USMNT's Folarin Balogun Controversy Raises Bigger Questions About FIFA

A sitting president meddling in FIFA’s disciplinary affairs.

A mysteriously altered verdict given with no explanation.

A rejoicing national populace amid a global community that largely views their good fortune as corruption

In these times, you may ask: Has the Folarin Balogun saga proved the United States has, at long last, arrived as a soccer country?

Well, yes. But not the one we’re trying to be.

Americans think big. And when it comes to soccer, thinking big means Europe. The UEFA Champions League. The English Premier League. Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain.

And when the leaders within U.S. Soccer and its top domestic leagues talk about how they want to grow the game, competing with those European standard-bearers is always the goal.

But if the whole episode to make Balogun eligible for Monday night’s clash against Belgium is the manifestation of a new American soccer culture, it is not European in nature.

At best, we are a poor man’s Brazil, pulling some strings to make sure our version of Garrincha plays in the round of 16, the American version of an international final.

At worst, we are a wealthy man’s Ghana, who, unlike the Black Stars, succeeded in getting authorities based in a stereotypically neutral country to look the other way.

The history of soccer is littered with political leaders like Donald Trump trying to insert themselves in the affairs of FIFA, their own federation, or both.

But you have to go back to Mussolini’s Italy to find a case where the accused was from one of the traditional European powers. In the interim, they’ve come from just about everywhere else.

The reason isn’t some sort of Western European moral superiority, but rather a sporting superiority.

In England and Spain, for example, the World Cup matters a great deal. But it’s not unparalleled in terms of influence.

Those nations’ domestic leagues are routinely ranked first and second in strength worldwide. And their biggest clubs are regularly contenders in the UEFA Champions League, viewed by many as the top soccer competition -- club or country -- on earth.

By contrast, even tradition-rich nations like Brazil and Argentina occupy a lower rung on the club soccer hierarchy. While their biggest teams still have millions of followers, their most talented players are usually at the beginning or end of their careers. In between, they jump to Europe for contracts South American clubs can’t pay, to compete against talent South American clubs can’t match.

For those nations, and most of the rest of the world, the World Cup is the pinnacle. The idea of it going wrong is catastrophic. And thus it can carry so much weight that state leaders find it tempting to intervene.

To be fair, they’re typically not as successful as Donald Trump appears to have been in his lobbying of FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Then again, most of them can’t offer a World Cup as lucrative as Trump’s America has provided via record attendance at record-high prices.

But if FIFA did spare Balogun to placate Trump (something they've officially denied), that doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the USMNT's best interests.

Sure, Balogun will be eligible to play. But the suggestion of impropriety could put added pressure on manager Mauricio Pochettino’s squad, or possibly rouse the Belgians emotionally.

It could also lead match officials to be extra sensitive to the potential appearance of favoritism toward the Americans, and thus subconsciously skew their bias in the opposite direction.

That would’ve been a bummer in the old America. In the new one that has arrived as a soccer country, it might rise to the level of tragedy.