World Cup 2026: Balogun decision leaves red card system in disarray
Now there is an important question that many people ask. How?
FIFA’s disciplinary rules state that Balogun should be banned for “at least two matches for serious fouls”.
In fact, World Cup rules do not allow teams to appeal a red card.
FIFA’s statement did not include any reason or explanation for the postponement of Balogun’s ban. He just referred to “Article 27 of the Fifa disciplinary regulations”.
Article 27 gives FIFA the right to “suspend, in whole or in part, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions”.
This is a far-reaching rule that allows FIFA to effectively make whatever decision it wants without needing to meet any other criteria.
Article 27 has never been used in a World Cup before.
Additionally, in accordance with Balogun’s disciplinary rules, his suspension is valid for only one match, not two matches. This was not disclosed.
BBC Sport asked why this was happening.
However, no justification was given to us. We were only referred to Cristiano Ronaldo’s suspension before this tournament.
Under FIFA’s disciplinary rules, Ronaldo should have received a three-match ban for elbowing Dara O’Shea in Portugal’s 2-0 qualifier against the Republic of Ireland in November.
He played one match against Armenia in the final qualifiers, but the remaining two matches were suspended.
However, Ronaldo was given a red card during the qualifying rounds. It wasn’t a red card at the World Cup.
There were cases where tolerance was shown not only to Ronaldo, but also to many players before the tournament.
See France’s Laurent Koscielny in 2014, or Ecuador’s Moises Caicedo and Argentina’s Nicolas Otamendi ahead of the World Cup.
At least in the case of Ronaldo, we were given some justification by saying that FIFA took into account that “he has not received a red card in 225 other international matches”.
We didn’t even get that in Balogun.
It left a vacuum of information that could only lead to speculation.
Why was this a special situation? What factors were taken into account? Who made the decision?
BBC Sport was told there was no suggestion the referee wanted the penalty to be revoked or that video assistant referee protocol had not been followed.
In England, the Football Association would publish the full written justifications.
The United States has the right to ask FIFA to publish them, Belgium does not have such a right.
Former England defender BBC Sport pundit Micah Richards said it was nonsense.
“Postponing it for a year would make a mockery of the entire tournament,” he said.
“It is about keeping the big stars in the competition. How can this be? FIFA needs to do better.
“It left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths.”
Belgium is of course angry. They released a statement on Sunday saying they were “surprised” Balogun was allowed to play.
The Belgian Football Association referred to various regulations, workshop presentations and pre-tournament coordination meetings.
They are adamant that the decision was against tournament rules, which state that the player will be “automatically suspended from his team’s next match”.
In fact, they say FIFA is using its disciplinary rules to override competition rules.
Speaking at a press conference, Belgium head coach Rudi Garcia went further. He said: “I didn’t know that [at] The FIFA World Cup on July 5th now falls on April 1st, and this is an April Fool’s joke.
“We do not defend the national team or the federation, we defend football.”
What must the other players sent to this tournament be thinking?
Take Qatar’s Assim Madibo, who was involved in an unfortunate incident that left Canadian midfielder Ismael Kone with a broken leg.
There is a clear case here that Madibo did not even make a challenge, that the injury occurred by accident and not by the nature of the tackle.
However, FIFA gave Madibo a further five-match ban in addition to the standard penalty for the serious foul.
