When United States’s Folarin Balogun was sent off against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32 in the 2026 ongoing World Cup, almost everyone assumed he would automatically miss the Round of 16 against Belgium.

Under normal circumstances, they were absolutely right.

So what changed?

While President Donald Trump on Sunday thanked football’s world governing body FIFA for suspending the red card issued to USA’s Folarin Balogun, paving the way for the striker to play in a last-16 World Cup showdown against Belgium.

“Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

However, in this report, PUNCH Online will break down the decision in detail, explaining how FIFA’s disciplinary rules were applied, why Balogun remains eligible to play despite his red card, and why the ruling has sparked controversy across the football world.

The normal rule

The FIFA World Cup Regulations are straightforward.

If a player receives a direct red card, he is automatically suspended for the team’s next match.

The regulations state: “If a player or team official is sent off… they will automatically be suspended from their team’s subsequent match.”

That is why Balogun was initially ruled out, Royal Belgian FA stated in its reaction on Sunday.

The red card was NOT overturned

This is where many people are getting confused.

FIFA did not cancel the red card.

They did not declare that the referee made a mistake.

They did not erase the dismissal from the match record.

The red card still stands.

Reuters reports that FIFA is allowing Balogun to play without rescinding the red card.

FIFA is allowing Balogun to play without rescinding the red card.

“In line with article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the implementation of the match suspension is suspended for a probationary period of one year,” FIFA said in a statement.

FIFA used a different power — Article 27

Instead of overturning the red card, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee relied on Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

Article 27 gives the committee discretion to suspend the implementation of a disciplinary sanction for a probationary period.

In simple English: the punishment still exists; but FIFA decides not to enforce it immediately.

Reuters explains that FIFA suspended the implementation of Balogun’s one-match ban for a one-year probationary period.

Think of it like this…

Imagine a court says: “You have a one-month sentence, but it is suspended for one year.”

That doesn’t mean you serve the month later automatically.

PUNCH Online explains that this means:(i) behave for the next year; (ii)if nothing happens, you never serve it; and (iii) if you commit another qualifying offence, the suspended punishment can be activated.

That is essentially what FIFA has done.

So will Balogun serve the one-match ban later?

Not automatically.

Unless he commits another disciplinary offence of a similar nature during the one-year probation, he may never have to serve that one-match suspension at all.

Meanwhile, according to The Guardian UK, Donald Trump lobbied Fifa to lift the US striker Folarin Balogun’s one-game ban for a red card received in the team’s win over Bosnia and Herzegovina, preceding Sunday’s stunning announcement that he would be available for the cohosts’ last-16 clash against Belgium in Seattle on Monday night.

Sources have told the Guardian that Trump made three calls to Fifa, starting from Wednesday, to ensure that the change was made.

Why Belgium is furious

Belgium’s football federation argues that Article 27 conflicts with the World Cup regulations that make red-card suspensions automatic.

Their position is simple:

Article 10.5 of the World Cup Regulations says the suspension is automatic.

Article 66.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code says the same.

Therefore, they believe Article 27 should not have been used to avoid the mandatory suspension in the middle of the tournament.

That is why Belgium says the decision undermines sporting fairness, a Sunday report on Royal Belgian FA stated the nation’s position.

Belgium vowed to “defend football” after FIFA’s controversial decision to suspend the automatic one-match ban imposed on US striker Folarin Balogun sparked accusations of unfairness and fresh scrutiny.

Has FIFA ever done this before?

Yes.

According to FIFA’s explanation and multiple reports, Article 27 was previously used for Cristiano Ronaldo, whose suspension from a qualifying red card was partially suspended on probation, allowing him to play at the World Cup.

FIFA appears to have viewed that as a precedent for using the same disciplinary mechanism.

“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,” read UEFA’s statement.

The bottom line

What happened?

1. The red card was not overturned.

2. The red card was not expunged.

3. The automatic suspension was not cancelled.

4. FIFA used Article 27 to suspend the enforcement of the one-match ban.

5. Balogun is therefore eligible to play against Belgium.

6. The suspension remains “hanging over him” on a one-year probation and would only be enforced if he commits another qualifying disciplinary offence during that period.

This is precisely why the decision has become so controversial: the debate is not about whether Balogun received a red card— many more experts say it is about whether FIFA was entitled to postpone an automatic World Cup suspension by invoking Article 27. (PUNCH)

Update news