Updated July 6, 7:03 PM Pacific
One of the USA’s best players Folarin Balogun received a red card during the last round of the World Cup. The penalty for a red card is twofold: the recipient is ejected from the immediate game and suspended from the next one. Despite being down a player, USA eventually defeated Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0 and advanced to play Belgium on July 6, in Seattle.
Over the weekend, FIFA made a bizarrely unprecedented decision to reverse the suspension and will allow Balogun to play tonight. Speculation emerged that Trump had influenced FIFA’s president Gianni Infantino to reverse the suspension—speculation that was confirmed by Trump in a press conference this morning.
This has raised a serious question about the strange relationship between Trump and Infantino, whether Trump’s conduct violates FIFA’s statutes, and whether it violates criminal laws that prohibit influencing the outcome of sports.
Additionally, Belgium lodged a new complaint this morning to FIFA that the USA should be suspended from the World Cup entirely. Belgium just demanded that the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland to kick USA out of the World Cup if Balogun plays. Belgium’s request is now mooted by the fact that they defeated USA this evening. USA is officially out of the World Cup tournament.
Balogun receives a red card
On July 1, 2026, USA played against Bosnia and Herzegovina in Round 32 of the World Cup. But in the latter half of the game USA’s Folarin Balogun’s foot stepped on the ankle of Bosnia defender Tarik Muharemović. Initially, when the two collided, FIFA Referee Raphael Claus waved play. But then FIFA’s new Video Assistant Referee (VAR) flagged the contact for a possible red card. Referee Claus reviewed the play and issued a red card against Balogun.
There is a genuine dispute as to whether a red card should have been issued. First, the referee did not initially flag the play. USA’s coach Pochettino called it “a normal action that happened by accident . . . Never a red card.” ESPN argued that this was not a red card offense. While the contact looked bad in slow motion, it did not appear intentional. But critics argue that Balogun’s cleats making contact with the other player’s ankle is dangerous and intent does not matter.
Please take a moment to type your email address in the box below and subscribe for free.
FIFA reverses Balogun’s suspension from the next game
What happened next, however, is more remarkable. Over the weekend, on Sunday, July 5, FIFA announced it was overruling Balogun’s one-game suspension and will allow him to play against Belgium tonight. Belgium challenged the decision but FIFA’s Appeal Committee dismissed it.
The Royal Belgium FA made a statement on July 6:
To date, the Royal Belgian FA has still not received any grounds for this decision, nor has it received the information it has been requesting since the start of this procedure.
FIFA has yet to provide us with a copy of the decision and the motivation declaring the player eligible as well as the referee’s report—this is a breach of FIFA regulations.
The RBFA has informed the United States Soccer Federation that it contests the eligibility of the player, should the player be listed on the referee’s team sheet. This leaves all further actions open.
Trump admits he asked FIFA to review the play
On Monday morning, July 6, Trump boasted, during a press-conference, that he had contacted FIFA:
So, I saw the play and I’m a person that loves sports, and was a good athlete, and I understand sports really well. Really well. And that wasn’t a foul. That wasn’t even an infraction. That was two guys running full speed, that happened to crash into each other. You can’t take your foot and properly place it on somebody else’s foot, when you’re going. No these were two great athletes that got tangled up. And this referee, who is a little bit suspect, if you check his, if you check his past, I don’t want to say that because I don’t want to create any controversy, but very suspect. If you’d like I will provide you with a past, he made a call that nobody could believe, even, you know people on the other side.
And you know it’s very interesting they don’t show him in slow motion. And I never realized that. I never heard of that before, that they’re not allowed to review in slow motion, ‘cause it’s so different, because you’ll take one little quarter of a second and you’ll see that a hand is touching a neck and you’ll see something. Whereas when you see it in fast motion, it will look like two guys collided, which is really what happened they got uh sort of entangled.
He didn’t do anything wrong, and he’s our best player or one of our best players, a very vital player and he gave him a red card. I didn’t know it meant that much. Then I started hearing he can’t play in the next game, at least in the next game.
I said boy that’s a big, you know, if it happened to another player, it would have been unfair but when they take your best player or just about, they have some great players. But and they say you can’t play, that’s very unfair.
You know, it’s one thing to penalize someone for the game, but how do you penalize them for a game that has been played yet? It’s very unfair you can’t do that.
So yes, I asked for a review by FIFA I spoke to a man who’s highly respected and by the way whose level of respect has gone up tenfold. And it was good before this started.
You know, he really pushed it in this country. I’m the one that got them to do it it was not Biden Biden was asleep I got him to do in fact it was very sad because I got him to do it and if the progression was normal I would have been retired the the
Democrats are saying man we should have just let him we would have had him gone but I said you know the saddest thing is I got the Olympics and I got the World Cup I tried to claim 250 years too but that didn’t work they said that one is what it is. No, I tried but it didn’t work. Wait, wait, so, I got him. I’m was so proud of it and then I realized that you know I wouldn’t be president during that because I would have been out of office by that time.
I felt badly. The beautiful thing about what I did is I ran. I thought of it. And then all of a sudden I realized, you know I just got the Olympics, and I totally got that myself. And I just got FIFA. I got that myself we get a little piece gave a little piece to Mexico.
FIFA President Infantino tweets about the decision
Infantino says that the decision was not his but rather of FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. On Monday morning July 6, Infantino tweeted:
I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent FIFA Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of FIFA’s governance.
FIFA’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the FIFA Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected.
Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the FIFA World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how FIFA’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold.
I read the decisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree.
What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of FIFA at all times.
Fans argue Trump’s interference in the game violates FIFA’s own statutes
Critics argue Trump’s conduct violates FIFA’s statutes which directly prohibit government interference and FIFA should exercise its discretion to suspend USA football federation from the World Cup.
Federal law prohibits sports bribery
The USA played their last match against Bosnia and Herzegovina on July 1, 2026 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. On July 6, USA will play Belgium in Seattle. This triggers federal jurisdiction and possibly California and Washington state law.1 Note that the federal bribery law 18 USC § 224 expressly does not displace state law.
§ 224 criminalizes carrying into effect, attempting to, or conspiring with any other person to carry into effect “any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest[.]”. The statute is punished by a fine or up to five years in prison.234
What is the bribe?
The big question is what if anything did Donald Trump give to FIFA and/or Gianni Infantino? Was there any quid pro quo? This morning, Trump boasted that he brought the World Cup to the U.S. Did Trump or anyone close to him bet on USA to win the tournament?
Trump and FIFA President Infantino definitely have an unusually cozy relationship that has been repeatedly criticized—over the past two years—by other teams.
Gianni Infantino has repeatedly appeared at the White House, including a cameo in First Lady Melania Trump’s recent movie “Melania.”
In 2018, Infantino met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the 2026 World Cup. U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro was also at the White House. Infantino and Cordeiro both gave gifts to Trump. Infantino gave Trump the infamous blue FIFA jersey with his name on the back, a referee’s book, with yellow and red cards. Cordeiro gave Trump a U.S. jersey with the number “45” on the back, i.e. when Trump was the 45th president.
In 2019, Infantino met with Trump and Jared Kushner at the White House.
In 2025, Infantino joined Trump on his tour of the Middle East with Mohammed bin Salman, causing the FIFA Congress in Paraguay to walk out in protest. UEFA condemned Infantino for “private political interests.” Norway’s football federation similarly attacked Infantino for “putting the game second.”
In 2025, Infantino gave President Trump the FIFA Peace Prize at the Kennedy Space Center.
But pinpointing the graft, if any, in this situation could be difficult. If anything the appearance of impropriety between Trump and Infantino severely undermines the integrity of FIFA, which has historically been plagued by allegations of widespread corruption.
Although § 224 is a specialized sports bribery statute, general federal bribery principles inform what constitutes “bribery” under the law. Bribery requires a quid pro quo, meaning a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 119 S. Ct. 1402 (1999).
For bribery, there must be a quid pro quo, a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2004).
The government is not required in a bribery case to prove an expressed intention or agreement to engage in a quid pro quo. Quinn, at 666. Nor must the government prove that the defendant intended for payments to be tied to specific official acts or omissions. Id.
Rather, it is sufficient to show that the payor intended for each payment to induce the official to adopt a specific course of action. Quinn at 666. The quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor. Id.
The record must support all of the elements of a paradigmatic quid pro quo bribe, including testimony regarding the deal or arrangement and evidence of actions in exchange for the bribe. United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2013). There must be proof of a causal connection between the bribe-giver’s actions and the recipient’s conduct. Id.
The definition of “thing of value” in the context of federal bribery statutes is interpreted broadly to cover both tangible and intangible items, including those with only subjective value, so long as the recipient believes the item is valuable. United States v. Calk, 87 F.4th 164 (2d Cir. 2023).
A “thing of value” may cover subjectively valuable intangibles, such as political assistance, including endorsements, guidance, and referrals. Calk, at 164. The broad statutory language and the public policy objective of deterring improper influence support this expansive interpretation. Id.
Note that presidential immunity would not likely apply in this situation. Another hurdle for enforcing federal criminal statutes against President Trump is that he has wielded unparalleled control over the U.S. Department of Justice and recently appointed his personal criminal defense attorney Todd Blanche to serve as the U.S. Attorney General. There is zero chance that federal prosecutors under Trump’s DOJ would seek to indict Trump for bribery or wire fraud. But there is always an option for California and Washington state authorities to investigate and potentially prosecute under their own laws.
Update: tonight, July 6, Belgium had a significant 4-1 victory over USA. The fact that Belgium won does not impact the potential for criminal liability.
Washington state law RCW § 67.04 specifically criminalizes bribing athletes, umpires, managers, or officials.
“Scheme in commerce” means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication.
“Sporting contest” means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence;
“Person” means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.
Just add it to everything else he’s ever been associated with…