Top News

There’s a saying often repeated in American politics, one that even inspired a best-selling book: “Everything Trump touches dies.”

That sentiment seemed to play out dramatically for US Soccer. After Donald Trump publicly took credit for his role in the Folarin Balogun case, the United States suffered a humiliating 4-1 defeat to Belgium — a result that turned his boast into a symbol of misplaced pride and embarrassment.

Ironically, some argue that this heavy loss might have been a short-term blessing for FIFA, considering the crisis that had engulfed the organisation over the previous day and a half. Belgium, after all, had little motivation to press the issue further — unlike if Balogun had been the winning hero for the Americans.

However, in the medium and long term, Gianni Infantino’s FIFA may have invited an era of unnecessary complications and legal entanglements in global football.

This episode also marks a new, more tangled chapter in Infantino’s relationship with Trump.

It’s remarkable to recall how reluctant FIFA had been to release any details about the Balogun case on Sunday. Every new report felt like the exposure of some secretive internal mechanism. Then, by Monday morning, Trump casually revealed everything himself — dragging Infantino straight into the controversy.

“So, yes, I asked for a review by FIFA,” Trump declared. “I spoke to a man who is highly respected, and by the way, whose level of respect has gone up tenfold.”

Why tenfold, Mr. President?

As accommodating as Infantino has often been toward Trump, the FIFA president must have been stunned by what was being revealed.

Panic was evident in the sudden flood of FIFA statements that followed, a stark contrast to their earlier silence.

As one insider put it: “There was no reason for this case at all. It was completely manufactured, and Trump just spilled everything.”

And it could still open a Pandora’s box of further issues.

FIFA repeatedly insisted that its disciplinary committee is “independent.” Yet, as one senior insider noted, the notion that FIFA’s judicial or ethics committees operate independently is one of the organisation’s biggest myths. But even that argument sidesteps the central issue — that this case would likely never have existed without intervention from the White House.

In simpler terms, this was political interference. Imagine the global uproar if something similar had occurred in any other footballing nation, especially outside the West.

Immediate consequences are already visible. National federations, stirred by the intensity that only the World Cup generates, are now questioning every disciplinary ruling. The French federation wants Michael Olise’s yellow card overturned. The English FA is reviewing options regarding Jarell Quansah’s red card.

As Thomas Tuchel asked pointedly: “Where does this end?”

Almost certainly not with this World Cup.

This moment underscores how poorly conceived FIFA’s precedent is. The Swiss federation, whose statement carried particular weight as FIFA’s host nation, noted: “This decision raises questions and creates uncertainty, particularly regarding the authority of referees’ decisions.”

In short, the controversy may soon move from the pitch to the courtroom.

This is especially significant as “lawfare” increasingly defines the footballing world, including the Premier League — where many believe it’s only a matter of time before a refereeing decision is legally challenged.

And now, FIFA may have accelerated that future, much as Premier League club owners have long driven up ticket prices. Unsurprisingly, UEFA and its member associations are, in the words of one insider, “outraged.”

They instantly grasp the implications — something Infantino either fails to see or simply chooses to ignore.

FIFA now faces the possibility of multiple unrelated challenges, an entirely self-inflicted crisis for Infantino’s administration.

Just days earlier, his strategy seemed to be working. The focus was on the football, on the spectacle. The political controversies — from questions about host nations to Infantino’s friendly ties with Trump — had faded into the background. Even the US team had generated goodwill for their performances.

That goodwill evaporated by Monday morning, as the Balogun affair dominated headlines more than the thrilling matches surrounding it.

It feels as though FIFA has come full circle in this World Cup, yet the implications are deeper. While broader issues — from governance flaws to Saudi Arabia’s 2034 hosting rights — have lingered, they rarely resonate with average fans. What does capture their attention, however, is when such issues affect the action on the pitch.

This mirrors the controversy of Cristiano Ronaldo’s case last December, which raised wider questions about sporting integrity and FIFA’s legitimacy.

Beyond anger, these events have provoked deeper reflections within football circles. Many now describe FIFA’s trajectory as emblematic of a “Trump-shaped” global order — one where rules and institutions are increasingly undermined.

False narratives about referee Raphael Claus and misleading claims about slow-motion reviews only worsened the distortions in public debate.

Hence, the term “Trumpification of FIFA” has begun to circulate — a description of an organisation accustomed to acting unilaterally, led by a president who rules with little opposition.

But opposition is now mounting. Dissent is growing and outrage is widespread. Norway has been particularly vocal, and their upcoming match against England has further highlighted the English FA’s silence.

Norwegian football chief Lise Klaveness has been one of Infantino’s most consistent critics. English FA CEO Mark Bullingham stated before the country’s first match that the matter would undergo board review.

That review could prove significant, as European federations like Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have all expressed strong support for Belgium.

The precedent could shape future tournaments, especially since the next two World Cups — in Morocco and Saudi Arabia — will be hosted by nations with powerful regimes at the top.

As one insider warned: “This may not be a one-off.”

And judging by the direction of US politics, it certainly won’t be for Trump. His involvement — and Infantino’s willingness to indulge it — may have doomed the US team’s campaign and cast a long, toxic shadow over the sport’s future.