The NPR Politics Podcast - Trump calls FIFA, then FIFA lifts ban on U.S. star player

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to ask for a review of the red card and one-game suspension given to U.S. men’s national team star striker Folarin Balogun. Now Balogun can play in Monday’s game against Belgium. We discuss the politics behind FIFA’s unusual decision and how much of a role Trump played.This episode: senior political correspondent Tamara Keith, sports correspondent Becky Sullivan, and White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The World Cup has officially entered the politics chat. So if you listen to the show last week, you know that my can't let it go was Foller in Bolligan's red card. It meant the U.S. team striker would be suspended for the big match against Belgium tonight. But then President Trump made a phone call. And now Bolligan is being allowed to play. It's 105 p.m. on Monday, June 6th, and this is the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. I'm Frank O'Donias. I cover the White House.

I'm Becky Sullivan. I cover sports. And Becky, you have been traveling with the U.S. men's national team. And I'm hoping you can catch us up. What happened with Bolligan in that last match? And why did he get a red card? Yeah, boy, guys, this has been a mess. So this started last week in the USA's round of 32 game against Bosnia-Herzegovina. Florian Baligan is the team's striker.

He is the leading. scorer on the team. He has three goals so far at this World Cup. And he got tangled up with a Bosnian defender, both of them going after the ball. And in the tangle, Balagan's leg and his cleat really specifically came down on the ankle of the Bosnian defender and turned his ankle. If that kind of contact was intentional, that might be your red card that you normally see. But in fact, the referee thought that it wasn't intentional. He didn't even give a foul on the field at first. But then the video replay referee stepped in, called for a video review, took a close look at the play, including in slow motion, and ultimately recommended a red card, which was given, which meant

Baligan was kicked out of that game. The U.S. had to play a man down for the rest of the game. They won anyway. But red cards also come with a one-game suspension in the next game. So Balagan was supposed to sit out this Belgium game today. Okay. So as a viewer watching that game, it seemed like a totally bunk call. It seemed like, what are they doing?

This is terrible. Many Americans shared that view. Yeah, it was not the most clear-cut red card. I mean, cleats on an ankle, it's never good. But this, I thought personally, you know, that both of them were going for the ball, that the contact was clearly unintentional. This was not like Balligan had tackled the Bosnian defender. They were both trying to get the ball.

I think going from no foul at all to replay review to a red card came as a shirt. came as a shock to a lot of people watching. And then another shock came because we thought that these types of decisions couldn't be reviewed. But then this weekend, word came that FIFA, the organization overseeing the World Cup, was actually going to suspend that suspension and let bolligan play. So what happened there? Yes, this is definitely the most shocking part. This is like, it's not totally unprecedented, but it is essentially without, it's like out of the blue.

It's like extraordinary. It's like an extraordinary step by FIFA. So basically they came out and said yesterday morning that a disciplinary committee had reviewed the punishment and decided that balagan's suspension would be put on hold for a year essentially. You know, as part of a probation, so if he commits another red card level foul, then this probation ends immediately. He has to serve the suspension. but the effect is that he gets to play in the game after he got a red card, which is highly unusual. And, you know, sort of instantly caused this uproar, especially followed by the reports that President Trump had personally called FIFA FIFA president, Johnny Ann Fantino, to talk about this. And Franco, that's where you come in. That's where the politics come in.

The president of the United States, in fact, did call the head of FIFA. I asked for a review by FIFA. I spoke to a man who's highly respected. And by the way, whose level of respect has gone up tenfold. And it was good before this started. But, you know, he really pushed it. How is Trump explaining this call? And is he taking credit here?

In some ways he's taking credit, but in other ways he's definitely downplaying his role. He said he asked for a review, but that it was not his decision. He didn't demand that this. change. But look, it's the president in the United States, in the home country. We've all reported so many times of the relationship that Trump has with Infantino. It's hard to see this kind of influence. I mean, it was really fascinating, though, kind of watching Trump give this explanation. I mean, he said he watched the play and asked for a review because he didn't think it was a foul. I mean, like you said, like a lot of us think that it wasn't necessarily foul. But, you know,

Trump also said that he didn't even know what a red card was before this whole incident, but that he loves sports and that he was very good at this stuff. You know, he called the foul, quote, very unfair that not only had Balligan gotten this foul, but then he would have to miss a whole other game of suspension. He felt that that wasn't right. He also brought up the subject of the referee. He called the referee suspect. That's a quote.

So clearly he was activated by all of this. And then he follows that whole multiple minute, you know, a sort of stream of remarks about the unfairness of the foul with this sort of matter of fact statement like, yeah, I asked for a review. I talked to him and I asked for a review, which I think is extraordinary as well. And Franco, what's fascinating to me about this is yesterday I was reaching out to administration officials to try to figure out. Initially, it wasn't clear whether President Trump was personally involved or had personally intervened. And so I eventually got a statement from a U.S. official saying that they did speak just because the president wanted to better

understand the reason why the red card was given and why there was a suspension. But it's definitely all handled by an independent board, essentially trying to put a little bit of an arm's link between the president and the outcome. Yeah. I mean, I think often with Trump, once we actually, us reporters, that is, get in front of him and start asking him, his lips get a lot looser than his team does. And he clearly was admitting that he had a role. I think what's so fascinating about kind of like that reporting that you got was, you know, Trump's here trying to still say that, you know, he, you know, didn't make the decision. The committee made the decision and downplaying his role. But not only did a head of state call, but the White House is providing evidence.

that was apparently used in the appeal process. I mean, talk about going outside of regular channels. We're not talking about U.S. soccer filing appeal. We're talking about the U.S. president and his administration providing evidence. I mean, it's just, I mean, it's kind of bonkers. I would say, you know, from the sporting perspective here, that I found that wording very interesting, too, because what it does is it preserves. there's this legal needle that needs to be thread. There is a legal process that these sporting bodies have to follow. There is this like, you know, independent court ultimately that adjudicates these things. And they look at what FIFA says, what its regulations are, what its processes are. And so they are trying to say that they are following those processes, that there was an independent disciplinary board. In fact, Johnny Infantino put out a statement this morning,

acknowledging that he did speak to President Trump, but emphasizing the review process was totally independent. You know, from U.S. Soccer's perspective on background, I've been talking to folks there. They say that they are the ones who handled the appeal. They say that a lot of people, you know, a lot of sources weighed in with information that they may or may not have used in their appeal. I think maybe one thing that was in question here was whether the video replay review had followed rules of the game in terms of what kinds of footage they looked at, whether it was appropriate to use slow motion replay to look. That might have been something that had come up when the White House was providing this information, so to speak. But that's

something U.S. soccer may have also come up with by themselves. So it's not clear exactly, you know, what the involvement was. It's certainly, I think FIFA has an interest in saying that Trump had no real part here. Certainly U.S. soccer has an interest in saying Trump had no real part here because they want balligan to play. They don't want this thing to be challenged. They don't want it to go to some sort of higher arbitration body to overturn and get things stepped on here. And all that stuff that Becky just laid out is absolutely true. What is also absolutely true is Trump had this call. He had this conversation. This decision was made after that conversation. We can talk more about the relationship between Trump and Infantino. So close. Best of buddies,

practically. Soon after the decision was made, and President Trump almost immediately, once this was released, President Trump was saying that, you know, this justice was made, that this was overturned. So it seems very clear that Trump was very much in the loop and very much close to what was happening. Correlation at the very least. Okay, we're going to take a quick break and we'll have more in a moment. And we're back. And we know that President Trump and FIFA's president Gianni Infantino are close. But intervening in a sporting event like this really does seem next level. Franco, you have been following this relationship over time. Can you just talk about this connection? Yeah. I mean, it is a pretty fascinating connection. I mean, look, it makes sense that the president of FIFA is going to, you know, develop. a relationship with the head of the state of where the World Cup is being held. And not only is the World Cup being held in the United States, but also the Club World Cup was held in the U.S.

And that was another opportunity for, you know, FIFA and Infantino and Trump to develop a relationship. But also, Infantino has been at the White House so many times. I can't tell you how many times Infantino has been in Oval Office meetings with President Trump. I mean, I think he is definitely, if you were to like compare him to other leaders, other, you know, perhaps world leaders, Infantino has been there quite a bit and would be arguably one of the top attendees of oval office meetings for people who are not in this administration. I mean, Infantino also, you know, was invited to Egypt with Trump for, you know,

the Summit for Peace. He's been at several peace events. And of course, Infantino kind of served in presenting Trump with the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, which in and of itself was pretty controversial, considering that FIFA never had this kind of award. And it was largely seen as a way of, you know, curring favor with Trump who was frankly very angry because he had not received the Nobel Peace Prize. It's almost like Gianni Infantino is a head of state or behaves like a head of state. You know, you'll see him positioned along with other heads of state at these meetings. International soccer, FIFA, just historically over the decades, has a long track record of corrupt or questionable decisions, a lack of transparency, you know, this sort of idea and feeling that despite all of the rules and regulations at the end of the day, it's just some. guys in some smoky room making decisions.

You know, in his statement today, Infantino sort of gave a nod to the fact that he receives calls from heads of state all the time, government officials, football stakeholders, and business executives on many different issues is what he said, you know, casting this as just sort of a matter of course and everyday thing. Obviously, the reaction we're seeing in the soccer world tells us that it's not every day. The reaction from Belgium, the reaction from the European football. Federation, which said that it, quote, crossed a red line this decision by FIFA. You have coaches from other teams, officials from other teams saying, well, if this is the precedent that FIFA is

setting, then we're going to challenge every red card we get in this tournament, every yellow card we get in this tournament. In fact, France has already challenged a yellow card that they received in their most recent match. We've talked a lot on this podcast about how President Trump views things very transactionally. He wants to get his way, politically, economically, socially. Now this incident has shown that the president is willing to get involved with the integrity of a sporting event he's not even responsible for. But, you know, he clearly thought it would have a benefit to American athletes to weigh in. What do you make of that? I mean, I can't say on that surprise that President Trump would try to weigh in on something that he is interested in.

I mean, this is how the president works. You know, he's very focused on winning and he's very focused on using tools at his disposal to get. what he wants. I mean, let's also remember what I find very interesting. We haven't talked about this is that it was only a few days ago that we're talking about Trump's efforts to fight birthright citizenship. Baligan is actually a recipient of birthright citizenship. Yeah, he was born to Nigerian parents. He was raised in England in London, but he was born in the United States from this quirky story. His mom was very pregnant with him when she came to Brooklyn to visit some family. And then when she went to go board the plane back overseas,

airline staff told her that she was too pregnant to fly. They didn't want to risk a birth on the flight. And so she stayed in Brooklyn, stayed with his family member. And Balligan was born in New York. And so even though he didn't live here, he was raised overseas. He was eligible for the U.S. team. And he made the switch a couple years ago. And now Trump is fighting for him. So like is often with the case, Trump does what is in what suits him, what benefits him. And I just think this is kind of another example of that. Trump has a relationship with Gianni Infantino. He likes to call him Johnny. And, you know, I'm not surprised that he would use that relationship. I thought he would when I first heard that he was, you know, that he did not think it was a good call. And now to see this actually happen, I can't say that I'm shocked, considering, you know, all that we've seen and, you know, from the past two years. And this is also a very populist move, I guess, in a way. Like here's this thing that people in America are talking about and are passionate about. And there's sort of like a bipartisan outrage about the red card. And he's able to jump on that train and then sort of kind of maybe get take a little credit, sort of, but not fully because he doesn't want it to seem corrupt. Yeah, without a doubt. He's still trying to find the balance.

But you could also watching, you know, the press conference day, watching the, you know, the conversation with reporters. He was trying to like broach this delicately. But Trump, as we know and as we have reported many, many times struggles not to take credit or to let you know when he did something that he thinks is good. And, you know, which just kind of what's kind of disappointing is like I actually went to a World Cup match this weekend. I was in Philadelphia with my 11-year-old. we went and saw France play Paraguay. And it was such an awesome event. It was so much fun, you know, seeing some of these great players like Killeen Mbapé and, you know, in a really hard match.

And during that game, I was literally thinking about how cool this World Cup has been, not only, you know, for the U.S., for the U.S. team, but like how people have, like, really been, like, seeing America in a different light. We've talked about like all like the food and the culture. Like it's been really cool. And I just worry that this kind of puts a little bit of a damper on all that. That it kind of brings politics into something that has been a like a universally a good story. It is given Americans something to talk about, to feel good about, to rally around to, you know, like to for once, we weren't divided into a bunch of political camps. I will say. And I don't know what you think, Becky, is. You're the professional here on this level. But to me, almost like the fact that the U.S. is in this kind of a controversy where an asterisk could be placed on a victory is almost fascinating to me because the U.S. men's soccer team has been so bad historically that the fact that they are even controversially in the, you know, this like this wiggle room, I find as as a fascinating place. I mean, I think about like controversy

always follows FIFA. I mean, we, we remember the hand of God of Argentina and winning the World Cup like that. I certainly wouldn't want the U.S. to win the World Cup in kind of this kind of shadow over it. But the fact that the U.S. could now be part of that lore is kind of fascinating. I do think there's one sort of maybe cynical viewpoint from which you could say, like, this marks the moment that the U.S. has arrived as a soccer country, that the U.S. is now the one who is entangled with these questions around FIFA and possible corruption and these shady phone calls between a president, a head of state, and the head of FIFA. I mean, the U.S. has been on the losing end of some of this stuff before. You know, in 2002, this is the last time the U.S. went to the quarterfinal in the World Cup. You know, seemingly a clear handball prevented a goal. If FIFA didn't do anything about that then, you know, Germany was the beneficiary.

And, you know, if that goal had been awarded or if a penalty had been called and a goal scored off that penalty, who knows what would have happened. The U.S. might have won that game. In the end, they lost. It just seemed at the time like it was a matter, of course. As you're saying, Franco, there's a lot of these World Cup matches that sort of would have asterisks on them, you think. But in the end, they're celebrated by their country anyway. And I think it's important to remember that Balligan's red card wouldn't have let him be suspended for the rest of this World Cup.

It would have only been affected for today's match. And so if they win this game convincingly, and especially if Balligan doesn't play a huge role in that win, then I think they can put this all behind them with the impression that they might have won this game even without him and that he would have been a big. available for the quarterfinal anyway. Well, we will be watching. At least I know I'll be watching. I'll be watching. We'll be watching. I'll be there.

You'll literally be there. All right. I'll be there. I'll be in the stadium. Jealous. All right. Becky Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us on the pod today.

Absolutely. Thanks for having me. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. I'm Frank Ordineas. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.