Both sides, in good faith

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

The case for

Critics of Fifa's reversal can argue that overturning a player ban immediately before a major knockout match undermines confidence in consistent, independent sporting governance, particularly when the host nation is involved. Even if the decision was legally defensible, its timing created an appearance of preferential treatment and distracted from the match itself. They would say clear, transparent procedures are essential to protect competitive integrity and prevent political pressure from shaping football decisions.

The case against

Defenders of the reversal can argue that Fifa has a duty to correct a wrongful or disproportionate sanction whenever the evidence and rules warrant it, rather than preserve an error for the sake of appearances. Balogun's eligibility should be determined by due process and the merits of his case, not by concerns about how a late decision may be perceived. They may also contend that Belgium's convincing 4-1 victory shows the ruling did not determine the outcome, while the United States' defensive failures were the more direct cause of elimination.