๐ฆ๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ถ๐บ ๐ฐ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐!
"Why should I, as a female, be forced to get undressed in front of a biological male?"
His answer: Because magic words.
๐
The most interesting part of the red card saga isn't the ruling. It's how differently Americans and Europeans process the idea that they might have been wronged.
Europeans are fundamentally different from Americans in one particular way: they expect life to be aggravating and at times unfair. It's just a fact of moving through the world. I joke that in Europe, the customer is always wrong. You didn't read the fine print. The only pharmacy in town is closed every other Tuesday for three hours, and even if the times weren't posted, that's still your problem. Too bad if you want the bill, because the waiter's on his union-mandated half-hour smoke break, and you're just going to have to wait.
To quote the great Mark Knopfler: sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. There's something freeing in that. Things are less in your control, so there's less angst in managing your expectations.
In America, things couldn't be more different. We simply can't accept a wrong left unrighted.
The flight attendant sneezed handing you a drink on your one-hour flight? 15,000 frequent flyer miles. Didn't like your appetizer? A replacement is on the way, and the whole course comes off the bill. There's a reason our interstates are lined with trial lawyer billboards.
Europeans have turned complaining into a continental pastime with no expectation that the universe owes them a remedy for their grief. You gripe about the train being late, your friends nod solemnly and everyone goes back to their apรฉro. In America, we launch a full-blown investigation of the train system, sue the government (and its contractors) that allowed for the tardiness and hold a Congressional hearing on the state of national infrastructure.
So to an objective observer, the red card shouldn't have happened, and VAR was a travesty. To Americans, our star player shouldn't be unfairly banned from a match we couldn't afford to lose for a card he so obviously didn't deserve.
Who cares that FIFA used a little-used reversal to fix it. Who cares that other people are mad about it. We. Were. Wronged. It was unjust. It must be corrected. We would accept nothing less.
Europeans waxing poetic about the sanctity of the game are, of course, talking about a governing body whose last tournament host was decided via confirmed cash bribes โ one that imposed dress codes on women, shrugged off widespread allegations of modern slavery and reconfigured the entire tournament calendar to suit the host country. Which is exactly the point. If you've made peace with all of that, at least enough to watch the tournament four years later, a probationary suspension isn't actually a scandal.
Maybe that's the real divide. Over millennia, Europeans have made peace with being the bug. Americans have never once considered it, and apparently, we're not about to start now.
A critical element that the "rulebook purists" arguing Balogun deserved a red card are conveniently overlooking:
BALOGUN was the one who was challenged from behind.
The Bosnian player played *through* Balogun from behind and placed himself in the path of Balogun's natural step.
When he begins taking that step, Balogun has no idea the Bosnian player would even be in front of him. In that sense, you can't really even consider his move a "challenge." It was simply a step that incidentally landed in the same place the opponent's foot did.
In fact, the reason Balogun's step came down so hard is *because* the Bosnian player challenged into him and knocked him off balance.
This is not "reckless" or "excessive force" by any stretch of the imagination.
The red card was *obviously* unjustified from the outset. The only thing FIFA got wrong here is not immediately suspending the red card after the match.