“A slap in the face for Trump and Infantino” , headlined the influential Belgian newspaper De Standaar this Tuesday (7), reporting the defeat of the US team by 4-1 to Belgium and its consequent elimination in the round of 16 of the World Cup. Apparently detached from the sporting universe, the title signals the degree of contamination of Donald Trump's political interference in the football world, considered the one with the greatest global impact in history.
After barring the Iranian national team and creating restrictions for delegations and fans from countries he considers undesirable, the US president went so far as to pressure FIFA to suspend the punishment of an American player, who was sent off in the previous match by Brazilian referee Raphael Claus. The American government even produced a document in which it claims, without evidence, that Claus was involved in corruption schemes in football and, therefore, the punishment should be suspended.
Despite the weakness of his arguments, Trump's request was granted. The situation sparked discussions worldwide about the integrity of the competition, violations of sporting and ethical rules, and the global community's concern about increasingly clear displays of authoritarianism on the part of the United States.
“This type of attitude reveals contempt for the rules and for those who enforce them,” summarizes Luís Renato Vedovato, professor of Public International Law and lecturer at the Faculty of Applied Sciences (FCA) at Unicamp. According to him, episodes like this are reminiscent of tactics used by countries during periods of exception, as seen in the 1978 World Cup – one of the most politicized and controversial in history – which took place during the military dictatorship in Argentina. The host country won the competition, and the dictatorial government, led by General Jorge Videla, was involved in allegations of corruption, geopolitical pressure, and the use of sport as state propaganda.
Vedovato draws attention to the gravity of the current moment. “A movement against the application of law – against the rules. This is an action capable of forming a tendency to simply disregard any structure for applying the norms – be it that of a referee in a sporting competition; a judge in the first instance or the judiciary itself,” Vedovato adds.
According to the professor, this type of manipulation could spill over into other structures, such as election results or eventual judicial convictions. "It's important to remember that many of Trump's supporters were convicted [for the 2021 Capitol invasion] and ended up being pardoned. Trump himself granted himself amnesty," he points out.
In theory, the episode directly violates FIFA's own principles, which claim to oppose any kind of government interference in football. Vedovato points out, however, inconsistencies in the organization's actions. "In the medium and long term, this will certainly diminish FIFA's importance as an international body. This story that it doesn't accept political interference is just a catchphrase," says the professor, recalling other circumstances in which FIFA made exceptions. This was the case in 2014, for example, when Russia invaded Crimea, but was maintained as the organizer of the 2018 World Cup.
The scenario changed in February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukrainian territory. At the time, it was disqualified from the qualifiers and was left out of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. However, Vedovato points out that, at that moment, the United States remained one of the organizers of the tournament, even though they were at war with Iran. "In other words, this principle of political neutrality is not a principle actually followed," he reaffirms.
Resonates
Trump's attitude generated a wave of protests from entities around the world. The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) expressed strong concern about the breach of equality in the tournament. Behind the scenes, UEFA saw FIFA's attitude as an unacceptable institutional weakness.
The Belgian Football Federation issued an official statement criticizing the "lack of sporting criteria" and asserting that the World Cup regulations should be sovereign, regardless of external pressure from heads of state.
The European Association of Referees described the decision as "a circus" and an "insult to the work of referees," arguing that, based on it, any country with political weight could try to overturn on-field decisions through legal means.
The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) repudiated the verbal attacks by Donald Trump (who called the referee "horrible" and "suspicious"). The CBF sent a formal complaint to FIFA demanding respect for South American referees and protection against political defamation.
Major global sports media consortia (such as Sky Sports , L'Équipe , and ESPN) have expressed discontent and unanimously concluded that FIFA has suffered a "blackout of authority" and that Infantino has turned the organization's Disciplinary Code into a tool for geopolitical negotiation.
Cover photo:
