Gianni Infantino has served as Fifa president for a decade.

He faces re-election next year.

Infantino's time in charge has grown more contentious due to initiatives like the Fifa Peace Prize, sharply higher World Cup ticket costs and the expanded Club World Cup.

Yet the extraordinary move to lift Folarin Balogun's red-card ban for the United States' last-16 clash with Belgium might prove decisive.

Balogun has shone for the co-hosts with three goals in the competition so far.

Despite his dismissal he remains eligible for the following match, even though tournament regulations prohibit appeals against sendings-off.

More than a day after the ruling Fifa issued an 871-word explanation that clarified little. Another voice then spoke.

US President Donald Trump claimed responsibility, stating he prompted the review when questioned about contacting Infantino.

He maintained he merely requested an examination and did not instruct the suspension of the ban.

The mere fact of such involvement raises alarms throughout the sport.

American coverage has focused on equity, arguing Balogun should not sit out further matches after his dismissal against Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Trump echoed those views.

Infantino denied political pressure, stressing the disciplinary panel's independence.

Still, appearances matter greatly.

The ruling favoured the co-host nation under Trump, who has appeared alongside Infantino and describes him as a friend.

The lifted ban resembled a presidential pardon.

Former Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp remarked: "This is our sport, not theirs."

"If Donald Trump and Gianni Infantino truly arranged this between them it is absurd and undermines everything," he added.

Might the reaction generate enough pressure to threaten Infantino's role?

Fifa rules explicitly bar political interference.

Nations are often barred from international competition over government meddling in their associations.

Pakistan has faced three such suspensions in eight years.

Do different standards apply to Infantino and Trump?

The World Cup draw, where Trump received the first Fifa Peace Prize, capped two years of close ties between the pair.

Infantino told Trump he could rely on Fifa's backing to promote peace and global prosperity.

FairSquare lodged a complaint with Fifa's ethics committee in December alleging a breach of political neutrality rules.

Receiving no reply, fifty MEPs sent a further letter last month. As with many Fifa matters, no answer followed.

During the tournament Trump has attended no matches.

Yet he claimed credit for the Balogun outcome.

Football again took a back seat.

The same pattern appeared with Somali referee Omar Artan.

Artan was refused entry to the United States by immigration authorities, prompting accusations that Infantino had lost grip on his own event.

When questioned by reporters last month, for the first time in over three years, his reply was dismissive at best.

"Just, you know, chill, relax," Infantino said regarding Artan's difficulties.

Scandal has seemed perpetually near. Something has felt ready to surface.

Throughout, answers and openness have been scarce.

Consider Friday's five-hour confusion when Fifa first altered England's last-16 kick-off against Mexico, reversed course and then acted as though nothing occurred.

The Balogun case follows the identical approach.

A ruling delivered without explanation. Football is simply informed it must comply.

Listing every recent controversy would take considerable time.

Consider the distinctive award of the 2030 and 2034 World Cups two years ago, which received limited attention.

The 2030 tournament was assigned across three continents, automatically directing 2034 to Asia or Oceania.

With no genuine rivals this effectively assured Saudi Arabia, like Qatar a nation facing human-rights questions, would host.

Saudi Arabia and Fifa under Infantino had built close links.

Norway's federation abstained, contending the process weakened Fifa's governance reforms and damaged trust.

The Club World Cup offers another example: an apparently unwelcome summer competition created to capture revenue from the club game.

Fifpro president Sergio Marchi stated last year it was launched "without dialogue, sensitivity, and respect."

Then came the Balogun episode, which allowed an unexpected figure to claim the high ground.

"Football must never become a playground for political power," former Fifa president Sepp Blatter posted on X.

Blatter himself resigned amid a corruption scandal and was succeeded by Infantino in 2016.

Uefa drew fresh lines on Tuesday by strongly opposing the Balogun ruling.

The European body said Fifa had "crossed a red line" and called the move "unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable."

This was not Uefa's first clash with Fifa.

In May 2025 Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin led European delegates in walking out of the Fifa Congress during a break.

Infantino had toured the Middle East with Trump and arrived two hours seventeen minutes late.

Uefa has also sought political advantage during the World Cup.

Shortly after Artan returned to Somalia last month Uefa announced he would referee the Super Cup between Paris St-Germain and Aston Villa on 12 August.

Throughout the year Uefa has highlighted lower Euro 2028 ticket prices compared with the World Cup and will avoid hydration breaks or mouth-covering red cards.

Infantino rose through Uefa ranks and long conducted Champions League draws.

He is no longer entirely unwelcome there, having addressed the Uefa Congress in February, yet friction persists.

Given all this, must Infantino's position be at risk?

Quite the opposite. He enjoys support from many federations worldwide, largely thanks to Fifa's development work.

The Fifa Forward programme has financed projects globally while the expanded World Cup has created new opportunities.

Sixteen additional nations now qualify, most from confederations with shallower resources. Europe received only three extra places.

This World Cup has illustrated that Asia and Concacaf still need progress to compete at the highest level.

Yet Infantino has offered the vision that nations previously unable to reach the World Cup might do so. Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan are examples.

Despite criticism of the 48-team format it allowed Cape Verde to realise their ambition.

It will also help emerging nations strengthen and that benefits football worldwide.

The trade-off?

Events such as the World Cup and elevated ticket prices fund these initiatives.

Fifa is projected to generate $9bn this year.

Uefa may resist much of Fifa's direction, yet European football remains wealthy and largely self-sufficient.

The remainder of the game relies on Infantino and Fifa's revenue.

Fifa comprises 211 member associations, each holding a presidential vote; 106 are required to win.

The numbers are clear.

In April Conmebol pledged its ten nations to Infantino.

Three weeks later the African confederation confirmed unanimous support from its 54 members.

Shortly afterwards Asia's 47 nations did likewise.

Infantino already holds 111 votes and cannot be defeated.

Even if Uefa could field a credible challenger the contest is settled.

He was re-elected unopposed in 2019 and 2023. Something extraordinary would be needed for any opponent to emerge, let alone prevail in 2027.