FIFA, Trump and the Balogun Red Card: What Political Interference in Sport Means for Australia

Introduction

The USA’s Folarin Balogun’s red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would normally trigger a one match ban, was partially suspended under Article 27 of FIFA’s Disciplinary Code after Donald Trump intervened requesting the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, review the decision made by the referee.

Outrage ensued, and for good reason, FIFA has relied upon its own regulatory structure to enforce the obligations of Member associations under Article 14 and Article 15(c), which states that Member associations need “to be independent and avoid any form of political interference”. Examples of enforcement on this basis can be seen in the treatment of Nepal who were suspended for "flagrant violations of the FIFA Statutes linked to interference by a third party". Trump’s interference sits uneasily with the very principle these provisions are meant to protect.

Political interference of this magnitude on such a stage as the FIFA World Cup certainly is an outlier, however, it is not the first time politics has played a part in sport. One example involved not influence over a single decision, but wholesale state capture of competition itself being the Russian doping scandal of 2014. The McLaren Report found that Russia's Ministry of Sport, aided by the FSB, directed a systematic doping cover-up implicating over 1,000 athletes, including sample-swapping at the 2014 Sochi Olympics traced to Deputy Minister level resulting in Russia's exclusion as a nation from the 2018 PyeongChang Games. Unlike the Balogun affair, where informal access secured leniency for one player, Russia embedded itself directly within the apparatus of competitive integrity, making external lobbying unnecessary. That such capture was possible at all is reason enough to take even modest instances of political access to a sport's disciplinary process seriously.

Who can be held accountable?

When a scandal like this breaks, the natural reaction is to ask: surely there's a rule against this? Surely an organisation as large and well-resourced as FIFA has something in its own rulebook designed to stop exactly this kind of political meddling? And in fact, it does, just not where you'd expect it. Article 14 of the FIFA Statutes says that national football associations must run their own affairs independently, free from political interference. History tells us FIFA takes this seriously, it's suspended football associations in Kuwait, Pakistan, and Nepal for exactly this reason, cutting their national teams off from international competition entirely. So, FIFA clearly believes political interference in football is a real problem, one worth punishing harshly.

But here's the problem, that rule only points downward. It stops national football associations from being pushed around by their own governments, but it says nothing about FIFA itself being pushed around by a political figure such as Trump. Article 27, the rule that let FIFA suspend Balogun's ban, isn't technically in conflict with Article 14, they're simply aimed at different targets. The real problem is the double standard this creates, FIFA polices its member countries for exactly the kind of political interference it may have just experienced itself, at the very top, with no rule in place to stop it. It's one thing to ban a country's football federation because its own government leaned on it. It's another thing entirely when the phone call goes straight to FIFA's president and there's nothing in FIFA's own rulebook that even acknowledges that as a problem.

What do we learn from this saga?

Using this example of political interference as a warning domestically, how do we make sure sport in Australia and the sporting tribunals and unions that govern it, are kept independent. One step in the right direction is the creation of Australia’s National Sport’s Tribunal (NST). Established in 2020 following the 2018 Wood Review, the NST centralised disciplinary and dispute functions in one statutory tribunal, staffed by members with genuine legal and dispute-resolution expertise rather than sport insiders. One benefit of the NST is that it splits functions between Sport Integrity Australia, whose main role is investigation and case-bringing, and the NST itself, which handles independent adjudication. In contrast, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee handles both investigation and final decision-making within a single body, creating one point of pressure which creates the risk of possible third-party interference going unchecked.

One concerning aspect of the decision to suspend Balogun’s ban was that FIFA declined, and had the discretion to decline, publishing the specific circumstances as to how FIFA came to that decision. It is imperative, in the interests of transparency, that tribunals within Australia publish reasons for disciplinary outcomes, as the NST already does.

FIFA's refusal to explain the "specific circumstances" behind its Balogun decision wasn't a separate failure, it was what let the objection to Belgium’s standing succeed. Without reasons, Belgium had nothing concrete to point to: no departure from stated criteria, no inconsistency with past practice, just suspicion. Australian sporting tribunals close that gap rather than leave it open. The NST publishes every anti-doping determination in full, and at minimum a summary of every other decision, as a matter of standing practice. The NRL Judiciary, for example, treats open hearings as the default, not the exception. The effect is that anyone affected by a decision has something to actually test, a stated basis, a line of reasoning which is what turns an appeal from a hopeless long shot into a viable one. Where FIFA's silence left Belgium arguing in the dark, Australia's tribunals make the opposite choice which is to publish the reasoning, and the standing problem tends to take care of itself.

Reason to remain vigilant

However, not every Australian sporting model is fully insulated from political interference if you pull back the curtain. The National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 (Cth), for example, retains the Minister for Sport's formal power to appoint NST members. There is no suggestion its members have ever bent to political pressure in the way FIFA's Disciplinary Committee is now accused of doing. But it does mean the insulation is procedural and cultural rather than absolute. Government remains present at the appointment stage, in the funding relationship, and in the administrative architecture surrounding the tribunal, even as the decisions themselves are made independently.

FIFA's failure was not that a president made a phone call, that will always happen. It was that its own architecture, opaque decisions and narrow standing rules, gave that call somewhere quiet to land. Australian sport has real safeguards against this such as the NST's publication practices and the NRL Judiciary's open hearings. But those safeguards are still young, and government remains present at the point of appointment and funding. As Australian sport's commercial and hosting stakes grow, the mission should be simple, keep decisions reasoned and standing rules open, so that political pressure has nowhere quiet to land.

The content in this Article is intended only to provide a summary and general overview on matters of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

The solicitors at BlackBay Lawyers can provide specialised and detailed advice for athletes and their advisors. If you require advice, please feel free to contact BlackBay Lawyers on (02) 8005 3077 or via www.blackbaylawyers.com.au for a confidential discussion with one of our solicitors.

References

1. National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 (Cth)

2. National Sports Tribunal Rule 2020 (Cth)

3. FIFA Statutes, art 14.1(i), art 15(c), art 19

4. FIFA Disciplinary Code, art 27

5. Regulations for the FIFA World Cup 26™

6. ESPN, "FIFA reject Belgium request; Balogun still clear to play vs. Belgium" (2026)

7. Yahoo Sports, "FIFA rules on Belgium appeal of controversial Folarin Balogun decision" (2026)

8. Report of the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review) (2018)

9. CNN, "Russian doping report alleges 'institutional conspiracy'" (2016)

10. https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/

11. https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/