Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the dismissal would argue that referees must protect players and apply the laws consistently, especially when a challenge makes contact with an opponent’s ankle. Even if Balogun did not intend harm, a high or poorly controlled action can endanger an opponent and merit a red card under the modern emphasis on player safety. From this perspective, accepting the sanction reinforces that outcomes should not depend on a team’s importance or a player’s intentions alone.

The case against

Critics would argue that a sending-off should be reserved for clearly serious foul play, and that the reported incident was an accidental collision involving minimal contact rather than a reckless or violent challenge. They may contend that removing a goalscorer from a decisive World Cup match, and imposing an automatic suspension with no right of appeal, is disproportionate where video evidence leaves substantial room for doubt. This view prioritises fairness, proportionality and the need for refereeing decisions to reflect the actual level of danger caused.