After the ‘red card’ scandal, has the shine come off Gianni Infantino’s World Cup?

The World Cup has entered its quarter-finals, and so far the tournament has had it all: a strong team ousted early (Germany), debate over whether an ageing superstar (Lionel Messi) still “has

it”, and an underdog in the form of a tiny nation (Cabo Verde) making it through to the knockout stages.

But by far the biggest off-field talking point has centred around the United States vs Bosnia and Herzegovina game. After the match, US President Donald Trump personally intervened to ask FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review the red card shown to US striker Folarin Balogun that brought with it a one-match ban.

Shockingly, FIFA sided with the US and reinstated Balogun two days before the US’s next match.

While much of the debate around the incident has centred on Trump, there are also questions to be asked about Infantino’s actions, FIFA’s politics, and whether the World Cup still has its gleam.

An independent decision?

FIFA’s judgement has raised questions about Infantino’s close relationship with Trump. FIFA has mechanisms – labyrinthine and hidden inside its own Disciplinary Code – to settle disputes between players, federations and teams. FIFA officials insisted the Disciplinary Committee acted independently, and denied Trump’s phonecall had any impact.

Even Infantino took the extraordinary step of issuing his own denial.

Friends in high places

Trump clearly felt conformable reaching out to Infantino because the two leaders have a strong relationship.

In December 2025, Infantino awarded Trump the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, a decision that seems to have been a unilateral one by the FIFA president.

In the six months since, the Trump administration has launched a war on Iran that has killed thousands of innocent civilians.

The love seems to go both ways: after the Balogun red card decision, Trump lauded Infantino, saying:

He’s a smart, tough man, and his stock has gone through the roof because the job he has done has been great.

Infantino has made a habit of buddying up to authoritarian leaders. He has played favourites with them in the past and even ignored when their policies interfered with significant football matters.

In the run up to the 2026 World Cup, Infantino remained remarkably quiet about US travel bans that have affected fans and players alike. The US has banned travel from a quarter of the qualifying countries, many fans (and at least one referee) have been turned back at airports.

Infantino was forced to accept American restrictions to the travel of the Iranian National Team. Following the outbreak of the Iran war, the team was forced to relocate their homebase to Tijuana in Mexico. The players were only able to travel to the US for games the day before the kickoff and were subjected to sustained examinations by immigration officials.

After Iran’s opening draw against New Zealand, Infantino visited their locker room. Iran’s coach offered a withering critique of the competition’s fairness.The Athletic labelled Infantino as being reduced to the role of the “court jester”, unable to challenge Trump’s power.

He has form kowtowing to bullies. In 2014, the Russian armed forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. Infantino was the General Secretary of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), and while he banned Crimean clubs from competing in Russian competitions, he also oversaw the formation of a local league that separated those clubs from Ukraine too.

In 2018, he was FIFA’s president when Russia hosted the World Cup, an event he called “the best […] ever”. The following year, for his service to Russia, Putin awarded Infantino with Russian Order of Friendship. Infantino has also been on the record supporting the reintroduction of Russian athletes into FIFA competition despite the country’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

He was similarly supportive of Qatari officials in 2022. When the Qataris faced criticism for their labour practices, a brutal system of forced work that resulted in roughly 6,500 deaths in the years leading up to the World Cup, Infantino defended the hosts.

An anti-corruption campaign?

Infantino’s closeness to authoritarian leaders such as Putin and Trump might surprise some football watchers, because Infantino only became FIFA’s president as part of a reform process. In May 2015, US federal prosecutors indicted 14 football bureaucrats with crimes including wire fraud, racketeering and money laundering. The scandal implicated the then president, Sepp Blatter, who was forced to resign in December 2015.

Infantino was a member of the 2016 reform committee, and was supported by European and North American federations as an anti-corruption candidate. His narrow victory over Jordanian Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa was lauded as a victory for real change in the footballing body.

Ten years into his presidency, however, Infantino has become increasingly authoritarian and less transparent. He has ended the reform processes that brought FIFA’s poor governance to light. He has fired officials involved in the ethics investigations.

Infantino’s tit-for-tat style allows for close rapport with autocrats and has had benefits for FIFA. In 2026, US investigators ended their probe into financial fraud in global football, saying it “no longer fits the Trump administration’s priorities”.

FIFA’s financial resources have been buoyed by support from US television dollars and Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds.

Infantino has a close relationship with Saudi Arabian ruler Mohammed bin Salman. Eager to repay favours, Infantino oversaw the process to award the hosting right for the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia despite the regime’s poor human rights records. The other possible bidder – Australia – was blindsided by backdoor manoeuvring between FIFA, Saudi Arabia, and the Asian Football Confederation.

Pressure to resign?

Blatter, the man Infantino replaced, was sharply critical of Infantino and Trump’s conduct. On X, he wrote:

Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence, and independent bodies.

With the fiction of FIFA’s neutrality now visible, the pressure is mounting for the executive committee to replace Infantino. Calls for him to resign are coming from football insiders in Europe: Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling labelled it an “absolute disgrace” and called for Infantino to resign.

German manager Jürgen Klopp also called for his resignation, as did British journalist and former England captain Gary Lineker.

UEFA officials have reportedly been discussing possible alternatives to Infantino. North American football leaders seem to prefer the Canadian Victor Montagliani, who might have some support beyond the Americas given Canada’s handling of the 2026 World Cup.

Likely more troubling for Infantino are demands for an investigation by 72 European lawmakers in the European parliament. His predecessor was also seen off by an external legal probe.

Even so, despite some in the press seeing his position as “untenable”, the twice re-elected FIFA President will likely be able to see off threats to his rule, unless the European Union (and potentially also North American) officials can put financial pressure on FIFA.

Infantino is well-liked by sports officials in the global south, who have benefited from the money he brings into the game. The most important federations for voting purposes – the African and Asian confederations – seem likely to back him for an unprecedented fourth term.

What goes unsaid is that FIFA cannot be and has never been politically neutral. Tensions remain between the global north and south inside of the organisation.

Yet the bigger problem is the concentration of power inside FIFA, and how it exercises it on the outside. The organisation’s connections to government are essential to hosting an increasingly complicated global tournament. Infantino’s global game runs on money and power. As they become increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals, the possibility for challenging his leadership diminish.

Keith Rathbone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.