Inside FIFA's 2026 World Cup: VAR meltdowns, a lifted red card, and the Trump-Infantino phone call that changed the tournament

The key finding: No evidence was found of FIFA levying fines or bans against any coach or player specifically for post-match criticism of referees during the 2026 World Cup.

VAR and officiating controversies: the tournament's defining theme

Refereeing has been the most contentious issue of the 2026 World Cup, with complaints about VAR inconsistency dominating headlines from the group stage through the knockout rounds.

Thomas Tuchel's blistering condemnation

After England's round-of-16 win over Mexico, England manager Thomas Tuchel called the officiating "erratic," "inconsistent," and "subpar," saying "the referees can send any team out in any moment" . His outburst was one of the most high-profile critiques of match officials during the tournament.

Egypt vs. Argentina: the flashpoint that triggered a formal complaint

Egypt filed a formal complaint with FIFA after their dramatic 3-2 round-of-16 loss to Argentina, alleging improper use of VAR . Two key incidents fueled accusations of pro-Argentina bias:

• A disallowed Egyptian goal via VAR for a foul that occurred earlier in the play, which Egypt argued was not a clear and obvious error.
• A penalty not awarded to Egypt despite what the Egyptian FA described as similar levels of contact to incidents that were penalized .

Egypt subsequently requested that FIFA remove the officiating team — led by French referee François Letexier — from the tournament .

VAR moved into stadiums mid-tournament

In a direct response to mounting criticism, FIFA changed its VAR protocol mid-tournament — an almost unheard-of move. Starting July 9, VAR officials were moved from a centralized control room in Dallas, Texas, into the stadiums for every remaining knockout match . This was a significant operational U-turn.

Other notable VAR incidents

• The "mistaken identity" protocol: In the US vs. Paraguay group match, FIFA's new "mistaken identity" VAR protocol was used for the first time at a World Cup, overturning a caution on US defender Tim Ream and instead booking Paraguay's Miguel Almirón for simulation .
• Iran's disallowed goal: In Iran's 1-1 draw with Egypt, a stoppage-time goal by Shoja Khalilzadeh was disallowed after a VAR check, a decision that drew sharp criticism .
• Austria's Ralf Rangnick also criticized a decision in his team's match, questioning why a foul was not given and why VAR did not intervene .

Collina dismissed allegations of systemic bias favoring Argentina as "baseless allegations" that "could provoke threats against referees and their families" .

The disciplinary decision that broke the rules: the Folarin Balogun case

The single most explosive disciplinary controversy of the 2026 World Cup involved US striker Folarin Balogun — and it wasn't just a football story; it became a geopolitical scandal.

What happened

Balogun received a straight red card in the round-of-32 match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under Article 66.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code and Article 10.5 of the World Cup regulations, a direct red card triggers an automatic one-match suspension that cannot be appealed .

However, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee invoked Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code to suspend the automatic one-game suspension for a probationary period of one year, allowing Balogun to play in the round-of-16 match against Belgium .

The Trump-Infantino phone call

US President Donald Trump acknowledged he personally called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to request a review of Balogun's red card . The timing — and the public acknowledgment — created the appearance of a "presidential pardon" .

The reputational damage was described as significant, placing FIFA in "a position of enormous vulnerability" . The New York Times reported that many onlookers "surmised something closer to a presidential pardon" .

UEFA's furious response

UEFA issued a strongly worded statement accusing FIFA of crossing "a red line" that undermined the integrity of the competition, labeling the decision "unprecedented, incomprehensible, and unjustifiable" .

FIFA's defense

FIFA insisted it had not "reversed" the referee's decision or broken its own rules, but merely suspended the ban's execution under a separate provision. In a statement, FIFA argued that Article 66.4 and Article 10.5 do not forbid the disciplinary committee from applying Article 27's probation mechanism . Critics, including UEFA and multiple legal analysts, countered that the automatic nature of the suspension is explicitly intended to be non-discretionary .

External political interference: an unprecedented World Cup

The 2026 World Cup has been uniquely politicized, with direct head-of-state intervention and broader geopolitical tensions that have no precedent in the tournament's history.

The Infantino-Trump relationship

Before the tournament, Infantino awarded a newly created "FIFA Peace Prize" to Donald Trump, drawing sharp criticism that FIFA was colluding with political powers . The move was seen as an attempt to curry favor with the host nation's president .

US-Iran conflict

For the first time in tournament history, a host nation (the United States) entered the competition while engaged in active conflict with one of the participating countries (Iran), following the launch of US military operations against Iran on February 28 . Iran initially threatened to boycott but ultimately participated under a tenuous ceasefire .

Boycott threats and immigration policy

The tournament was preceded by boycott calls from European political and sporting figures, triggered by US assertions regarding Greenland and broader US immigration policy under the second Trump administration . Amnesty International labeled the US as "facing a human rights emergency" in relation to the World Cup .

New rules for player behavior (unrelated to criticizing officials)

While FIFA did not crack down on post-match criticism of referees, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) — football's law-making body — did approve two notable disciplinary rule changes ahead of the tournament, both approved in April 2026 :

• Red card for covering your mouth: Any player who covers their mouth with their hands, shirt, or any object during a confrontational exchange with an opponent may receive a red card, to prevent players from concealing discriminatory remarks .
• Red card for walking off in protest: Any player who deliberately leaves the field of play in protest at a referee's decision can be sent off. Team officials who encourage such walkoffs can also be sanctioned .

These rules target on-field misconduct and protest behavior, not post-match press-conference criticism of officials.

Summary: what FIFA did and didn't do