By John Q. Hosedrinker 
FIFA has controversially cleared US striker Folarin Balogun to play in a World Cup match against Belgium, overturning a one-game ban for a red card offense. The decision followed a personal phone call from President Donald Trump to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, a move met with outrage from Belgian officials who decried it as a violation of fair play and FIFA regulations. Despite FIFA citing a clause allowing for suspended bans, Belgium has expressed astonishment and is exploring all options to contest the ruling.
Read the original article here
It appears that, in a move that has raised many eyebrows, former President Trump has publicly expressed his gratitude towards FIFA for what he views as a positive outcome regarding U.S. striker Folarin Balogun’s red card suspension during the World Cup. This situation is particularly noteworthy because Balogun is a “birthright citizen” of the United States, a status that Trump himself has, in the past, expressed opposition to. The irony of the situation, as many have pointed out, is quite striking: the president who has questioned birthright citizenship is now intervening in a matter concerning a player who is a citizen precisely because he was born on American soil.
The circumstances surrounding Balogun’s birth are also rather unique. It’s reported that he was born in the U.S. not by design, but because his parents were unable to board their return flight to London due to safety concerns related to his mother’s advanced pregnancy. This detail further highlights the unexpected nature of his U.S. citizenship, making Trump’s involvement, and his alleged push to reverse the suspension, all the more peculiar. The suggestion that Trump might not even understand the intricacies of soccer, such as the meaning of a red card, unless he was directly involved in the FIFA dealings, underscores the perceived absurdity of his intervention.
The public reaction to this news has been largely critical and cynical. Many feel that this intervention has tainted the World Cup, turning what should be a sporting event into a political spectacle. There’s a pervasive sense that Trump’s involvement, regardless of the outcome of the match, will cast a shadow over the U.S. team’s performance. If the team wins, the victory will inevitably be attributed, at least in part, to this perceived political interference, while a loss would make the intervention seem even more futile and damaging. This creates a no-win scenario for the team and the sport itself.
Furthermore, there’s a strong undercurrent of suspicion regarding the motivations behind this alleged intervention. Some have linked it to previous instances of perceived favoritism, such as the awarding of a FIFA “peace prize” that Trump reportedly received. The swift reversal of Balogun’s suspension, especially given FIFA’s often opaque decision-making processes, has led many to believe that corruption or undue influence was at play. The idea that Trump would actively seek to ensure a player’s participation, while simultaneously having expressed sentiments against the very basis of that player’s citizenship, is seen as a profound hypocrisy.
The narrative that Trump’s actions are driven by whatever catches his eye on television or by a desire to be associated with popular events is also frequently mentioned. His alleged bragging about this intervention suggests a need for constant attention and a desire to be seen as influential in all arenas. This constant insertion into matters, even seemingly minor ones like a soccer match suspension, is viewed by many as disruptive and self-serving, undermining the enjoyment and integrity of the events. The comparison to a “drug deal sketch” where someone awkwardly inserts themselves into a situation seems to resonate with the feeling that Trump has a habit of complicating and potentially ruining enjoyable experiences for others.
The impact of this situation on America’s international standing is also a point of concern. The perception of the U.S. president directly influencing international sports organizations in such a manner is seen as detrimental, potentially eroding goodwill and making other nations view the U.S. with suspicion or derision. The notion that FIFA, and its president, might be seen as beholden to Trump is also a troubling aspect for many, suggesting a level of transactional politics extending into global sports. The belief that rules and laws are being disregarded in favor of personal connections or influence is a recurring theme in the commentary.
Even those who may have initially felt the red card was unwarranted are expressing dismay at the manner in which the situation was resolved. The principle of playing by the rules, even if the initial call was questionable, is considered more important than achieving a victory through perceived manipulation. The appearance of corruption, whether or not it is definitively proven, is seen as damaging enough. The sentiment that “we can’t have nice things” when Trump is involved encapsulates the widespread feeling of frustration and disappointment that a sporting event has been so heavily politicized.