[bhupy]

> The goal is ultimately entertainment

This is something I see so many people forgetting.

The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.

Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".

[NoboruWataya]

With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.

Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.

[bhupy]

> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses

With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.

And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).

Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.

[ViewTrick1002]

> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).

I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.

You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.

That’s all part of the game.

[bhupy]

> I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red.

You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial. It's not just about what you believe, but what about others might believe. If there are enough people that disagree with you, then it is by definition controversial.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7415223/2026/07/01/folarin-...

> You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.

> That’s all part of the game.

Correct, and players can get re-instated (as happend with Cristiano Ronaldo in the very same tournament) by FIFA per Article 27. That is also part of the game.

The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture. Seriously just take a step back and take stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium are being given a disadvantage, it is simply that they are being asked to play against the full squad. It is rather pathetic to complain about that.

[Arodex]

>The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture

Oh the irony. Why don't the US man up and play within the rules? You president whined and whined and whined, he does nothing but whining every single day.

You are completely morally corrupt. The Americans are cheaters, and nobody will respect them even if they win. "Pathetic" doesn't even start to describe how feckless people who defend this decision are.

>You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial.

Who won the US presidential election in 2020?

[bhupy]

Yeesh, this conversation has run its course.

[drivingmenuts]

> Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it.

Well, that, and a President who interferes where he has no fucking business whatsoever and a governing body who kowtows to that same President.

This is just flat out cheating. But hey, fuck the rules, right? 'Cause our team got to compete.

[bmacho]

You're wrong.

You can't choose a random player and give them unfair advantage, and argue that it makes the game more enjoyable (for any type of game). It's not what audiences desire.

It actually makes games less enjoyable, for many reasons.

[bhupy]

It's not just a random player, it's a player whose red card was contested even by the commentators as it was playing out. You should just watch the replay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuaS3jUAark.

"Does he endanger the safety of his opponent? You could argue it does, but I think it's slightly unfair because it's more of a stepping action that lacks force and intensity to create that red card."

"Is it the right call? I don't think it's the right call...I don't like that being the level that we're calling for a red card. I think that's a yellow card, I don't see that as a red"

After the match, there was continued debate as to whether it should have been a red. Messi didn't get a red card for a nearly identical incident.

FIFA has a rule to handle this sort of situation, and it's Article 27. In my opinion, that is a poor system as any process that's initiated by FIFA is bound to be arbitrary. It would be better to have a universal appeals process, and such a process might very well have resulted in an overturning of the red card nevertheless. Either way, the outcome was correct, even if the path to getting there was flawed.

And just taking a step back and taking stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium were given a disadvantage, it is simply that they were being asked to play against the full squad. It was pathetic to complain about that, especially given that Belgium comfortably thrashed the USA's full squad.

As spectators of any sport, that's all we can hope for: take the best of 2 teams and pit them against each other. See where the chips fall. I don't actually enjoy watching an easy fixture, I want it to be a nail biter.

Belgium should have either said nothing, or just said "cool we don't care, we'll beat them either way, game on". Instead, they (and most Europeans) came across as sissies.

Looking ahead, for me personally, I'm hoping football comes home.

[lotsofpulp]

It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.

[AnimalMuppet]

I do not follow soccer all that closely, but I seem to recall reading about other heads of state appealing the ban of their players.

Sorry, I can't give details - I only have a vague memory of it. Does anyone else recall?

[bhupy]

You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.

It was the right outcome, but the wrong process.

[rjrjrjrj]

> It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA

With a little push from the President and Secretary of the Treasury.

[bhupy]

Correct.

Hence: “which in practice will be arbitrary.”

It’s on FIFA to correct for that governance failure by making it less arbitrary via a more universal appeals process.

In any case, the rules were followed to the correct decision. It’s just that these rules as written are arbitrarily applied.

[rjrjrjrj]

It seems like there are contradictory rules, and FIFA is confused about which to apply.

5 days ago, FIFA said there was no appeal process. Yesterday, there was a magic reversal.

[EPWN3D]

The US had no procedural route to get Balogun reinstated. That doesn't mean FIFA can't wave their magic wand to make it happen.

Had FIFA implemented an appeals panel for the tournament, it would've looked at the incident, deemed it a misapplication of VAR and a wrongful red card, and the world would've moved on. Instead because of their incompetence, the only remedy was via their magic wand, which is arbitrary and capricious.

[bhupy]

No, those are not at all contradictory, it is entirely consistent.

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. There is no appeals process that USA (or any team) can initiate

2. There is a mechanism that FIFA can initiate to suspend a match ban at their discretion

That is why it's a bad system; as long as it's initiated by FIFA, it will always be arbitrary and capricious.

[runarberg]

Where is the fun in watching a rigged game.

I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?

But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.

[LanceH]

The US has been asking that when they get a red card that Messi doesn't get. Or a handball on the goal line is ok for a UEFA company. Or a US goal called back when another UEFA team hauls multiple US players to the ground.

You see where I'm going with this? I just can't seem to get upset that a red card that isn't a red card for other teams is getting rescinded.

I've literally been watching for decades and nobody seemed to care before.

A ref got a call wrong and that's ok and should be doubled down on according to UEFA. Well, UEFA can just view this as the disciplinary committee getting it wrong and they can just live with that.

[bastard_op]

These are basically paid soap operas like American "professional wrestling", and they have quite the following, so what does it matter fake or not?

[runarberg]

Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died.

WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.