FIFA Corruption Thread

[Buzzo]

The FA are considering asking FIFA to overturn Quansahs card. It was an absolute stick on Red - there’s no case whatsoever, other than the corruption of the Balagun card.

What a farce.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cz0jjz830g3o

[badpiggy]

The world cup and the USMNT is just another giant ****in diaper, filled with Trump's fetid waste. He like a ****in demented diarrhoea-spraying orange skunk. There are really no words that can truly get this man's awfulness across. There's no rock bottom.

[vlahka]

This post did not age well

[Exiled_red]

British Prime Minister should be on the phone demanding Bellingham’s yellow card be rescinded so he can play next match

Bellingham isn't suspended, cards are wiped after group stage, if he gets a yellow against Norway (and England get through) he would miss the semi final though.

[The_weatherman]

Unbelievably stupid from FIFA, USA and the White House. I'm all aboard the Belgian train now, hope they thump the USA.

[SB]

British Prime Minister should be on the phone demanding Bellingham’s yellow card be rescinded so he can play next match

[Buzzo]

Pretty punchy statement from UEFA.

Civil War?

Yesterday’s decision to suspend for a probationary period of a year the implementation of the one-match automatic suspension following the red card issued to the player Folarin Balogun crossed a red line.

Football, like any other sports, relies on rules, which are the basis for fair, honest and transparent competition. Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case not. A minimum automatic suspension of one match following a red card is not a discretionary option and does not require the decision of a competent body to be enacted. It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension.

When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined. Equally, such decision creates a precedent in the ongoing tournament, where similar situations will now require an equal treatment, to the detriment of the competition.

Football is the most loved sport in the world because it is a beautiful game and is trusted because it is played everywhere with the same laws. A tournament is never a pure standalone and, if the tournament in question is the World Cup, it has the power to drive positive or negative consequences on the game as a whole.

We express our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision.

[Yozza]

Sepp Blatter talking about sporting integrity....

[Kenneth]

And it was a valid red.

[Exiled_red]

This Balogun thing absolutely stinks and makes a mockery of the whole game and tournament rules. You can make any argument about whether it should or shouldn't have been a red, but that is irrelevant, other players in previous WCs have had harsh red cards and still had to serve the suspension. If they wanted to overturn this they needed to have a cast iron reason and an argument that there was something truly unique about this situation and explain what it was and why it was made. The word coming out about Trump or the Whitehouse contacting FIFA and Infantino's relationship with Trump (the Peace prize etc) makes it look like he has bowed to political pressure which is something FIFA shouldn't do.

Infantino is the worst FIFA president ever, which given the previous ones is quite an achievement

[SB]

Ridiculous & then the extra extra time given in the Brazil match this morning was dodgy to say the least

[ChesterDave]

You talk like fifa is trumps personal little lapdogs. He doesnt have that much sway in majority of things that arent business related.

This post did not age well

[Yozza]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cly99dxjkxxo

Red card system in disarray over Trump, Fifa and Balogun decision

It had become one of the game's great certainties. If you are sent off at the World Cup, you will miss the next game.

No ifs, no buts, no appeals.

The decision to effectively overturn the red card shown to United States' star forward Folarin Balogun leaves many unanswered questions.

Balogun, sent off in the last-32 win over Bosnia-Herzegovina, will now be available to play in the last 16 against Belgium on Monday. He's the US's top scorer at the tournament with three goals.

There have been 189 red cards in the history of the World Cup, and only two players have not served a suspension.

The other came in 1962, when Brazil's Garrincha was sent off against Chile in the semi-final, but played in the victory over Czechoslovakia in the final.

Back then, however, there was no automatic ban. It was decided by committee with evidence given by the officials.

The Fifa disciplinary committee's decision in 1962 was shrouded in allegations of political interference, external.

Given the well-established close relationship between the White House and Fifa, questions will be asked because of what is a highly unusual decision in favour of the co-hosts.

The BBC's US media partner CBS News has confirmed that Balogun's reinstatement came after US president Donald Trump called Fifa president Gianni Infantino on Thursday and spoke about the suspension, sources familiar with the call told CBS News.

Does it set a footballing precedent, too?

Why has Balogun been given a reprieve, but the other 11 players sent off at this World Cup have all served a suspension?

Will it lead to more appeals in football in a bid to cut suspensions even when red cards were justified under the rules?

When it says "misses next match" on the television coverage following the World Cup's next red card, should we not be so sure it happens?

Here, we break down the decision, what we know and the possible repercussions.


Fifa offered no reason or explanation

There is one overriding question many people are now asking. How?

Fifa's disciplinary code states that Balogun should receive a ban of "at least two matches for serious foul play".

Indeed, the World Cup rules do not allow teams to appeal against a red card.

Fifa's statement offered no reason or explanation for suspending Balogun's ban. It just cited "article 27 of the Fifa disciplinary code".

Article 27 allows Fifa "to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure".

It is a wide-ranging rule that allows Fifa to effectively make whatever decision it wants without having to meet any other criteria.

Article 27 has never before been used at a World Cup.

BBC Sport has asked why this happened.

But we were not provided with any reasoning. We were simply directed to Cristiano Ronaldo's suspended ban before this tournament.

Under Fifa's disciplinary code, Ronaldo should have received a three-match ban for elbowing Dara O'Shea during Portugal's 2-0 qualifying defeat by the Republic of Ireland in November.

He served one match in the final qualifier against Armenia - but the remaining two games of the ban were suspended.

Ronaldo's red card, though, was received in qualifying. It was not a red card at a World Cup.

There have been many cases of players being shown some leniency before a tournament, not just Ronaldo.

See France's Laurent Koscielny in 2014, or Ecuador's Moises Caicedo and Argentina's Nicolas Otamendi before this World Cup.

At least with Ronaldo, we were given some justification, with Fifa saying it had taking into account that "he had no red cards in his other 225 international appearances".

With Balogun, we did not even get that.

It has left a vacuum of information which can only lead to speculation.

Why was this a special case? What factors were taken into account? Who made the decision?

BBC Sport has been told there are no suggestions that the referee asked for the suspension to be removed, or that video assistant referee protocol was not respected.

In England, the Football Association would publish the full written reasons.

The United States have the right to ask Fifa to publish them, Belgium do not.

BBC Sport pundit Micah Richards, a former England defender, said it was a farce.

"To have it suspended for a year makes a mockery of the whole tournament," he said.

"It is to keep the big stars in the competition. How can that happen? Fifa needs to do better.

"It has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths."

Belgium are, of course, furious. They issued a statement on Sunday saying they were "astonished" that Balogun had been cleared to play.

The Belgian FA referenced several regulations, workshop presentations and pre-tournament co-ordination meetings.

They are adamant that the decision contradicts the tournament regulations which state that a player "will automatically be suspended from their team's subsequent match".

In effect, they say Fifa used its disciplinary code to override the competition regulations.

Belgium head coach Rudi Garcia, speaking at a news conference, went further. He said: "I didn't know that [at] the Fifa World Cup 5 July is now 1 April, and that is April Fool's.

"We are not defending the national team or the federation, we're defending football."

What must the other players sent off at this tournament be thinking?

Take Qatar's Assim Madibo, involved in an unfortunate incident which led to a broken leg for Canada's midfielder Ismael Kone.

There is a clear case here that Madibo did not even make a challenge, that the injury happened by chance and not because of the nature of the tackle.

Yet Fifa handed Madibo a five-game ban - and extra three on top of the standard punishment for serious foul play.

Does the Balogun decision create precedent?

Was Balogun's red card harsh? Absolutely.

The striker was challenging Tarik Muharemovic, and accidentally brought his foot down on the ankle of the Bosnian.

Harsh does not mean it was an incorrect decision, or that it was so egregious that Fifa simply had to step in.

Should Fifa now rescind any suspension after a red card from an accidental act?

Coaches will be making the argument - precedent has been set, now let's have consistency.

Intent was taken out of the laws many years ago, and only the result of a challenge is meant to be considered.

Take Xavi Simons' red card against Liverpool last December. The Tottenham forward did not mean to stand on the back of Virgil van Dijk's leg, but he did and it was judged to endanger the safety of the opponent.

Tottenham's then-head coach Thomas Frank bemoaned the automatic three-match ban, but the club decided against appealing, believing they had no chance of success.

The Balogun decision adds to some concerns within the domestic leagues from decisions at this World Cup.

It is felt that the lack of yellow cards, some of the implementation of VAR, as well the interpretation of new laws, is impossible to replicate at league level.

And fans will expect it to be the same.

By repealing Balogun's ban, it can only make life more difficult for them.

Why can't the Football Association show clemency just like Fifa did?

Surely excessive bans like that suffered by Simons should be looked at?

How was Trump involved in the decision?

One of the cornerstones of Fifa's World Cup disciplinary process is that you cannot appeal.

Why has Fifa created a special case for the host nation's star player?

The red card and suspension caused uproar in the United States.

There have been claims in the US that the striker was given a double punishment by having to miss one match and almost a third of another - the last 27 minutes versus Bosnia and the tie with Belgium. This was grossly unfair, it was said by media commentators in the US.

There was pressure from the media and from the US administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US "got screwed with that red card" and that "there needs to be an appeal process" on Friday.

However, there was no expectation that Fifa would suddenly produce a special dispensation which would allow the former Arsenal striker to play.

Effectively, Balogun received a sin-bin against Bosnia and is free to play again.

CBS sources said Trump spoke to Infantino directly in a short conversation.

Infantino told the president that Fifa's disciplinary committee would look into it, according to one of the sources.

Andrew Giuliani, the executive director of the White House's World Cup task force, also spoke to Infantino about the situation, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick was also in communication with Fifa.

Spokespeople for the White House, Lutnick and Giuliani did not immediately respond to CBS News' request for comment.

On Sunday evening, Trump thanked Fifa for "reversing a great injustice" in a post on Truth Social.

Fifa's ethics committee had already been asked to investigate Infantino, claiming he broke the governing body's rules on political neutrality in relation to awarding Trump's Fifa Peace Prize.

The world governing body's statutes forbid political interference in football.

With it the US administration getting involved, there will be further questions to answer.

But before that, all eyes will be on Balogun and the US against Belgium on Monday.

[super_xabi]

They should tape dollar bills over all the branding they don't want seen so no-one is in any doubt

[Exiled_red]

I don’t think there are official brands for many of the products, it’s just that no brand gets to be seen anywhere near anything associated with the World Cup for free.

Yeah that is it, I also like that it's not just the sauces if you look closely you can see there is black tape over what is presumably the brand of tv, The amount of effort and manpower it must take to go around entire stadia doing this is mad.

I wonder if there is an official black tape brand of FIFA