FIFA President Gianni Infantino finds himself “embroiled in a row over whether political influence” is starting to “alter outcomes on the pitch -- a new kind of crisis that takes the organisation into uncharted waters,” according to Josh Noble of the FINANCIAL TIMES. Critics mentioned that the latest episode is “symptomatic of deeper problems at Infantino’s FIFA, where they argue decision-making is increasingly designed to further political and commercial goals.” USMNT F Folarin Balogun was given an automatic one-match ban but was “abruptly suspended that punishment for a year,” a day after a phone call from President Trump to FIFA. The decision has “prompted outrage and complaints of political interference.” FIFA has not faced “allegations of bribery or corruption akin to the 2015 scandals" since then. But critics have “long complained that the governing body was backsliding on reforms, with power increasingly concentrated in the hands of the president’s office and little transparency about how FIFA makes key decisions.” FairSquare Dir Nicholas McGeehan said, “FIFA’s never had a great reputation. I think a lot of people involved in it just take that as par for the course. You cross the Rubicon when you start to mess with the game in such an obvious manner” (FINANCIAL TIMES, 7/6).
MASSIVE ROAR: In L.A., Ana Ceballos wrote Trump’s involvement in soccer’s disciplinary process “created an international uproar.” UEFA said that FIFA “crossed a red line” with the red card reversal. And now Trump and Infantino’s relationship has “drawn new scrutiny” (L.A. TIMES, 7/6). In N.Y., Tariq Panja wrote FIFA, “frequently mired in controversy, has shielded itself behind legalistic language about processes and committees,” insisting that Trump and Infantino are “merely interested parties to a decision made by an independent committee over which even FIFA’s top leader has no say.” Balogun’s case has no modern precedent at a World Cup, a fact that has “infuriated not only Belgium but soccer officials, coaches and politicians around the world.” Adding to the anger, a separate FIFA appeals committee ruled Belgium’s “request to revisit the decision inadmissible." The move threatens to follow Infantino “into his campaign for a new four-year term as president next year” (N.Y. TIMES, 7/6).
STEP DOWN NOW: In London, Morgan, Rumsby & Ducker note former soccer coach Jürgen Klopp “led a furious backlash” against Infantino, who “faces calls to resign” after overturning Balogun’s World Cup suspension. FIFA’s scrapping of Balogun’s suspension after Trump’s intervention has “provoked the first major rebellion in the game against Infantino.” Several British politicians such as Labour MP Clive Betts, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, former Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe, Labour peer Lord Rees, Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst Clive Efford, and Labour MP for St. Austell Noah Law “lined up to say Infantino had to go” (London TELEGRAPH, 7/7).
PROBLEMS AHEAD: In London, Miguel Delaney writes in the medium to long term, Infantino’s FIFA “may have opened football up to a world of needless difficulty and legal problems.” FIFA kept insisting that the disciplinary committee “was ‘independent.’” But one source mentioned that the idea that “such judicial bodies or ethics committees in Fifa are independent is one of the biggest falsehoods of all -- but that is also to evade the point.” The core issue is the idea that this “would not have happened without White House intervention,” which in other words is “political interference.” UEFA and so many of its associations are “outraged.” They immediately see the implications “in a way that Infantino either doesn’t or just doesn’t care about.” The decision opens FIFA up to “pushback in multiple unrelated cases” (London INDEPENDENT, 7/7).
BENDING THE KNEE: In Boston, James Pindell wrote the news that FIFA agreed to suspend Balogun’s one-game ban “struck many as similar to FIFA making up a peace prize and awarding it to Trump.” FIFA has been “bending to the world’s biggest players for a while: the United States and China.” FIFA is “behaving much like other global institutions increasingly do.” The biggest powers “have more leverage than everyone else, whether because of their economic might, political influence, or simply the revenue they generate.” All the while, the “middle powers” and Europe “can do little more than complain about rules and fairness.” If it seems as though there are “rules for everyone except the United States and the world’s biggest players, that’s because the institutions built to enforce those rules increasingly accommodate power instead” (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/6).
CASTING A SHADOW: In Dallas, Tim Cowlishaw wrote what was a nice break for USMNT “was a terrible precedent for the World Cup, an awful look for using political influence to change the outcome, or at least enhance, one team’s chances in a sporting event.” This one is “on FIFA and will have implications on rules and how they are interpreted or challenged for years to come” (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 7/6). ANDSCAPE’s William Rhoden wrote a “long-term injustice was done to soccer, to the World Cup and to the U.S. men’s national team.” At the end of the day, FIFA “may have gotten it right by doing the wrong thing” (ANDSCAPE, 7/6). In Sydney, Malcolm Knox writes Infantino’s position as head of FIFA “is untenable” (SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 7/7).
POLITICAL GAME: White House World Cup Task Force Exec Dir Andrew Giuliani said that he has “no concerns at all over FIFA’s decision to reduce Folarin Balogun’s suspension affecting the legacy or credibility” of what the USMNT accomplished at this tournament. In fact, Giuliani said that fans outside the U.S. “should be happy that an ‘injustice’ was corrected” (ESPN.com, 7/6). THE ATHLETIC’s Ian O’Connor wrote it is “hard to believe Trump’s influence played no role in the suspension of the suspension” -- despite FIFA and Infantino’s claims to the contrary -- it is also “hard to believe other countries in the tournament wouldn’t have done exactly what the Americans did here, and then hoped for the best.” O’Connor: “It wasn’t at its core about politics or favoritism. It was about righting a wrong and minimizing the damage done to a team’s chances of winning the World Cup. What nation in the same situation wouldn’t have done the same thing?” (THE ATHLETIC, 7/6).
