Fifa's Balogun climbdown sparks Uefa fury, but Infantino's grip on power looks unshakeable Fifa's sudden decision to lift a red card suspension on US forward Balogun, after Donald Trump's intervention, has triggered fury from Uefa and Jurgen Klopp, but the numbers suggest Gianni Infantino's presidency remains untouchable. A red card suspended, a phone call involving the White House, and a statement that explained almost nothing. That is the sequence of events that has turned a routine World Cup disciplinary decision into one of football's biggest arguments about political interference in years, after Fifa lifted a ban on United States forward Balogun following an intervention from Donald Trump. A suspension lifted without an explanation Balogun has been the standout performer for the United States at the tournament it is co-hosting, scoring three goals along the way. He was sent off during the game against Bosnia-Herzegovina, and under World Cup rules there is no mechanism to appeal against a red card. Despite that, he was still made available to play against Belgium. Fifa's initial decision on the matter came and went, and then, more than 24 hours later, on Monday, the organisation released an 871 word statement. For all its length, it offered very little clarity on why the call had actually been made. It was left to someone else to fill in the gaps. Trump's version, Infantino's defence Trump said that "all" he did was ask for a review of the decision. He was clear that he did not tell Gianni Infantino to suspend Balogun's ban himself. Yet the very fact that a sitting American president intervened in a Fifa disciplinary matter at all has become a serious concern across the sport. In the United States, the story has largely been framed around fairness, the argument being that Balogun had already paid the price for his red card by being sent off and missing the rest of the Bosnia-Herzegovina match, and that missing a further game on top of that felt excessive. Infantino, for his part, rejected any suggestion that there had been political interference, insisting that the disciplinary committee responsible for such rulings operates independently. What has made the episode harder to defend is who actually benefited. The decision did not go to just any team, it went to the co-hosts, led publicly by Trump, a man who has stood side by side with Infantino at public events and whom the Fifa president describes as a friend. To plenty of observers around the game, the suspension of Balogun's ban felt less like a disciplinary review and more like a presidential pardon. Klopp's warning shot Former Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp did not hold back. "This is our sport, not theirs," he said. "If Donald Trump and Gianni Infantino really sorted this out between themselves, it is madness, it calls everything into question." His comments capture a wider anxiety in the game right now, that the sport's biggest decisions are being shaped by conversations that happen away from any actual disciplinary process. That naturally raises a question, could the fallout from all this create real pressure on Infantino's own position? He has held the Fifa presidency since 2016. What Fifa's own rulebook says Fifa's own statutes are unambiguous on this exact point, political interference in football is not permitted. In practice, this rule gets enforced regularly, countries are routinely suspended from international football when their governments are found to have interfered with national football associations. Pakistan is a clear example of how seriously this is usually treated, the country has been suspended three times in the space of just eight years for exactly this kind of interference. Set against that history, the question of whether the rules are being applied differently when Infantino and Trump are the two people involved becomes very hard to avoid. A friendship forged long before Balogun This is not the first time the closeness between the two men has drawn attention. While presenting Trump with an award, one that FairSquare believes only around 10 people were involved in creating and which was never put to a decision by the Fifa Council, Infantino told him: "You can always count, Mr President, on my support, on the support of the entire football community to help you make peace and make the world prosper all over the world." Fast forward to the tournament itself, and Trump had not attended a single World Cup match in person. Yet here he was anyway, personally taking ownership of the Balogun situation. It was another example of football's own institutions not being allowed to do the talking on their own terms. Not an isolated incident A similar pattern played out earlier with Somali referee Omar Artan. When Artan finally faced questions from the media last month, the first time this had happened in over three years, Infantino's response was glib at best. "Just, you know, chill, relax," he said of Artan's situation. Controversy at Fifa has consistently felt like it is bubbling just under the surface, and through all of it there have rarely been proper answers or genuine transparency. The Balogun situation follows exactly that same playbook, a decision is communicated with no reasoning attached, and football is simply expected to accept that it is happening. There is no shortage of other examples if a full list were compiled. The unique allocation of the 2030 and 2034 World Cup finals two years ago is one that often goes under the radar. The Club World Cup is another, a tournament that looks like a largely unwanted addition to an already packed summer calendar, created by Fifa to stake its own claim on the riches of the club game. Uefa draws its own red line Then there is Balogun itself, a situation that has allowed an unlikely figure to claim the moral high ground. Former Fifa president Sepp Blatter wrote on X, "Football must never become a playground for political power." Uefa, European football's governing body, went further still on Tuesday, voicing strong opposition to the decision. It said Fifa had "crossed a red line" and described the whole episode as an "unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision." This is far from the first time Uefa and Fifa have clashed. Infantino had recently been on a diplomatic tour of the Middle East alongside Trump, during which he arrived two hours and 17 minutes late. Uefa, for what it's worth, has also looked to score its own political points during this World Cup. It is worth remembering that Infantino himself came from Uefa originally, for many years he was the man who presented the Champions League draws. He is not quite persona non grata there today, he gave a speech at the Uefa Congress in February, but the friction between him and his old employer is plain to see. Why Infantino's chair still looks safe Taking all of this together, it would be reasonable to assume that Infantino's position must now be in serious doubt. The opposite appears to be true. Infantino remains popular with a large number of federations around the world, and much of that popularity comes down to Fifa's role in developing the game in places that previously had little access to it. His Fifa Forward programme has funded football projects across the globe, and the expanded World Cup format has created opportunities that simply did not exist before. Sixteen extra nations now qualify for the tournament compared to the old format, and the vast majority of those additional places have gone to confederations with less strength in depth. Europe, by contrast, received only three of the additional spots on offer. What Infantino has effectively sold to these federations is a dream, the hope that nations who had never previously reached a World Cup might finally get there. Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan are the clearest examples of that promise being fulfilled. Whatever criticism has been levelled at the 48 team format, it gave Cape Verde the chance to live out precisely that dream, and it should, over time, allow less traditional football nations to grow their own game and get stronger. That, on its own terms, is a genuine positive for football around the world. Tournaments like the World Cup, and the steep ticket prices that come with them, are what actually funds these development projects. Fifa is expected to bring in $9bn (£7.9bn) this year alone. Uefa may strongly oppose much of what Fifa and Infantino stand for, but European football remains the richest part of the game and can, in large part, fund itself without relying on Fifa's central pot. The rest of world football is a different story, it depends heavily on Infantino and on the money that Fifa generates and distributes. The vote count that protects him There are 211 countries within Fifa, and every single one of them gets a vote when it comes to electing a president, with 106 votes needed to win outright. In April, Conmebol, the South American confederation, confirmed that its 10 member countries would back Infantino. Three weeks later, the Confederation of African Football confirmed unanimous backing from all 54 of its member associations. Shortly after that, the Asian Football Confederation's 47 nations followed suit as well. Add all of that up, and Infantino already has 111 votes locked in, comfortably more than the 106 he needs, which effectively means he cannot be beaten even before a single ballot is formally cast. Even if Uefa believed it could find a candidate capable of mounting a genuine challenge, the race already looks decided. Infantino was re-elected unopposed in both 2019 and 2023, and it would take something truly remarkable for anyone to even stand against him, let alone defeat him, when the next election comes around in 2027. What this means for you This dispute has no direct financial effect on ordinary readers, but it matters a great deal for football fans and for smaller footballing nations around the world. • For football fans: The episode shows how much political interference can shape decisions at organisations like Fifa, raising real questions about the fairness of the tournament. • For smaller footballing nations: Infantino's expanded World Cup and Fifa Forward programme mean countries like Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan will keep getting a shot at the global stage. Questions & Answers 1. Why was Balogun given a red card? Balogun was sent off during the match against Bosnia-Herzegovina and missed the rest of that game as a result. 2. Why did Fifa suspend the ban? Fifa released an 871 word statement on Monday, but it offered little explanation for the actual reasoning behind the decision. 3. What did Donald Trump say about the situation? Trump said all he did was ask for a review of the decision, and that he did not tell Infantino to suspend Balogun's ban. 4. How did Uefa react to the decision? Uefa said Fifa had crossed a red line and called the decision unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable. 5. Is Gianni Infantino's position as Fifa president under threat? No, Infantino already has 111 votes locked in thanks to backing from Conmebol, the African confederation and the Asian confederation, well above the 106 needed to win. 6. Since when has Infantino been Fifa president? He has been Fifa president since 2016 and was re-elected unopposed in both 2019 and 2023. 7. Why is Pakistan mentioned in the story? It shows how strictly Fifa usually treats government interference, since Pakistan has been suspended three times in eight years for exactly that. 8. How much revenue is Fifa expected to bring in this year? Fifa is expected to bring in $9bn (£7.9bn) this year. https://trendkia.com/en/football/balogun-vivada-men-trump-ke-dakhala-se-macha-hngama-phira-bhi-infantino-ki-kursi-ko-khatara-nahin-5432 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.