Trump and FIFA: When Politics Plays Football

The "Right to Goal" award goes to the Spanish National Team, deserved winners of the World Cup. They played beautiful football, winning and convincing throughout. The World Cup in America was a resounding success: packed stadiums, delighted fans, and a fantastic spectacle. It truly was a grand celebration of football. FIFA's gamble on expanding to 48 teams paid off. While I didn't agree with all the innovations – the game should have two halves, not four; commercial interests shouldn't dictate everything – overall, it was an enormous festival.

As in previous World Cups, politics made its presence felt. Donald Trump boasted about successfully lobbying the FIFA president with a phone call to partially suspend the sanction applied to Folarin Balogun, a player for the US national team. In my view, Trump should not have intervened. But Gianni Infantino also shouldn't have caved. Of course, it can't be easy to say no to the President of the United States, especially when the US is hosting what is arguably the most successful World Cup ever. And many American voters would likely have appreciated the President's action in defending his country's interests.

Did FIFA make the right call? Or the wrong one? And could they "suspend the implementation of the disciplinary measure"? Yes, they could. Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code states precisely this (in paragraph 1: "The judicial body may decide to suspend, in whole or in part, the implementation of the disciplinary measure." Paragraph 2 explains that "the suspension (…) of the sanction subjects the person to a probationary period (…)."). From a technical standpoint, this is important because FIFA didn't revoke the player's red card. He was sent off, and the game continued. A sanction was issued; what didn't happen was its full enforcement. The same had occurred with Ronaldo, who also saw part of his sanction lifted after a visit to the White House.

The Belgian Federation argued that Article 66 of the same Code stated that "a sending-off automatically incurs a suspension for the next match (…)" and therefore, FIFA's decision was incorrect. However, as expected, FIFA upheld its decision.

Nevertheless, FIFA felt compelled to provide an explanation. In addition to proclaiming its "independence" in an official statement, FIFA clarified that it maintained the fine (40,000 dollars) and, as mentioned above, only partially suspended the effects of the sanction. It further insisted that the partial suspension of a sanction's execution is a common decision in football federations and, therefore, nothing extraordinary.

On one point, FIFA is right. The decision is not unusual and wouldn't have caused a scandal had Trump not been the kind of person who, for better or worse, makes the exercise of power more transparent. Other presidents, American and otherwise, would seek to exert similar influences but wouldn't publicly claim credit. Trump is different: he immediately publicizes his interventions on social media. This, of course, makes life difficult for those who, willingly or unwillingly, find themselves obliged to comply with the American President's requests.

The Prestiani Law, the FIFA rule mandating a player's expulsion for covering their mouth during an on-field conversation, took another hit. As noted in this column, the rule was absurd: players have a right to their privacy. Consequently, both UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America's UEFA equivalent) decided against its application in their competitions. I'd bet this rule is headed for a quiet demise.