Many who watched the U.S. take on Bosnia and Herzegovina were astonished when the VAR booth communicated to the on field referee, Raphael Claus, that his attention was required at the review monitor to view composite evidence against U.S. Striker, Folarin Balogun. Broadcast replays had already shown that, in a play where the two were jockeying for position for an aerial ball, Balogun had unfortunately stepped on the Achilles area and then ankle of Bosnian defender, Tarik Muharemovic. It certainly appeared that contact from the defender on the play caused Balogun’s foot to land where the attacker did not intend, leading to the images that VAR seized on for their review. For a further breakdown of the play, here is the assessment of former professional referee, Andy Davies in a summation he wrote for ESPN.

FIFA made it clear in the near aftermath of that match, that there was no proper mechanism established for U.S. Soccer to appeal a one game suspension (appeal can only be heard over subsequent match suspensions added to the sentence). As a result, the U.S. were informed, in no uncertain terms, that Folarin Balogun would be unavailable for the Round of 16 clash with Belgium on Monday, July 6th.

However, on July 5th, there was a remarkable announcement.

Just after noon on the East Coast, The Athletic broke the news to the general public that FIFA had suspended Folarin Balogun’s red card ban. In effect, without an appeal, FIFA had invoked article 27 of the relevant codes to effectively suspend the sentence for one year, meaning that Balogun could still be served with the ban given further infraction within that time frame.

FOX did an early segment on the development, provided here:

With limited information at the time, and given that the ban was first handed out in such a peculiar and arguably unjustified manner, it seemed that FIFA had thought better of the play, and found a suitable loophole to provide a more just outcome. Though the decision was announced four full days after the match—and on the day prior to the knockout game to which the ban would have applied—it seemed the only truly wronged parties would be the training staffs of the respective national teams.

Then, American journalist, Ben Jacobs, posted this to Bluesky:

Not long after, the Belgian FA put out the following statement:

And, finally, The New York Times published an article verifying that U.S. President, Donald Trump, had called Gianni Infantino and had asked him to overturn the ban. ESPN later published further summation outside the paywall.

Though there is a recent instance of precedent involving the suspension of Cristiano Ronaldo’s multi-match ban for violent conduct that would have ruled him out of the first two group stage games for Portugal this summer, that decision also brought FIFA’s motives and process into serious question. That particular, controversial disciplinary revocation was largely viewed as FIFA clearing the path for an eye catching icon to appear in its tournament.

Balogun’s case, however, is overshadowed by the personal relationship and financial connection that FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, has developed quite publicly with President Donald Trump. For a primer on the extent of their relationship, and the amount of worldwide contention it has generated, this New York Times piece from several days ago should provide proper context. Suffice it to say, there’s little actual confusion about how this ban was lifted so late in the training process for the actual event in question.

The U.S. will now face the prospect of heading into their pivotal Round of 16 match with Belgium in the midst of an international firestorm, and scandal. While Folarin Balogun will be available, and the outcome itself is one in keeping with the spirit of the game, the way in which this questionable ban was overturned has caused incredible upset. The issue has quickly become a sounding board for those with animosity toward FIFA as an organization, the current U.S. Administration, or indeed the United States and its national team as a whole. In the current internet age, the reverberations wthroughout the tournament have no clear limit.

The USMNT must now approach this game with more internal unity than ever, as the external pressures and noise will likely be immense. The future is yet unwritten, but U.S. Soccer will no longer have the sole penmanship authority over how this chapter in its history is written. All eyes turn to the fixture tomorrow, but the tournament itself has likely already had its defining moment.

(Special thanks to André Carlisle for his editorial work on this piece.)