2026 FIFA World Cup

[CONN CHRIS]

Now, Belgium is apparently going to have an appeal heard. I hope they win.

I thought the red card was questionable but I want to cheer for our squad tonight and knowing there is a taint on the game sort of ruins that.

FIFA acts like they are a bunch of boxing promoters.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Now, Belgium is apparently going to have an appeal heard. I hope they win.

I thought the red card was questionable but I want to cheer for our squad tonight and knowing there is a taint on the game sort of ruins that.

FIFA acts like they are a bunch of boxing promoters.

If they reversed their decision it would surprise me more than seeing Judge Thomas carrying ACLU membership card.

[dsvitak]

It REALLY makes me angry that the US was allowed to intimidate FIFA into allowing the American forward to play in today's game.

If I am the US coach, then I SIT him for the first half. IF the US is winning, I continue to sit him. If the US is losing, then I SIT HIM, STILL.

Bullsh!t.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Now, Belgium is apparently going to have an appeal heard. I hope they win.

I thought the red card was questionable but I want to cheer for our squad tonight and knowing there is a taint on the game sort of ruins that.

FIFA acts like they are a bunch of boxing promoters.

I don't think they should win. It definitely should have been a yellow card. I don't think a red card because the intent wasn't there. A straight red card isn't usually pulled for something accidental. But I'm going by WC experience only. So maybe I'm wrong.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Most don't. I think Messi gets 9 figures from Miami. But it is generally accepted that if you want to make the big $, you go to Europe or Saudi Arabia to play.

Well sure, but the path leading to that is a bit more difficult if you live in the US. Most of our better athletes are going for the money here in the US.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Well sure, but the path leading to that is a bit more difficult if you live in the US. Most of our better athletes are going for the money here in the US.

True. But if you choose soccer, there is a path there. About half of the American team is signed overseas. If you have the talent the soccer world will find you. And if you can play, you will get paid.

So I dont think it is a decision based on money. But based on familiarity. More young men here are going to want to grow up to be the next Mahomes and Curry instead of Haaland. Not for the $. But the popularity.

If FIFA really wanted to popularize USA soccer, they would invest in the collegiate game. Moms are already keeping their sons off the gridiron. And the chance to get a scholly would make the sport more appealing. And allow the Americans to catch up with overseas kids who are in academies befoee thier teens.

But I dont think that is FIFA's aim. They want more eyes. They dont care if the product is more Americanized. They want the Americans' dollars.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

It REALLY makes me angry that the US was allowed to intimidate FIFA into allowing the American forward to play in today's game.

If I am the US coach, then I SIT him for the first half. IF the US is winning, I continue to sit him. If the US is losing, then I SIT HIM, STILL.

Bullsh!t.

Every victory the Americans achieve from here on out will have an asterisk.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Every victory the Americans achieve from here on out will have an asterisk.

Couldn't care less. Shouldn't have been a red card. Worse things have happened in World cups that had more dire consequences. A Maradona hand ball that was never called comes to mind.

Besides that, didn't FIFA use article 27 to allow Renaldo of Portugal to play in the first few games of this tournament? They suspended his suspension. Does Portugal get an asterisk?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

It REALLY makes me angry that the US was allowed to intimidate FIFA into allowing the American forward to play in today's game.

If I am the US coach, then I SIT him for the first half. IF the US is winning, I continue to sit him. If the US is losing, then I SIT HIM, STILL.

Bullsh!t.

You're letting your hatred for a certain individual to cloud your judgement. An unintentional foul was committed IMO. It didn't deserve a straight red card. You still want to punish this player because you hate the person you think righted the wrong.

[Ragnar]

Request denied. He'll play in tonight's game.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You're letting your hatred for a certain individual to cloud your judgement. An unintentional foul was committed IMO. It didn't deserve a straight red card. You still want to punish this player because you hate the person you think righted the wrong.

I'm not going to speak on politics. My whole thing is you set the rules, now abide by them.

FIFA came out with this statement that the red card was irreversible & could not be appealed. And then, voila!, April Fool's. You guys saw when it happened live I thought it was a bad call. You've read my criticism that the refs are harsher on unpreventable accidents then they are on deliberate violations. But this isn't about the red card.

This is about integrity & principles being conveniently set aside. No one can claim to have integrity & principle if they jettison them as soon as it causes them some discomfort. That is the opposite of integrity & principle.

FIFA has yet to give a reason for the reversal. They only state a by-law that give them the ability to if they, and only they, decide the need arises. That makes them the WWE. Entertainment. Hollywood scripts. We don't watch FIFA, NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL, Premier, Champions', NCAA, MSL, PBA, PGA, Cornhole league for entertainment. We watch it for fair competition.

Everyone is given a rule book to start the competition & we expect it to be followed. It's a rule book. Not a suggestion book. Or a "if all goes well" book.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You're letting your hatred for a certain individual to cloud your judgement. An unintentional foul was committed IMO. It didn't deserve a straight red card. You still want to punish this player because you hate the person you think righted the wrong.

Absolutely not. The red card was given. That should have been it.

This has NOTHING to do with politics, what's fair is fair.

[Sweed]

Messi didn't get a red card for his studs to the calf. With that in mind I have no problem with Balogun's card being rescinded. It's not wrong to ask for consistency.

To be fair some were upset about Messi not getting a red card. While others said Messi should not get a red. Those "some" and "others" were not the "I watch soccer once every four years crowd", but former players and Euro play by play people that grew up with the game.

There is no more taint to the remaining USA games than there is for the remaining Argentina games. But we'll get villainized while Messi/Argentina will get a pass.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Every victory the Americans achieve from here on out will have an asterisk.

Every victory at this tainted tournament, past and future, will have an asterisk.

Infantino is the most corrupt and rotten creature in soccerball right now, and perhaps ever (remember Sepp Blatter?). I hope he doesn't accidentally choke on all the bribe money. Oh, what a tragic loss that would be for the world.

The Belgian soccer federation challenged FIFA’s ruling not to enforce a ban on Balogun. The European soccer body UEFA described the decision as an “incomprehensible” breach of soccer’s rule of law.

AP News

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Couldn't care less. Shouldn't have been a red card. Worse things have happened in World cups that had more dire consequences. A Maradona hand ball that was never called comes to mind.

Besides that, didn't FIFA use article 27 to allow Renaldo of Portugal to play in the first few games of this tournament? They suspended his suspension. Does Portugal get an asterisk?

Apples and oranges. First, it was not a single exemption specifically for Cristiano Ronaldo, but a whole group of players from different nations. The reason was of course money. More people will watch when Cristiano plays than when he doesn't.

This has in various forms been around for 20 years now; f.e. ever since Michael Ballack was banned on yellow cards from the 2002 final, yellow card tallies were erased after the quarterfinals. Now they're even erasing them after the group stage. All to get the best pairs of legs on the field at any one time.

And that still doesn't explain Balogun, who's not even particularly great by *Ligue 1* standards.

And second, FIFA waived those suspensions without a call from Antonio José Seguro, president of Portugal.

From here on, the World Cup is irrepairably damaged. The only thing that might yet patch the crack (for another five minutes) would be a Belgium win.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Messi didn't get a red card for his studs to the calf. With that in mind I have no problem with Balogun's card being rescinded. It's not wrong to ask for consistency.

To be fair some were upset about Messi not getting a red card. While others said Messi should not get a red. Those "some" and "others" were not the "I watch soccer once every four years crowd", but former players and Euro play by play people that grew up with the game.

There is no more taint to the remaining USA games than there is for the remaining Argentina games. But we'll get villainized while Messi/Argentina will get a pass.

Messi will never get a card unless he's in a casino. He is obviously the Tom Brady/LeBron James of futbol. And I'm not referring to any GOAT status.

[Cobra Mgr]

Meanwhile, stay classy Paraguay.

[dsvitak]

Wow. Belgium is pushing this just as hard as they can.

25% chance the overturning will be overturned.

50% chance the American will play.

25% chance Belgium refuses to take the field, and all HELL breaks lose, by insisting the US has an illegal player on the field.

If the last scenario happens, the world's governing body in Switzerland can award the game to Belgium, in just a day or two.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Wow. Belgium is pushing this just as hard as they can.

25% chance the overturning will be overturned.

50% chance the American will play.

25% chance Belgium refuses to take the field, and all HELL breaks lose, by insisting the US has an illegal player on the field.

If the last scenario happens, the world's governing body in Switzerland can award the game to Belgium, in just a day or two.

Not playing would be silly on Belgium's part. That would be "admitting" they are afraid of playing the US w/Balogun.

What they should do is play under protest. If they win, they look glorious from winning despite the underhanded mess. If they lose, they will have the support of the soccer world behind their backs. And they can gather momentum in ousting the leadership of FIFA or forcing serious reforms. I'm sure the majority of countries don't have the superstars or influential politicians that the US or Portugal has. Thus, willing to see some kind of push back to fair rulings.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Not playing would be silly on Belgium's part. That would be "admitting" they are afraid of playing the US w/Balogun.

What they should do is play under protest. If they win, they look glorious from winning despite the underhanded mess. If they lose, they will have the support of the soccer world behind their backs. And they can gather momentum in ousting the leadership of FIFA or forcing serious reforms. I'm sure the majority of countries don't have the superstars or influential politicians that the US or Portugal has. Thus, willing to see some kind of push back to fair rulings.

I don't believe that there is a such a thing as playing under protest. If they play, and lose, I think it ends there.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than us can weigh in on this.

Either way, they have the entire world (outside of the US) on their side.

"I got them to do it." That's a problem.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

I don't believe that there is a such a thing as playing under protest. If they play, and lose, I think it ends there.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than us can weigh in on this.

Either way, they have the entire world (outside of the US) on their side.

"I got them to do it." That's a problem.

I'm not sure there is such a thing either. I mostly mean making sure everyone knows they are playing despite feeling what is happening is illegal.

There is a "Sports Court" in Switzerland somewhere. So I believe they can take it up there and get a ruling & compensation. But I doubt anything could come from it. FIFA did write into their laws they could do this & apparently nowhere is it outlined there has to be reasoning behind it. As I stated before, people in power are not going to write rules that limits their own power.

IMO, their best hope to get something positive is to try & start a coup d'état. But if they did stand firm and boycott, it would make the controversy even bigger. And the public outcry would up the temperature on the FIFA brass to come clean on how this transpired.