone would have to dive much deeper into details.
For example a significant component of the US deaths is poisoning (drug overdoses are counted as poisoning). Qatar has a very strong anti-drug policy with little tolerance and harsh penalties, so I'd expect that they don't have many drug deaths.
Same for drunk driving. They also are very intolerant of drunk driving, and consider a driver to be drunk if there is any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream after an accident. (Also, I'd expect most migrant workers don't drive).
The Guardian really should have noticed this and investigated. They really dropped the ball here.
Meanwhile the UEFA was quiet when FIFA used the same Article 27 exception for Ronaldo in 2025 [0].
Maybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have been difficult for them even without Balogun.
If Western European and Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay are in the same boat) teams don't make national selections more meritocratic, the game will eventually shift to West Africa and MENA, especially given how much money is circulating in MENA football in preparation for the 2030 World Cup in Morocco and how diaspora players are increasingly choosing to play for their second citizenship instead.
This is something I see so many people forgetting.
The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.
Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".
It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.
You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.
The US had no procedural route to get Balogun reinstated. That doesn't mean FIFA can't wave their magic wand to make it happen.
Had FIFA implemented an appeals panel for the tournament, it would've looked at the incident, deemed it a misapplication of VAR and a wrongful red card, and the world would've moved on. Instead because of their incompetence, the only remedy was via their magic wand, which is arbitrary and capricious.
I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?
But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.
Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died.
WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.
The US has been asking that when they get a red card that Messi doesn't get. Or a handball on the goal line is ok for a UEFA company. Or a US goal called back when another UEFA team hauls multiple US players to the ground.
You see where I'm going with this? I just can't seem to get upset that a red card that isn't a red card for other teams is getting rescinded.
I've literally been watching for decades and nobody seemed to care before.
A ref got a call wrong and that's ok and should be doubled down on according to UEFA. Well, UEFA can just view this as the disciplinary committee getting it wrong and they can just live with that.
With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.
Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.
> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses
With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.
And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.
> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
> I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red.
You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial. It's not just about what you believe, but what about others might believe. If there are enough people that disagree with you, then it is by definition controversial.
> You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
> That’s all part of the game.
Correct, and players can get re-instated (as happend with Cristiano Ronaldo in the very same tournament) by FIFA per Article 27. That is also part of the game.
The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture. Seriously just take a step back and take stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium are being given a disadvantage, it is simply that they are being asked to play against the full squad. It is rather pathetic to complain about that.
>The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture
Oh the irony. Why don't the US man up and play within the rules? You president whined and whined and whined, he does nothing but whining every single day.
You are completely morally corrupt. The Americans are cheaters, and nobody will respect them even if they win. "Pathetic" doesn't even start to describe how feckless people who defend this decision are.
>You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial.
How has France no cohesion? It just so happens that they have enough superstars to fill the entire roster. You can remove their top 3 best players and they would still be one of the favorite to win. Cohesion and superstars are not mutually exclusive.
Look at the Paraguay game. When striking, Mbappe was trying to optimize for making goals on his own instead of coordinating with Kone or Rabiot.
There were multiple cases in the Paraguay match when Mbappe attempted a goal in a risky manner instead of passing to Kone or Rabiot who were in better positions to score.
Mbappe is basically concentrating on exclusively getting his own goals because he is on track to beat Messi's World Cup record and unlock a mess of sponsorships 4 years ahead of schedule.
Heck, all my Moroccan friends were rooting for a French win explicitly because they think they have a better shot at winning against France based on how France played against Paraguay.
The same lack of team cohesion has been a hanging albatross for Portugal, Germany, Brazil, and Netherlands as well.
Mbappe is 1st in the golden boot race specifically because on top of his 7 goals he has 2 assists to break the tie. Thats the most number of assists (tied with 3 other players) of all the top 20 scorers in the golden boot race [0].
The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!
There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.
This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face.
The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer.
Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
> Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here
He's their leading scorer.
His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind.
That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.
No way, the soccer federations are corrupt? I'm shocked, I tell you.
So you mean to tell me that they are in it for the money and not the love of the game?
At the risk of explaining the joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxnpY0owPkA
It is tough for Belgium, but I don't expect them to protest too strongly and risk waking up with +10% tariffs on products they export to the USA.
The corruption is everywhere, small and large. You can't trust the game is not fixed now and you can't trust the government either.
It's probably going to come down to a whale bet on Polymarket, and Trump owed someone a call back.
Maybe it would have been better for Team USA if it had not been reversed.
Before the reversal the oddsmakers were putting USA vs Belgium at even or slightly in Belgium's favor. After the reversal the oddsmakers had USA as a slight but clear favorite.
I'd expect that if it had not been reversed it might have made USA feel like underdogs with something to prove which sometimes can inspire better play. Also it made have made Belgium overly confident knowing USA was missing its best scorer, which can lead to sloppy play.
After the reversal and the change in the odds USA might have been less inspired and Belgium might have been fired up.
Anyway, whether or not the reversal affected the outcome Belgium slaughtered USA, 4-1, and USA is out.
This annoys me, in a very American way, because whenever USA won a World Cup game Subway was giving a "USA Wins" coupon in their app for a footlong sub for something like $7.99.
Best result for the game, couldn't ask for better.
The US clearly "cheats" via political pressure on field decisions and Belgium kicked their sorry arses regardless.
> U.S. President Donald Trump called FIFA to ask it to review the case
Gotta cash in that Peace Prize sometimes, I guess
> saying world soccer's governing body had "crossed a red line" and undermined the integrity of the game
Ah yes, the bastion of integrity defending truth and justice.
Between this and the C.Ronaldo decision, I wonder if we're headed toward a future change to the automatic red card suspension. Part of what makes a red seem extreme for certain fouls is the automatic suspension.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
Ronaldo was at least banned for the next game before the rest was suspended
Convicted fraud pressures organization with multiple historical fraudulent activities and convictions to commit fraud
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
From the article you linked :
>There have been 37 deaths among workers directly linked to construction of World Cup stadiums, of which 34 are classified as “non-work related” by the event’s organising committee.
And regarding the 6500 figure (for the 10 year period 2010-2020) :
>While death records are not categorised by occupation or place of work, it is likely many workers who have died were employed on these World Cup infrastructure projects,
The recent heatwave hitting Europe is said to have cause 1000 excess deaths in a week in France alone (again numbers are projections).
> Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums
Qatar is a terrible place when it comes to treatment of workers, but that number of deaths is actually unusually low.
The 6500 figure was the deaths for all foreign workers in Qatar over a 10 year period, a country which uses foreign workers for almost all of its labor force (about 95% is foreign). They have around 2 million foreign workers. Compare to the number of citizens of Qatar which is around 400k.
6500 deaths among those foreign workers over that time period works out to a death rate of around 33 per 100k per year.
Compare that to the death rates for males aged 25-34 in the US, which is somewhere in the 160-250 range. I'm comparing to males in that age range because around 80% of the foreign workers in Qatar are male and they are predominantly 25-39.
Qatar's 5-8x lower death rate than the US still could be an indication that they have a serious problem with worker deaths, but to determine that someone would have to dive much deeper into details.
For example a significant component of the US deaths is poisoning (drug overdoses are counted as poisoning). Qatar has a very strong anti-drug policy with little tolerance and harsh penalties, so I'd expect that they don't have many drug deaths.
Same for drunk driving. They also are very intolerant of drunk driving, and consider a driver to be drunk if there is any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream after an accident. (Also, I'd expect most migrant workers don't drive).
The Guardian really should have noticed this and investigated. They really dropped the ball here.
Meanwhile the UEFA was quiet when FIFA used the same Article 27 exception for Ronaldo in 2025 [0].
Maybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have been difficult for them even without Balogun.
If Western European and Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay are in the same boat) teams don't make national selections more meritocratic, the game will eventually shift to West Africa and MENA, especially given how much money is circulating in MENA football in preparation for the 2030 World Cup in Morocco and how diaspora players are increasingly choosing to play for their second citizenship instead.
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/nov/25/cristiano-r...
I read the article and I don’t see where a head of state publicly intervened to suspend the ban?
Every major sports league has a history of this inconsistent administration stuff. The goal is ultimately entertainment.
> The goal is ultimately entertainment
This is something I see so many people forgetting.
The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.
Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".
It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.
You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.
It was the right outcome, but the wrong process.
> It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA
With a little push from the President and Secretary of the Treasury.
Correct.
Hence: “which in practice will be arbitrary.”
It’s on FIFA to correct for that governance failure by making it less arbitrary via a more universal appeals process.
In any case, the rules were followed to the correct decision. It’s just that these rules as written are arbitrarily applied.
It seems like there are contradictory rules, and FIFA is confused about which to apply.
5 days ago, FIFA said there was no appeal process. Yesterday, there was a magic reversal.
No, those are not at all contradictory, it is entirely consistent.
Two things can be true at the same time:
1. There is no appeals process that USA (or any team) can initiate
2. There is a mechanism that FIFA can initiate to suspend a match ban at their discretion
That is why it's a bad system; as long as it's initiated by FIFA, it will always be arbitrary and capricious.
The US had no procedural route to get Balogun reinstated. That doesn't mean FIFA can't wave their magic wand to make it happen.
Had FIFA implemented an appeals panel for the tournament, it would've looked at the incident, deemed it a misapplication of VAR and a wrongful red card, and the world would've moved on. Instead because of their incompetence, the only remedy was via their magic wand, which is arbitrary and capricious.
I do not follow soccer all that closely, but I seem to recall reading about other heads of state appealing the ban of their players.
Sorry, I can't give details - I only have a vague memory of it. Does anyone else recall?
Where is the fun in watching a rigged game.
I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?
But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.
These are basically paid soap operas like American "professional wrestling", and they have quite the following, so what does it matter fake or not?
Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died.
WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.
The US has been asking that when they get a red card that Messi doesn't get. Or a handball on the goal line is ok for a UEFA company. Or a US goal called back when another UEFA team hauls multiple US players to the ground.
You see where I'm going with this? I just can't seem to get upset that a red card that isn't a red card for other teams is getting rescinded.
I've literally been watching for decades and nobody seemed to care before.
A ref got a call wrong and that's ok and should be doubled down on according to UEFA. Well, UEFA can just view this as the disciplinary committee getting it wrong and they can just live with that.
With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.
Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.
> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses
With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.
And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.
> Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it.
Well, that, and a President who interferes where he has no fucking business whatsoever and a governing body who kowtows to that same President.
This is just flat out cheating. But hey, fuck the rules, right? 'Cause our team got to compete.
> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
That’s all part of the game.
> I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red.
You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial. It's not just about what you believe, but what about others might believe. If there are enough people that disagree with you, then it is by definition controversial.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7415223/2026/07/01/folarin-...
> You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
> That’s all part of the game.
Correct, and players can get re-instated (as happend with Cristiano Ronaldo in the very same tournament) by FIFA per Article 27. That is also part of the game.
The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture. Seriously just take a step back and take stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium are being given a disadvantage, it is simply that they are being asked to play against the full squad. It is rather pathetic to complain about that.
>The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture
Oh the irony. Why don't the US man up and play within the rules? You president whined and whined and whined, he does nothing but whining every single day.
You are completely morally corrupt. The Americans are cheaters, and nobody will respect them even if they win. "Pathetic" doesn't even start to describe how feckless people who defend this decision are.
>You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial.
Who won the US presidential election in 2020?
Yeesh, this conversation has run its course.
In soccer? I disagree. In Europe the goal is winning or at least seeing the main rivals not winning anything important. Entertainment is secondary.
Your statement is false. Ronaldo's 3-game-ban was reduced to the 1-game-ban minimum.
In the current case it is about reducing the 1-game-ban minimum to an unprecedented zero game ban.
True, but they were different offenses.
Cited article says Ronaldo served a one match ban, out of a "customary" three match ban.
How has France no cohesion? It just so happens that they have enough superstars to fill the entire roster. You can remove their top 3 best players and they would still be one of the favorite to win. Cohesion and superstars are not mutually exclusive.
> How has France no cohesion
Look at the Paraguay game. When striking, Mbappe was trying to optimize for making goals on his own instead of coordinating with Kone or Rabiot.
There were multiple cases in the Paraguay match when Mbappe attempted a goal in a risky manner instead of passing to Kone or Rabiot who were in better positions to score.
Mbappe is basically concentrating on exclusively getting his own goals because he is on track to beat Messi's World Cup record and unlock a mess of sponsorships 4 years ahead of schedule.
Heck, all my Moroccan friends were rooting for a French win explicitly because they think they have a better shot at winning against France based on how France played against Paraguay.
The same lack of team cohesion has been a hanging albatross for Portugal, Germany, Brazil, and Netherlands as well.
Mbappe is 1st in the golden boot race specifically because on top of his 7 goals he has 2 assists to break the tie. Thats the most number of assists (tied with 3 other players) of all the top 20 scorers in the golden boot race [0].
But ok.
[0]: https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexi...
The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!
There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.
This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
Quite especially when the process seems to have been triggered by the head of state of that host nation
So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face.
The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer.
Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here... What kind of super secret, complex scheme was Belgium creating for Balogun?
> Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here
He's their leading scorer.
His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
It's not about being important, simply fair.
I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
Its not fair that US has to bench their leading scorer due to a mistake either.
So there's no way to please both sides.
But beating someone with one hand tied behind their back should not be preferable.
FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind.
That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.