Balogun Starts Against Belgium as FIFA Rejects Belgian Appeal. Belgium Says It Still Hasn't Received the Ruling.

Since prior coverage established that Trump made calls to FIFA President Gianni Infantino and that UEFA called the suspension reversal a red-line violation, the procedural fight escalated further on Monday, July 6.

FIFA's Appeal Committee ruled that the Royal Belgian Football Association's challenge to Balogun's reinstatement was "rendered inadmissible" because the RBFA is "not a party to the proceedings and, as such, has no standing to appeal the decision," according to a FIFA statement. Balogun started the Round of 16 match against Belgium in Seattle.

FIFA also noted that Neil Eggleston, the American chairperson of the FIFA Appeal Committee, was not involved in the admissibility ruling, according to the same statement.

Belgium's Specific Complaint

The RBFA's grievance goes beyond the outcome. The association said Monday it has still not received a copy of the underlying decision reinstating Balogun, its written grounds, or the referee's report. "Which is a breach of FIFA regulations," the RBFA stated. The Belgian federation formally informed U.S. Soccer that it contests Balogun's eligibility, and said that position "leaves all further actions open."

Belgium coach Rudi Garcia, speaking through a translator according to the Associated Press, compared FIFA's July 5 announcement to an April Fools' joke. "I didn't know that in the offices of FIFA the 5th of July was the 1st of April in Europe," Garcia said. Garcia declined to say whether Belgium would pursue the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The RBFA pointed directly to the competition regulations' plain language: "If a player or team official is sent off as a result of a direct or indirect red card (second caution), they will automatically be suspended from their team's subsequent match." The RBFA called FIFA's action a "direct contradiction" of those rules.

What FIFA Actually Did

FIFA invoked a disciplinary-code provision allowing a "judicial body" to "fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure," according to TIME. The body placed Balogun's original one-game suspension on a one-year probationary hold: if he commits "another infringement of a similar nature and gravity" within that period, the suspension is reinstated, per the FIFA announcement. This use of the probationary-suspension mechanism is extremely rare. TIME noted a 2025 precedent involving Cristiano Ronaldo, who received a three-game ban after a red card but had two added games suspended, allowing earlier return.

Trump's Account, Verbatim

Trump confirmed Monday at the White House that he called Infantino. "I asked for a review because I didn't think it was a foul," Trump told reporters, adding, "I didn't know what the hell a red card was." He insisted he did not direct Infantino to overturn the decision: "I didn't tell him what to do. I can't tell him what to do. And I don't believe he made the decision."

The Guardian reported, citing sources familiar with the matter, that Trump made three calls to FIFA beginning the night of the Bosnia match. Trump also called Brazilian referee Raphael Claus "very suspect" and suggested reporters examine Claus's record, without providing specifics.

For his part, Infantino said in a statement posted on X that he "regularly discusses matters" with heads of state and confirmed the Trump call. He maintained that FIFA's independent judicial bodies operate "autonomously" and that he "always respects" their decisions regardless of personal agreement.

The Strongest Case for the Other Side

The reversal was decided by FIFA's independent disciplinary bodies, not by Infantino himself, and FIFA's code does contain a probationary-suspension mechanism that, however rarely used, is a written rule. American striker Christian Pulisic said publicly, according to the AP, "If you look at the foul, it was just zero intent at all," and the on-field contact was genuinely disputed. If the rule exists and the bodies applied it independently, the outcome isn't automatically corrupt just because a political figure made a phone call first.

That argument has a weight problem, though. Belgium's procedural complaint isn't about whether the foul was real. It's about whether a written automatic-suspension rule can be quietly set aside through a probationary mechanism triggered only after a head-of-state call, with no written grounds provided to the opposing team before kickoff. This remains the central question in dispute.

Where Things Stand

UEFA's "red line" statement and Belgium's procedural challenge have been lodged, but no formal case has been filed at the Court of Arbitration for Sport as of July 6, 2026. The RBFA said it is "investigating all potential options" and will "continue to fight in the coming hours, days and months," language that leaves a CAS filing explicitly on the table. Whether a post-match CAS case could affect any result Belgium achieves or loses tonight is a question neither FIFA nor CAS has addressed publicly.