Sports Fans BLAME Trump For World Cup Curse

One phone call from a sitting president helped bend World Cup justice, and fans turned the fallout into a “Trump curse” story that says more about politics and emotion than about soccer itself.

Story Snapshot

Donald Trump personally asked FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review Folarin Balogun’s red card.
FIFA used Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code to suspend Balogun’s one-game ban, a highly unusual step.
Balogun then played as the United States lost 4–1 to Belgium, fueling “Trump curse” chatter among fans.
There is no hard evidence Trump’s call caused the decision, or that his involvement doomed the team.

How a presidential phone call collided with World Cup drama

Donald Trump did not ease into this World Cup storyline; he drove straight through the front door. After Folarin Balogun, the United States’ leading scorer, saw red against Bosnia and Herzegovina, Trump contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino and asked him to review the suspension. Balogun’s tackle, ruled serious foul play after video review, carried an automatic one-match ban. Trump later bragged that he thought it was “a horrible call” and that two players had just crashed while running full speed.

Trump’s own words matter here because they show what he claims to have done, and what he says he did not do. He told reporters, “All I did was ask for a review. I didn’t say, ‘You have to do this.’” That is classic Trump framing: take credit for action but deny direct pressure. For sports fans, though, the nuance often vanishes. They see the president on the phone with the boss of global soccer and assume political muscle, not polite inquiry.

Article 27, a rarely used escape hatch in FIFA’s rulebook

The real drama sits in Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. That rule lets FIFA’s judicial bodies suspend the application of a sanction for a set probation period. In plain English, it gives FIFA the power to say, “Yes, you are punished, but the punishment waits.” Reuters and other outlets noted that the code does not spell out when or why this tool should be used, only that the committee may decide to apply it.

FIFA’s Sunday statement invoked Article 27 to suspend Balogun’s automatic match ban for one year. His red card stayed on the books, but he could face Belgium. That kind of mid-tournament reversal is almost unheard of. Reports highlighted that this was the first time since 1962 that a suspended player returned in the same World Cup after being sent off. Law experts like Christina Unkel pointed out the huge discretion this gives FIFA and warned that such unexplained choices open a “Pandora’s box” for future disciplinary consistency.

From “massive lift” to 4–1 defeat and talk of a curse

On paper, the change should have helped the United States. Former players and analysts called Balogun’s reinstatement a “massive lift,” given his form and importance to the attack. Belgium, an aging team with clear defensive weaknesses, looked beatable. American fans had reason to believe that keeping their top striker on the field tilted the odds their way.

I mean they got the president involved who has a lot of power lol if that ain’t cheating then idk what it is?? Why didn’t Bosnia try to overturn their players red card in the group stage? Ok then Trump has hella power, USA cheated as I said but they ain’t win!

— John (@TMbros_) July 7, 2026

The match did not follow that script. Belgium won 4–1, knocking the United States out of the World Cup. Within minutes, social media lit up with talk of a “Trump curse.” Some users claimed Trump had put a bullseye on the team by meddling. Others argued that involving a controversial political figure made the United States a villain in many eyes and piled extra pressure onto the players. The scoreline became emotional proof for fans looking for a simple explanation.

Why the “Trump curse” theory collapses under common sense

Here is where the story moves from fact into superstition. There is no evidence that Trump’s call caused FIFA to use Article 27. United States Soccer officials had already worked legal channels, despite tight FIFA rules on appeals. The disciplinary committee never explained its reasoning in detail, and the code gives it wide freedom to act. Without call logs, internal emails, or sworn testimony, tying the decision directly to Trump is guesswork, not proof.

The “curse” idea is even weaker. Trump’s involvement, if anything, helped the team by restoring its best scorer. Blaming him for a loss because it happened after that help is classic post hoc logic: “bad thing followed Trump, so Trump caused bad thing.” Studies on sports and politics show that match results rarely change public views or voting behavior, even in nations crazy about sports. Teams win and lose for reasons like tactics, skill, and pressure, not mystical presidential energy.

The deeper problem: power, politics, and trust in global sport

The part that should worry serious fans is not a supposed curse but how easily high-level political influence appears to brush against FIFA’s judicial decisions. When a president calls the head of the world’s biggest sports body and a rare rule is suddenly used, people will question fairness. European officials already blasted the move as astonishing and harmful to tournament integrity. This feeds a broader story about FIFA’s history of backroom deals, lobbying, and soft corruption.

For conservatives who care about equal rules and limited special favors, the lesson is simple. If Article 27 exists, it should apply based on clear standards, not on who has the power to get the president on the phone. Fans are right to demand transparency, not folklore. The United States lost because Belgium scored more goals, not because Trump broke some supernatural scoreboard. But the way FIFA handled this case shows how fast faith in fair play can crack when politics walks onto the pitch.