‘Typical Fifa’: Why lack of World Cup appeal process for Folarin Balogun’s red card is completely inadequate

Pointedly, Mauricio Pochettino was one of many in the dark. In ordinary circumstances, the United States securing their second-ever World Cup knockout victory against Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday would have dominated the agenda for its historical context and national impact. Instead, Pochettino and his squad will leave Santa Clara for their Irvine base, 400 miles down the Californian coast, with an overwhelming sense of frustration, perhaps teetering towards infuriation.

Because despite the USA’s accomplished and well-deserved victory, there was a hot-button issue. Folarin Balogun’s second-half sending-off was clearly the major talking point. Pochettino had already voiced his dismay at the decision – “it’s never a red card, there was never [any] intention to step on the player” – when he pondered: “It should be possible to appeal the red card…”

Was it a query or a statement? He glanced over to his media officer; it was the former. Quickly, a reporter informed him that, by the black-and-white Fifa rulebook, it was not possible to appeal a red card. Article 66.4 of the regulations states: “A sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match. The FIFA judicial bodies may impose additional match suspensions and other disciplinary measures.”

So, there you have it: not only is it not possible to appeal a verdict which bemused so many, pundits and fans alike, but the wording insinuates that the only possible modification to Balogun’s one-match sanction is an increase to two or three games. The lack of manoeuvrability, the opportunity for the US to present their case and have it assessed retrospectively, is somewhat baffling for a stage as grand as the World Cup.

US midfielder Tyler Adams, speaking afterwards, had an altogether simpler viewpoint: “Typical Fifa.”

World football’s governing body would argue the introduction of VAR (Video Assistant Referee) has negated the need for an appeals process. In real-time, the decision of an on-field referee can be reviewed and changed. Here, Brazilian referee Raphael Claus missed Balogun’s studs plunging into the calf of Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic as the pair battled for the ball.

The VAR trio – Juan Soto (Venezuela), Nicolas Gallo (Colombia) and Jerome Brisard (France) – directed the referee over to the monitor. Of course, by this time, we all know the decision has already been made, given that on-field officials rarely stick with their original decision once directed pitchside. Claus was shown numerous super-slow motion and still images of the incident.

Balogun was guilty of “serious foul play, defined as “challenging for the ball… with excessive force or endangering the safety of an opponent.” The freeze frame, undoubtedly, is nasty. Any fan waking up to that one image this morning may well ask: what is all the fuss about?

Yet there are two inconsistencies. First, the incident itself. As Pochettino was keen to stress, there is clearly no “intent” from Balogun. Instead, it is a collision and clashing of legs regularly seen every minute of every match, with the unfortunate consequence of the point of impact. But the bigger issue at play is the interpretation of the IFAB (International Football Association Board) rules for VAR.

In checking the footage, they state that slow-motion replay should only be used for “facts” (like the position of a player or the ball) whereas normal speed should be used for the “intensity of an offence.” Why, then, was the referee repeatedly shown a stream of slow-motion images? The incident and impact did not happen in slow motion; it should not be judged as such.

The second is recent history, involving the greatest player of his generation. In the same game that Lionel Messi opened his 2026 World Cup account with a hat-trick against Algeria, the Argentina captain did escape a card for a near-identical challenge on Aissa Mandi in the 30th minute. It was a foul, yet VAR had a look and decided against any sanction. Once again, with video reviews, the lack of consistency is exasperating.

Asked about the comparison, Pochettino opined: “For me, neither are red cards.” Yet the most obvious conclusion is undoubtedly that if Balogun’s tackle is a red card, Messi’s tackle simply has to be too.

Yet given such inconsistency, with the earlier incident setting a precedent for how such tackles should perhaps be judged, the fact that the US cannot even launch an appeal of any kind is deeply flawed. It leaves the unfortunate Balogun banned and watching on from the sidelines for the last-16 clash against Belgium in Seattle on Monday; a match which would have been the biggest of his career.

For a player who has been the co-hosts’ best player so far this summer, it is a hammer blow. Yet the notion that the decision is unrectifiable as per the rules is completely inadequate. Once again with Fifa, common sense is not the order of the day.