The confetti had barely settled after the 2026 World Cup final when FIFA faced a harder question than anything decided on the pitch. Could the governing body still convince fans that its rules were protected from money and political power?
Alain Berset, the Council of Europe secretary general, delivered that challenge on the day of the final. He accused FIFA of giving fraud an open door through its growing relationship with prediction markets. Berset also pointed to the sudden reversal of United States striker Folarin Balogun’s suspension after President Donald Trump contacted FIFA president Gianni Infantino.
Neither episode proves that anyone fixed a match or ordered a disciplinary panel to change its ruling. Together, though, they exposed the same weakness. FIFA wants the public to trust systems that it largely oversees itself, with limited outside visibility into how major decisions are reached.
That trust now carries an enormous burden. FIFA must explain how it can protect disciplinary rulings from political influence while policing betting markets connected to the tournament it owns, promotes, and profits from.
A Red Card Became A Political Test
Balogun’s case started on July 1 during the United States’ 2 to 0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the round of 32. After a video review, referee Raphael Claus showed him a straight red card for serious foul play. Slow motion replays showed Balogun’s foot landing on defender Tarik Muharemovic’s upper ankle.
FIFA confirmed 2 days later that Balogun would serve an automatic 1-match suspension. The rules did not allow an appeal against the straight red card.
Then the decision changed.
FIFA Put The Suspension On Hold
On July 5, FIFA used Article 27 of its disciplinary code to suspend the punishment for a 1 year probation period. Balogun became eligible to face Belgium on July 6. The red card stayed on his record, and a similar offence during probation would activate the ban.
Trump publicly confirmed that he had called Infantino and asked FIFA to review the incident. Infantino also acknowledged receiving the call, but denied interfering with the disciplinary process. FIFA maintained that its judicial committee made the ruling independently.
That defence did not erase the sequence. A head of state called the president of football’s governing body. Days later, a punishment previously described as automatic was put on hold. Belgium had prepared to face a United States team without its leading striker, then learned shortly before the match that Balogun could play.
The United States lost 4 to 1, so the reversal did not determine which team advanced. It still changed the conditions of the contest. In elite sport, that matters.
FIFA Asked The Public To Trust Its Process
FIFA could have reduced the suspicion by publishing a detailed explanation from an independent disciplinary authority. Instead, it asked the public to accept its assurance that the call and the ruling were unrelated.
That same demand for trust sits at the center of the betting controversy. FIFA is not only promoting a prediction platform. It is also responsible for deciding whether the safeguards around that platform are strong enough.
FIFA’s Prediction Partner Uses Real Money
ADI Predictstreet is not simply a free prediction game or fan poll. It is a licensed betting intermediary regulated in Gibraltar. Adults trade real money against other users by buying yes or no outcome tokens. Winning positions pay out. Losing positions costs the trader money. Users can also sell before a market closes to secure a profit or reduce a loss.
FIFA connected ADI Predictstreet to a separate free bracket challenge. That product should not be confused with the company’s main platform, where users place money at risk.
The governing body gave the platform access to official historical data and promoted markets covering match outcomes, tournament statistics, leading players, and major moments. FIFA also promised live monitoring of suspicious trades, information sharing, and formal reporting systems.
What Makes A Trade Suspicious
A suspicious trade does not necessarily mean 1 unusually large wager. There is also no single public dollar limit that automatically proves wrongdoing.
Investigators look for patterns. A sudden rush of money into an obscure yellow card market could raise concern, especially if linked accounts place similar trades from the same area shortly before the incident occurs. Sharp price movements that do not match normal betting behavior can also trigger a review.
An alert is not proof of match fixing. It gives investigators a reason to compare account details, locations, timing, betting history, odds movements, and match footage. Concern grows when several warning signs point toward the same player or event.
FIFA Is Policing Its Own Commercial Risk
Those safeguards sound reassuring. The problem is that FIFA remains closely involved on both sides. It benefits commercially from the partnership, then relies on systems operating within its own structure to identify threats linked to that partnership.
Prediction markets also create risks that extend beyond the final score. A player could collect a cheap yellow card for delaying a restart, concede a needless corner, or knock the ball out for a throw-in. None of those actions needs to decide the match to settle a narrow market.
“When the rules bend under pressure, every result is open to doubt.”
Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset said.
Berset did not claim that anyone fixed a 2026 World Cup match. His warning focused on the opening FIFA had created. Good integrity watchdogs do not wait for a scandal to explode across the front page. They close the weak points before someone exploits them.
The same principle applies to the Balogun ruling. FIFA may have followed its disciplinary code. Its betting monitors may also have worked exactly as promised. Without transparent and independent oversight, the public has little more than FIFA’s word.
The Pressure Did Not End With The Final
Criticism of the Balogun decision had already spread beyond football before Berset issued his warning.
On July 8, 72 members of the European Parliament wrote to the heads of the 27 football associations based in the European Union. They asked those associations to seek an investigation into Infantino’s role in the suspension reversal. The letter also raised concerns about FIFA’s duty to remain politically neutral.
Berset published his statement on July 19, the day of the World Cup final. His intervention carried unusual weight because FIFA and the Council of Europe have worked together since 2018 on human rights, integrity, and good governance in sport. Partners in that type of arrangement rarely criticize each other so sharply in public.
FIFA now has 2 connected questions to answer. It must show that a political leader cannot alter a disciplinary outcome by calling the organization’s president. It must also explain how an official betting partner can profit from football events without increasing the risk of manipulation or insider trading.
Bringing a betting partner on board does not automatically mean the tournament is rigged. Taking a call from a president does not prove that a disciplinary panel followed an order. The damage begins when FIFA provides too little independent evidence to dismiss either suspicion.
FIFA Needs More Than Internal Assurances
Before the 2030 World Cup, FIFA needs clear limits on which prediction markets can be offered. Tournament participants must face strict betting restrictions. Suspicious patterns should be reviewed independently, with serious alerts reported to the relevant regulators and football authorities.
The disciplinary process requires the same treatment. When FIFA reverses an automatic suspension after its president speaks with a world leader, a short statement about independence will not restore confidence. The governing body must explain who made the ruling, what evidence they considered, and why the original punishment no longer applied.
Berset has called for FIFA and the Council of Europe to build a stronger integrity agreement before the next World Cup. The Macolin Convention already provides a blueprint for governments, sports bodies, and betting operators to work together against match fixing. FIFA now has to decide whether it wants meaningful outside scrutiny or another system in which it effectively supervises itself.
The final whistle ended the 2026 World Cup. It did not settle the argument over who controls the rules, who profits from the action, and whether FIFA can still protect the line between the game and the powerful interests surrounding it.
READ MORE: Spain’s Relentless Possession Breaks Argentina As Ferran Torres Secures 2026 World Cup Glory
FAQs
Q1. Why was Folarin Balogun shown a red card?
A. The referee dismissed Balogun for serious foul play after a video review showed his foot landing on Tarik Muharemovic’s upper ankle.
Q2. Why was Balogun allowed to play against Belgium?
A. FIFA used Article 27 to place his automatic 1 match suspension under a 1 year probation period. That made him eligible for the next round.
Q3. Did Donald Trump overturn Balogun’s suspension?
A. Trump asked Gianni Infantino to review the red card. FIFA said its disciplinary committee made the final decision independently.
Q4. What is ADI Predictstreet?
A. ADI Predictstreet was FIFA’s official prediction market partner for the 2026 World Cup. FIFA also connected it to the tournament’s free bracket challenge.
Q5. What makes a betting trade suspicious?
A. Monitors examine unusual volume spikes, linked accounts, location clusters, and bets that differ from normal behavior. An alert triggers analysis but does not prove match fixing.
