Why European backlash over Trump intervention won't worry Infantino

Gianni Infantino has been Fifa president for 10 years.

Next year, he is up for re-election.

From the Fifa Peace Prize, to the vastly inflated ticket prices at the World Cup, to the Club World Cup, Infantino's tenure has been increasingly controversial.

But could the unprecedented decision to cancel Folarin Balogun's red-card suspension for the United States' World Cup last-16 tie against Belgium be the tipping point?

In a tournament they have co-hosted, Balogun has been the star man for the US, with three goals so far.

Now, despite being sent off, he is available for their next game - even though World Cup rules don't allow appeals against red cards.

On Monday, more than 24 hours after its initial decision, Fifa released an 871-word statement that shed little light on why it made the call. But someone else has.

"I'm the one that got them to do it," said US President Donald Trump when asked if he had put in calls to Infantino.

Trump said "all" he did was ask for a review. He said he did not tell Infantino to suspend Balogun's ban.

But that such an intervention happened at all is a major concern across football.

In the US, the narrative has been about unfairness. That Balogun should not miss another game. That being sent off against Bosnia-Herzegovina and missing the rest of that game had been punishment enough.

Those sentiments were echoed by Trump.

Infantino rejected any suggestion there was political interference, insisting the disciplinary committee was independent.

But perception is just as important.

The decision has not benefited just any team. It has gone to the co-hosts. Led by Trump - a man who has stood side by side with Infantino and calls the Fifa president his friend.

The suspension of the ban felt like a presidential pardon.

"This is our sport, not theirs," said former Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp.

"If Donald Trump and Gianni Infantino really sorted this out between themselves, it is madness; it calls everything into question."

Could the fallout create pressure that will put Infantino's position in doubt?

Fifa's statutes are clear about political interference. It is not permitted.

Countries are regularly suspended from international football because of government involvement in national football associations.

Pakistan, for instance, have been suspended three times in the space of eight years.

When it comes to Infantino and Trump, are the rules different?

The World Cup draw, during which Trump was bestowed with the inaugural Fifa Peace Prize, felt like the culmination of two years of Infantino fostering a close relationship with the US president.

"You can always count, Mr President, on my support, on the support of the entire football community to help you make peace and make the world prosper all over the world," Infantino told Trump when presenting the award.

Human rights campaign group FairSquare complained to Fifa's ethics committee in December that Infantino broke the governing body's rules on political neutrality in creating the prize.

With no response, last month 50 MEPs wrote a new letter to the ethics committee, external demanding action. Like many situations with Fifa, there has been no response.

Fast-forward to the tournament, and Trump has not been to a single World Cup match.

But here he was, taking ownership of Balogun's situation.

It was another example of football not doing the talking.

We had seen it with Somali referee Omar Artan.

Artan was denied access to the US by immigration officials, with Infantino accused of losing control of his own World Cup.

Yet when he faced questions from the media last month - for the first time in over three years - his response was, at best, glib.

"Just, you know, chill, relax," Infantino said of Artan's plight.

Controversy has always felt just around the corner. That something was bubbling under the surface.

And through it all, rarely have there been answers or transparency.

Take Friday's five hours of limbo, when Fifa first decided to change the kick-off time of England's last-16 tie against Mexico, then did a U-turn, while pretending it didn't happen.

The Balogun situation is out of the same playbook.

A decision communicated without any reasoning. Football is just told it is happening, and it must accept it.

If we were to list every recent football controversy, we would be here a long time.

But let's take the unique allocation of the 2030 and 2034 World Cup finals two years ago, which often goes under the radar.

It was decided the 2030 edition would be staged across three continents - Africa, Europe and South America. That meant the 2034 event had to go to Asia or Oceania.

With no realistic competition, it effectively guaranteed Saudi Arabia - like Qatar, a country with questions about its human rights record - would host.

Saudi Arabia and Fifa, under Infantino, had developed a close relationship.

Norway's football federation abstained and argued the bidding process undermined "Fifa's reforms for good governance" and challenged "trust in Fifa".

We could also reflect on the Club World Cup - what appears to be a largely unwanted summer tournament created by Fifa to stake a claim for a slice of the club game and its riches.

Sergio Marchi - the president of players' global union Fifpro - said last year it had been created "without dialogue, sensitivity, and respect".

Then we have Balogun - a situation that allowed an unlikely source to take the moral high ground.

"Football must never become a playground for political power," former Fifa president Sepp Blatter wrote on X.

Blatter, remember, was forced to stand down as Fifa president after a corruption scandal - replaced by Infantino in 2016.

Uefa laid down new battles lines on Tuesday, when voicing strong opposition to the Balogun decision.

European football's governing body said Fifa had "crossed a red line" and described it as an "unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision".

But this was not the first time Uefa has crossed swords with Fifa.

In May 2025, Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin led a group of European delegates in staging a walk-out during a break at the Fifa Congress.

Infantino had been on a diplomatic tour of the Middle East alongside Trump and arrived two hours 17 minutes late.

Uefa has looked to score political points during the World Cup, too.

No sooner had Artan landed at home in Somalia last month than Uefa announced he had been invited to referee the Uefa Super Cup between Paris St-Germain and Aston Villa on 12 August.

And throughout this year, Uefa has been eager to point out how cheap Euro 2028 tickets are compared to the World Cup. It will not introduce hydration breaks, or red cards for players who cover their mouth.

Infantino, remember, came from Uefa. For many years he was the man who presented the Champions League draws.

He may not quite be persona non grata there these days - he gave a speech at the Uefa Congress in February - but there is clear friction.

Taking all this into account, Infantino's position must surely be in doubt?

On the contrary. Infantino is popular with many federations around the world - and a lot of that is down to Fifa's development of the game.

Infantino's Fifa Forward programme has funded football projects across the globe, and he has created opportunities through the expanded World Cup.

Sixteen extra nations now qualify - the vast majority from the confederations with less depth. Europe only got three of the additional spots.

This World Cup has shown that, below the top level, Asia and Concacaf have a lot of work to do to be competitive.

But Infantino has provided the dream, the hope that nations who never before could play at the World Cup might just get there. Like Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan.

Despite all the criticism over the 48-team format, it gave Cape Verde the chance to live their dream.

And it will allow less traditional football nations to grow their game and get stronger - and surely that is a positive for football around the world?

The catch?

Tournaments like the World Cup, and the huge ticket prices, pay for these projects.

This year, Fifa is expected to bring in $9bn (£7.9bn)

Uefa may oppose much of what Fifa and Infantino stand for, but European football is the rich man of the game. Largely, it can fund itself.

The rest of the game depends on Infantino and the money Fifa generates.

There are 211 countries within Fifa. Each gets a vote on the presidency, with 106 needed to win an election.

Let's look at the maths.

In April, Conmebol - the South American confederation - said its 10 countries would back Infantino.

Three weeks later, the Confederation of African Football (Caf) confirmed unanimous backing from its 54 member associations.

Shortly afterwards, the Asian Football Confederation's 47 nations followed suit.

Infantino already has 111 votes. He cannot be beaten.

Even if Uefa thought it could muster a candidate capable of mounting a challenge, the race is already run.

Infantino was re-elected unopposed in 2019 and 2023. It would take something truly remarkable for anyone to stand against him, let alone beat him in 2027.