Loading...
FIFA, the White House and a Red Card that isn’t: Just give Trump the first prize already
In sport — as in so much else — America does its own thing. Major League Baseball (most major American sports revolve around matches between privately-owned teams, based in cities à la IPL or club football) has a “World Series” every year in which most of the world does not participate. So, too, with basketball and what Americans call football. “Soccer”, though, is actually a truly global sport and one in which the US is far from ruling the roost. It is full of upsets and heartbreaks, and part of the joy of the Beautiful Game lies in its sorrows — a shot that goes off the pole, a spectacular save during a penalty shootout, the offside that robs the elation of what looked like a goal. The greatest of these, though, may be crying foul at a foul against your country’s star player. Everywhere, fans know that sinking feeling after a Red Card and complain against the referee, knowing that it is futile and they must live with the decision. Everywhere, that is, except in Donald Trump’s America.
Until last week, Trump’s imprimatur did not dominate the FIFA World Cup, which the US is co-hosting: While the actions of his administration, including the ordeal faced by Iran’s national team and the refusal to grant Somalian referee Omar Artan a visa, made headlines, Trump himself did not attend a single game and has hardly mentioned the tournament on his prolific social media posts. Then, on Wednesday, the US’s star striker Folarin Balogun was given a Red Card in the game against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which carried a one-match ban. Trump reportedly made multiple phone calls to FIFA, which announced that it had suspended the ban under Article 27 of its disciplinary code.
“The thing about football,” Terry Pratchett wrote, “is that it’s never just about football”. The Balogun episode is a reminder of that axiom. Even before the tournament began, Article 27 was used by FIFA to suspend a ban that allowed Cristiano Ronaldo to play in the first two matches of this World Cup. After all, no Ronaldo would have meant a lot less money and fewer eyeballs. And FIFA President Gianni Infantino awarded Trump a “peace prize” — made up all but on the spot — in December last year. The logic of his actions is familiar to anyone who has played gully cricket: It’s best not to upset the rich guy who owns the bat. Turns out, even on the biggest sporting stage, the backyard bully rules the roost.
Overall Analysis
The editorial is a sharp critique of the growing influence of politics and power over international sport, using the alleged intervention of U.S. President Donald Trump in a FIFA disciplinary decision as its central example. The author argues that football, which prides itself on fairness and equal rules for all, risks losing its credibility when influential political leaders and commercial interests influence sporting decisions.
The article begins by contrasting the United States’ unique approach to sports with the universal culture of football. While American sports often crown “world champions” through domestic leagues, football is portrayed as a genuinely global game where every nation competes under the same rules. The author celebrates football’s unpredictability and emotional appeal, emphasizing that controversial referee decisions, including Red Cards, are accepted as part of the sport. This sets up the irony that, in Trump’s America, even these universally accepted rules appear negotiable.
The editorial then examines the alleged suspension of Folarin Balogun’s one-match ban after Trump’s reported intervention with FIFA. Rather than treating this as an isolated incident, the author presents it as evidence of political influence overriding sporting regulations. The language becomes increasingly sarcastic, implying that powerful individuals receive preferential treatment unavailable to ordinary teams or players.
The final section broadens the criticism beyond Trump to FIFA itself. By recalling the organization’s earlier decision to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to participate despite disciplinary issues and mentioning FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s unusual “peace prize” for Trump, the editorial suggests that commercial interests and political convenience frequently outweigh principles of fairness. The comparison with gully cricket, where the owner of the bat often dictates the rules, makes the argument relatable and memorable. The concluding metaphor, “the backyard bully rules the roost,” reinforces the idea that power, rather than justice, increasingly shapes global sport.
Overall, the editorial argues that football’s greatest strength lies in its fairness and universal rules. When those rules are bent for influential figures, the integrity of the sport itself comes under question. Through irony, humour, and satire, the author criticizes both political interference and FIFA’s willingness to accommodate powerful interests.
Important Vocabulary (5)
- Imprimatur – Official approval or endorsement.
- Futile – Incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.
- Axiom – A statement or principle accepted as universally true.
- Eyeballs – Informal term for audience attention or viewership.
- Rules the roost – An idiom meaning to dominate or exercise complete control over others.
Conclusion & Tone
The editorial contends that football loses its moral authority when political influence and commercial interests are allowed to override established rules. It criticizes both FIFA and powerful political leaders for creating the perception that influential individuals can operate above the laws that govern everyone else.
Tone: Satirical, critical, ironic, and strongly skeptical of political interference in international sport.
