World Cup red card calls and the rule of law

Could it be that the FIFA scandal over a suspended red card has become the most global debate about the rule of law in history?

Let me catch up anyone who has not spent the last month glued to the 2026 World Cup.

A US striker, Folarin Balogun, was awarded a red card in a match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ordinarily, this would mean an automatic one game suspension at the very least (Article 66.4 of the FIFA disciplinary code states that "a sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match"). But FIFA later announced that this sanction would be suspended, allowing Balogun to play for his country in its following knock-out match against Belgium.

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) denounced the decision as "unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable". Outrage spread like a contagion, from the barrios of Rio de Janeiro to shoppers, workers and school children watching matches on screens in public squares around the world. The fury was especially intense in countries like England and France which had players served with red and yellow cards in the same tournament.

The furore only deepened when it emerged that Donald Trump had personally lobbied FIFA's president, Gianni Infantino, for a review of the match ban. We know about this because the US President boasted about it at a White House press conference.

Football fans the world over, including more rules-oriented spectators in America, were incensed, prompting Infantino to issue a statement extolling the importance of procedural fairness. He indicated that the review was undertaken by FIFA's judicial bodies in line with its Disciplinary Code, citing Article 27 which provides: "The judicial body may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure." He concluded his statement as follows: "Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of Fifa at all times."

Infantino's problem is that to billions of football fans around the world, this sounds like lip service. Notably, he failed to deny meddling in the case.

Then it emerged that the decision was taken in a highly irregular way, by the chairman of FIFA's disciplinary committee, Mohammad al-Kamali, acting entirely on his own. According to the Times, the chairman has never before sat alone for such a decision. While it is not uncommon for a single committee member (usually the deputy chairman) to preside over a review, more important cases tend to involve a panel of three committee members. Kamali declined to answer BBC questions about the decision-making process, including whether Infantino had asked him to suspend the ban.

The affair has severely damaged Infantino's personal credibility, which had already been impacted, among other things, by his curious decision to invent a "FIFA Peace Prize" and award it to Trump in 2025. In the UK, the appearance of impropriety over the red card suspension prompted calls for his resignation from sports pundits and politicians including the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey. FairSquare, a London-based sports and human rights organisation, has filed a formal complaint with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Ethics Commission, alleging that Infantino, a member of the IOC, has breached rules in the IOC charter "to apply neutrality at all times, free from governmental, cultural, societal or economic pressure" and its code of ethics requiring "integrity... impartiality, objectivity, independence and professionalism" and all "necessary measures to ensure the integrity of sports competitions".

But the more important question is whether there has been a failure of institutional checks and balances in the overall FIFA regulatory system.

Via the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law at BIICL, we support governments and other institutions to uphold the rule of law, including as a means of ensuring the accountability and public legitimacy of power holders. It is obvious that FIFA needs to take convincing action to restore the trust of players, football associations, sponsors and fans. Seventy-two Members of the European Parliament have written to the heads of all twenty-seven EU football federations, as member associations of FIFA, to demand an investigation, citing Article 4(2) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 15 of the FIFA Code of Ethics requiring political neutrality.

There is still the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which has established an ad hoc division for the World Cup. But, in any case, FIFA would be wise to announce without delay an independent inquiry to examine all of the circumstances of the decision to suspend the red card sanction, including the impact of Trump's conversations with Infantino. Such an inquiry should be led by seasoned adjudicators with impeccable credentials for fairness. The inquiry should be granted full access to all witnesses and relevant materials and FIFA should guarantee in advance to release in full the findings and recommendations. If FIFA has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. And if the suspicions are proven, it will be told how to clean up its act and thereby rebuild lost trust.

The significance of this situation for FIFA transcends football, and even sport. The controversy is especially resonant because it coincides with erosion of the rule of law by governments across the world, including in the United States where millions have taken to the streets under the "No Kings" banner to demand a restoration of checks on executive power and respect for fundamental human rights.

What the episode demonstrates above all is that the rule of law is an idea with truly global appeal, a point reinforced by Infantino himself when he pleaded its importance in his statement. People the world over have a deeply ingrained instinct for fairness and a strong desire for justice when they see it violated in areas of life that matter to them. History teaches that power holders who lose popular confidence in the fairness of their decision-making struggle to win it back without submitting to independent scrutiny. Sport is not so different to politics. The rule of law is a lode start in both domains.

Author

Sonya Sceats, Director and Chief Executive Officer, BIICL