Meanwhile the UEFA was quiet when FIFA used the same Article 27 exception for Ronaldo in 2025 [0].
Maybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have be difficult for them even without Balogun.
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
> Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums
Qatar is a terrible place when it comes to treatment of workers, but that number of deaths is actually unusually low.
The 6500 figure was the deaths for all foreign workers in Qatar over a 10 year period, a country which uses foreign workers for almost all of its labor force (about 95% is foreign). They have around 2 million foreign workers. Compare to the number of citizens of Qatar which is around 400k.
6500 deaths among those foreign workers over that time period works out to a death rate of around 33 per 100k per year.
Compare that to the death rates for males aged 25-34 in the US, which is somewhere in the 160-250 range. I'm comparing to males in that age range because around 80% of the foreign workers in Qatar are male and they are predominantly 25-39.
Qatar's 5-8x lower death rate than the US still could be an indication that they have a serious problem with worker deaths, but to determine that someone would have to dive much deeper into details.
For example a significant component of the US deaths is poisoning (drug overdoses are counted as poisoning). Qatar has a very strong anti-drug policy with little tolerance and harsh penalties, so I'd expect that they don't have many drug deaths.
Same for drunk driving. They also are very intolerant of drunk driving, and consider a driver to be drunk if there is any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream after an accident. (Also, I'd expect most migrant workers don't drive).
The Guardian really should have noticed this and investigated. They really dropped the ball here.
The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.
Ok, I agree with this. The offside rule is just weird. A person with a wide stance would simultaneously be close to be both endlines. In any normal sense if one person is further south, the other person is further north -- not so with the offside rule.
It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with.
At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear.
None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR.
The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense.
At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
Between this and the C.Ronaldo decision, I wonder if we're headed toward a future change to the automatic red card suspension. Part of what makes a red seem extreme for certain fouls is the automatic suspension.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
EDIT
Oh ok, after reading the article, it's pretty clear what's happening: it's Trump's oompa-Loompas flagging information that displeases the maga cult
no worries, then they'll just ship those products through one the other members of the EU
>The European Union allows goods to move freely between the 27 countries in the economic bloc, which would complicate any bid to impose trade restrictions on a single member state.
Src: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r1mzd8vygo
Maybe it would have been better for Team USA if it had not been reversed.
Before the reversal the oddsmakers were putting USA vs Belgium at even or slightly in Belgium's favor. After the reversal the oddsmakers had USA as a slight but clear favorite.
I'd expect that if it had not been reversed it might have made USA feel like underdogs with something to prove which sometimes can inspire better play. Also it made have made Belgium overly confident knowing USA was missing its best scorer, which can lead to sloppy play.
After the reversal and the change in the odds USA might have been less inspired and Belgium might have been fired up.
Anyway, whether or not the reversal affected the outcome Belgium slaughtered USA, 4-1, and USA is out.
This annoys me, in a very American way, because whenever USA won a World Cup game Subway was giving a "USA Wins" coupon in their app for a footlong sub for something like $7.99.
26 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 46.9 ms ] threadMaybe the traditional European teams should stop concentrating on personalities and start concentrating on team cohesion.
Look at how France was almost defeated by Paraguay until Mbappe was given a free kick, Netherlands defeated by Morocco (most of whose players would have played for France or NL if team selection wasn't so ossified), how Germany was stymied by Ecuador and Paraguay, and Portugal barely eked out a win against Croatia.
The Western European teams that have been doing well are those that have younger rosters and are concentrating on team cohesion and talent circulation (eg. Norway, Switzerland, England) instead of superstar player branding (eg. France, Portugal).
Either way, based on how Belgium played against Egypt and Iran, the US game would have be difficult for them even without Balogun.
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/nov/25/cristiano-r...
0: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
Qatar is a terrible place when it comes to treatment of workers, but that number of deaths is actually unusually low.
The 6500 figure was the deaths for all foreign workers in Qatar over a 10 year period, a country which uses foreign workers for almost all of its labor force (about 95% is foreign). They have around 2 million foreign workers. Compare to the number of citizens of Qatar which is around 400k.
6500 deaths among those foreign workers over that time period works out to a death rate of around 33 per 100k per year.
Compare that to the death rates for males aged 25-34 in the US, which is somewhere in the 160-250 range. I'm comparing to males in that age range because around 80% of the foreign workers in Qatar are male and they are predominantly 25-39.
Qatar's 5-8x lower death rate than the US still could be an indication that they have a serious problem with worker deaths, but to determine that someone would have to dive much deeper into details.
For example a significant component of the US deaths is poisoning (drug overdoses are counted as poisoning). Qatar has a very strong anti-drug policy with little tolerance and harsh penalties, so I'd expect that they don't have many drug deaths.
Same for drunk driving. They also are very intolerant of drunk driving, and consider a driver to be drunk if there is any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream after an accident. (Also, I'd expect most migrant workers don't drive).
The Guardian really should have noticed this and investigated. They really dropped the ball here.
Gotta cash in that Peace Prize sometimes, I guess
> saying world soccer's governing body had "crossed a red line" and undermined the integrity of the game
Ah yes, the bastion of integrity defending truth and justice.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with.
At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear.
None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR.
The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense.
At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.
Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.
Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.
VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
The point of the suspension is to discourage deliberately violent actions when the current match isn't a major concern (i.e. late in games that aren't close, or when the result is largely immaterial). That obviously isn't the case here.
This flagging system is clearly not working.
EDIT Oh ok, after reading the article, it's pretty clear what's happening: it's Trump's oompa-Loompas flagging information that displeases the maga cult
>The European Union allows goods to move freely between the 27 countries in the economic bloc, which would complicate any bid to impose trade restrictions on a single member state. Src: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r1mzd8vygo
Before the reversal the oddsmakers were putting USA vs Belgium at even or slightly in Belgium's favor. After the reversal the oddsmakers had USA as a slight but clear favorite.
I'd expect that if it had not been reversed it might have made USA feel like underdogs with something to prove which sometimes can inspire better play. Also it made have made Belgium overly confident knowing USA was missing its best scorer, which can lead to sloppy play.
After the reversal and the change in the odds USA might have been less inspired and Belgium might have been fired up.
Anyway, whether or not the reversal affected the outcome Belgium slaughtered USA, 4-1, and USA is out.
This annoys me, in a very American way, because whenever USA won a World Cup game Subway was giving a "USA Wins" coupon in their app for a footlong sub for something like $7.99.
The US clearly "cheats" via political pressure on field decisions and Belgium kicked their sorry arses regardless.