The Political Red Card: The Imposition of Political Strongmen in Sports

Written by: Sia Sirish Karanth

Edited by: Saptarchi Biswas

Graphic designer: Sagarika Raju

The 2026 FIFA World Cup hosted by the United States of America has been brimming with tensions and controversies. Some of them have raised questions about the future of sports and how political power plays can impact it. Historically, sports have always been a way to bring communities together and promote unity in diversity. Politics has been a part of sports for innumerable years, as hundreds of communities have been represented and advocated for by sportspersons and athletes. However, in these kinds of spheres, a common political theme includes using sports as a platform to stand up for social causes and spread progressive messages. That being said, political decision-making has no place in sports.

Heavy criticism has befallen both FIFA and President Trump, who intervened in round 32 between the United States of America and Bosnia and Herzegovina, when player Folarin Balogun received a red card from referee Raphael Claus. Balogun stepped on the ankle of another player, without injuring him. This red card ultimately implied his exclusion from the upcoming round of 16 match. However, President Trump personally stepped in and personally contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino. The President himself confirmed that he placed a call to Gianni Infantino to argue that he did not think it was a foul. The call led to the ban being suspended. This unprecedented decision drew a large reaction from both football audiences and politicians alike. While a lot of American football fans were outraged over the red card, believing that the offence was undeserving of it, considering other cases like the aggressive foul by Lionel Messi against a player from Algeria, which did not receive even a yellow card, the immediate suspension as a result of Trump’s call came as a surprise to everyone. 

The involvement of an already controversial politician in a matter like this came with its own set of consequences. There was outrage from the public regarding the President’s suspicions about the referee’s intentions and professional integrity. The call itself was heavily scrutinized by the media, former FIFA presidents, and foreign nations. Belgium especially heavily condemned the decision. Other countries also expressed a desire to consolidate to investigate this decision further. FIFA President Infantino stated that in his call with the President, it was clarified that the decision would ultimately be in the hands of the appropriate sporting bodies who were certified to decide the most fair outcome. It is also important to note that FIFA denied Belgium’s challenge to Balogun’s eligibility for the round of 16. Human rights group FairSquare submitted a complaint to the IOC (International Olympic Committee) demanding an ethics investigation into Gianni Infantino. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee cited Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code to render the red card still active but dormant, with a one-year probationary period. 

This decision is about so much more than just sports; it led to more discourse on how national leaders can exercise their soft power to elevate the position of their country, even if it could lead to unfair bias and special treatment. If a situation like this was able to happen in sports, the possibility of something similar happening in other fields is no longer an unthinkable concept. The question about whether the leader of any nation is knowledgeable in such fields to exercise such power also becomes relevant here. President Trump himself is quoted as saying, “I didn't know what the hell a red card is, when I found out I said, 'you've got to be kidding'." Hence, the fact that he was able to casually call the FIFA President because he did not think a foul was committed is solely based on political connections and special privileges, as only a few months ago the FIFA President had awarded Trump the ‘FIFA Peace Prize’. This move, along with their cozy relationship in general, was a cause for concern for many. It brings into question just how ‘independent’ bodies like FIFA truly are simply owing to who the leaders of the organization are at a particular point in time.

Sports have been used as a platform for some authoritarian governments to assert their dominance over their people or at the international level. Adolf Hitler infamously used the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a way of asserting the supremacy of the Aryan race. Within the world of FIFA itself, the 1978 World Cup saw Argentina’s military junta strategically use the event as a way of faking normalcy and distracting the world from the military violence that was occurring at the time. In these cases, sports were used as a showcase of power and authority. These events were not about sportsmanship, community engagement, or the celebration of talent. Donald Trump’s interference in an institution where he had no jurisdiction sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Political leaders using their connections in unfair ways outside of political institutions, in spaces of competitive sports or athletics, negatively impacts both the athletes’ integrity and the audience’s ‘love of the game’.

The larger conversation here comes down to the parallels that could potentially be drawn between a single powerful world leader using their leverage to get their country’s football team ahead and an authoritarian extremist government using sports to assert geopolitical dominance and spread a message of political hostility and promote enmity between nations. Perhaps the greatest irony to come out of this situation is that despite Balogun being allowed to play the next match thanks to political intervention, the USA still lost 4-1 to Belgium, which meant that the entire controversy was basically rendered unnecessary. While it became practically null due to the USA’s loss, the decision remained in the minds of the people long after they left the stadium or switched off their televisions; because this was about more than a red card, it was about political influence winning over long-standing, well-documented, and rigid disciplinary rules and codes of conduct.