US President Donald Trump and FIFA president Gianni Infantino, at the Oval Office of the White House, Washington, on August 22, 2025. (AFP/File Photo) As the 2026 FIFA World Cup enters its final stages, the competition had been going well, both on and off the field. On the pitch, the performance of nations such as Cape Verde and the Democratic Republic of Congo captivated fans and justified the controversial expansion to 48 teams from the previous 32. Thrilling games proved the adage that in all World Cup the football does the talking once the matches begin. Off the pitch, the stadiums were largely full and worries that Immigration and Customs Enforcement might target vulnerable communities at games were unmet, despite a sharp rise in ICE arrests more generally. Above all, US President Donald Trump had refrained from commenting on the games even as the US team performed strongly and won the group to advance to a Round of 32 clash with Bosnia and Herzegovina. While the US cruised to a 2-0 win that marked their first victory in a knockout round since 2002, the game was marred by a red card for star US striker Folarin Balogun, who had scored the opening goal in the match. As anger mounted over the sending off, Trump suddenly took credit for a FIFA decision to suspend Balogun’s one-match ban that freed him to play in the Round of 16 against Belgium. In the furore that followed, a sharp divide opened up between American commentators, who praised FIFA for reversing a harsh decision, and international fans, mainly from Europe, who condemned FIFA president Gianni Infantino for bowing to political pressure. As with so much of the discourse around Trump, there was little in the way of middle ground, as further comments by Trump, calling into question the character of the Brazilian referee who had sent Balogun off, and by Senator Lindsay Graham thanking Trump for intervening, added further fuel to the flames. Belgium’s subsequent 4-1 win dampened the debate, but the events cast a shadow over the 2026 World Cup and Infantino’s leadership. Infantino spent much of the 18 months preceding the World Cup developing a personal relationship with Trump that he may have hoped would translate into political capital during the tournament were it to become necessary to seek Trump’s assistance. And yet, at several critical junctures, this approach appears to have failed, notably when Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry to the US despite being on the FIFA list of approved referees for the World Cup and in possession of a valid visa. If there was ever an occasion for Infantino to use the relationship he had cultivated with Trump it was then, particularly as Infantino had given assurances in 2025 about access for all participants. The restrictions placed on Iran’s team also reflected poorly on Infantino’s seeming inability to pressure the White House on an issue as basic as ensuring fair treatment of all nations. FIFA will survive the controversies of 2026 although Infantino, who is seeking election for a third term as president, may emerge weakened if UEFA, the European governing body, and individual football federations, such as Norway or Germany, increase their scrutiny of him. The outcome of the vote, to take place at a FIFA Congress in Rabat in March 2027, is hardly in doubt as the expansion of the World Cup and the record levels of revenue expected to be distributed to the 211 member federations has won Infantino widespread support. However, the intensity of European backlash to Infantino may only deepen the splits within world football between ‘legacy’ and ‘frontier’ markets that became so evident and vocal during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar and may be so again ahead of Saudi Arabia in 2034. What is perhaps more unusual is that the brazen nature of Trump’s phone call and appeal to Infantino to reverse Balogun’s red card, while in character for the most transactional and unconventional president in modern times, should have happened at all. Few had Trump and the White House publicly boasting of their role in getting a refereeing decision overturned on their list of potential issues before the tournament began. While it is not the first time that a World Cup has been overshadowed by direct political intervention, the two most direct parallels were long in the past and believed to belong in the history books rather than have any contemporary relevance to the global game in the twenty first century. Thus, the second World Cup, which took place in fascist Italy in 1934, was marred by allegations that Benito Mussolini had intervened to secure favourable refereeing outcomes in Italy’s games in both the quarter-final and the semi-final, although match-fixing was never proven. Forty-four years later, another host nation, Argentina, went into their final game in the second-round group in 1978 needing to beat Peru by a minimum of four goals to advance to their first World Cup final at the expense of great rivals and three-time champions, Brazil. Peru duly lost 6-0 as it emerged that General Videla, the president of military-run Argentina, had visited the Peruvian changing room before the game, again sparking allegations, never fully dispelled, of political interference at the highest level. The lasting significance of Trump’s action, and the perception that it worked, given that the red card was rescinded, may be that it sets a precedent for other leaders who may be tempted to make a similar intervention in future competitions. Already this week, a Labour member of parliament wrote to Britain’s outgoing Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to request that the government raise with Infantino the red card given to an English player during their Round of 16 game against Mexico. While that particular intervention was frivolous and more of a populist stunt than anything else, a Rubicon has been crossed for political leaders who may seek relief in high-stakes clashes in coming World Cups. It will certainly be harder for FIFA to push back against any such attempts, given the events of the past week, which only further reinforce how sport and politics remain so deeply intertwined. The writer is a leading scholar specialising in Gulf politics and international political economy, and a fellow at the Baker Institute and co-director of the Middle East Energy Roundtable.
admin
