In Goal: Fair Play for Those in Power!
Before every match, FIFA (before it changed its mind about the current World Cup tournament and replaced its emblem with a golden map) adorned stadiums with large banners bearing its most famous slogan: “Fair Play.” It was a beautiful, elegant slogan, suitable for advertisements and commemorative photos, but in recent days it seemed to require a small addition: “Fair Play, except for the powerful.”
The decision to lift the suspension of the US national team striker Pulgar, following direct intervention by the US President and his request to Swiss FIFA President Gianni Infantino to reconsider the penalty, was not merely an adjustment of a disciplinary ruling. It was an unofficial declaration that the doors of the regulations are not closed as they had led us to believe, but rather open to the right political key.
Notably, for many years, FIFA has spoken about the independence of its decisions, the rejection of political interference, and the sanctity of its regulations. We have now discovered that all these principles can turn into mere “opinions” if the call comes from the White House, rather than from the VAR room. Even more striking is that this decision has whetted everyone’s appetite; France, England, and others have begun demanding equality and a review of penalties imposed on their players. Who can blame them? If justice is granted through requests, then everyone has the right to submit a request, make a call, or seek out a head of state who is dedicated to defending a suspended striker. As for the “Fair Play” slogan, it has received a well-deserved red card, because integrity is not measured solely by what happens on the pitch, but also by what occurs in offices and behind closed doors. What is the value of competition if the law changes depending on the identity of the person knocking on the door?
And let us hope the matter stopped there. It became even more bizarre after the US President’s accusations against Brazilian referee Rafael Claus, who managed the match between his team and Bosnia and Herzegovina and issued a red card to the American player, along with insinuations questioning his integrity. These passed without comment. FIFA, which is accustomed to issuing angry statements defending referees and their integrity and confronting any remark from any party—whether administrative, a coach, or even a substituted player—that touches upon refereeing, chose silence this time. Perhaps it realized that the whistle is not louder than the telephone.
Therefore, it was not surprising that the European Football Association described the decision as “shocking and unacceptable.” The shock lies not in suspending a player or allowing him to participate, but in the fact that football laws have become negotiable, and that the law has transformed from a fixed text into a flexible substance that expands and contracts according to the weight of the caller.
It is certain that if football continues on this path, we may no longer need disciplinary or appeal committees, or a sports court in the future. It would suffice to add a new clause to tournament regulations titled: “For inquiries and amendments, please contact the powerful.” At that point, FIFA could spare itself the effort of raising the “Fair Play” banner, as no one believes it anymore.
In future editions of football tournaments and competitions overseen by FIFA under Infantino’s leadership, the question after matches may no longer be: “Who scored the goal?” but rather: “Who made the call, or will make a call?” As for the “Fair Play” slogan, perhaps the time has come to replace it with a more realistic banner: “Football for all, but some are more equal than others.”
