WHEN FIFA’S RULE BOOK STARTS TAKING PHONE CALLS

By Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr (Rtd), former commander of The Gambia National Army

I honestly don’t know whether to call it ‘ironic karma’, ‘football diplomacy’, or simply ‘FIFA’s new customer service hotline for the powerful’. Whatever the appropriate label may be, what transpired in the World Cup knockout match between Senegal and Belgium, in which Senegal surrendered a 2-0 lead to lose 3-2, has left a lingering question over the fairness of both the officiating and the tournament’s rules.

If anyone still believed that football is decided solely by the players on the pitch, recent events suggest that they may also need to keep an eye on the VIP lounge.

To begin with, virtually every neutral football analyst who watched the group-stage draw between England and Ghana agreed that Ghana was denied a stonewall penalty after an English defender brought down a Ghanaian attacker inside the penalty area during what appeared to be a clear goal-scoring opportunity. By any reasonable interpretation of the Laws of the Game, England should not only have conceded a penalty but the defender should also have been shown a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

Neither happened and England survived.

Now let us turn to the match that prompted me to write this piece.

Until the 85th minute, Senegal appeared to have one foot in the next round, comfortably leading Belgium 2-0. I must admit that I initially blamed Senegal’s coach, Mr. Pape Thiaw, for disrupting a winning combination by introducing substitutes who proved less effective than the players they replaced.

Belgium’s veteran striker, Romelu Lukaku, then scored a perfectly legitimate goal to reduce the deficit to 2-1. No complaints there.

The real drama came moments later.

Numerous television replays led many observers to argue that Tielemans had pushed the Senegalese defender before heading the ball into the net, yet neither referee Said Martínez nor VAR intervened.

Apparently, pushing an opponent before scoring was, in this case, considered an advanced heading technique.

The referee saw nothing.

VAR saw even less.

Then came Belgium’s winning goal from the penalty spot.

The penalty itself has generated just as much controversy. Numerous video replays appear to show that Senegal’s Lamin Camara did not actually foul Tielemans, who seemed to collapse with all the theatrical conviction of an actor auditioning for an international award.

The referee bought the performance and VAR happily endorsed the script.

Belgium celebrated.

Senegal was sent home.

Those of us who supported Senegal cannot reasonably describe that victory as clean or controversy-free. Belgium may have advanced on paper, but the manner in which they did so will continue to invite legitimate questions.

Then, just when one thought the surprises had ended, FIFA unveiled what appeared to be an entirely new chapter in its rule book.

American striker Folarin Balogun received a red card for foul play during the United States’ match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under FIFA’s own regulations, his suspension for the next match against Belgium should have been automatic.

Except that simplicity apparently has exceptions.

Trump called Infantino and the suspension was reversed

According to multiple media reports, President Donald Trump personally contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino to request a review of Balogun’s suspension. Shortly thereafter, FIFA invoked Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code to suspend the one-match ban, making Balogun eligible to face Belgium.

One almost expected the announcement to conclude with, “Your call is important to us.”

Belgium, understandably, has appealed. They have expressed dissatisfaction, as have many independent observers. Yet the decision may stand.

Which raises an interesting constitutional question for Fifa.

Exactly which article of the Laws of the Game permits presidential intervention by telephone?

Is there now a “Head of State Appeal Clause” hidden somewhere between Law 11 and Law 12?

And while we are discussing fairness, have we all forgotten the Somali referee, widely regarded as one of Africa’s finest, who was selected by FIFA to officiate at the tournament but was reportedly denied entry to the United States over highly questionable visa issues?

Many critics faulted Fifa President Gianni Infantino for failing to defend one of his own officials. Others wondered why the eight African nations participating in the tournament remained conspicuously silent instead of presenting a united challenge against what many viewed as an unjust decision.

Silence, it seems, has become another official lanuage of international football.

Taken together, these episodes leave the unmistakable impression that the tournament’s rules, their interpretation, and even the officiating have been compromised from the very beginning.

So, why stop here?

If President Trump can reportedly persuade Fifa to reverse Folarin Balogun’s suspension with a telephone call, then perhaps His Majesty King Charles III should immediately ring Gianni Infantino and request that the red card shown to England’s Jarell Quansah for his dangerous tackle on Mexico’s Jesús Gallardo also be rescinded.

Surely royal influence deserves at least the same consideration as presidential influence.

Otherwise, Fifa might as well amend its regulations to read:

“The Laws of the Game shall apply equally to all teams, unless a sufficiently influential world leader calls the President of Fifa.”

At least then, hypocrisy would no longer masquerade as neutrality. It would simply become official policy.