The chair of FIFA's disciplinary committee, Mohammad al Kamali, refused to address any questions from the BBC regarding the controversy surrounding the bans imposed on England's Jarell Quansah and the waived suspension for United States forward Folarin Balogun at the FIFA World Cup 2026.

Two very different outcomes

Quansah, the Bayer Leverkusen defender, received a two-match ban after being sent off for serious foul play during England's 3-2 victory over Mexico. A red card for serious foul play carries an automatic one-game suspension, but FIFA's disciplinary committee added a second match on top of that standard penalty.

In sharp contrast, Balogun was shown a red card for serious foul play in the United States' match against Bosnia-Herzegovina — an offence that should have triggered the same two-game ban — yet the committee chose to waive his suspension entirely. The disparity drew widespread condemnation from across the football world.

Trump's White House lobby

The backlash intensified when it emerged that US President Donald Trump and White House officials had directly lobbied FIFA over Balogun's ban. The revelation raised serious questions about political interference in the sport's governing body.

Al Kamali confronted at the quarter-final

BBC sports editor Dan Roan approached Al Kamali as he arrived at the venue for England's quarter-final against Norway on Saturday. Roan asked a series of pointed questions: whether Al Kamali had been asked by the FIFA president to waive Balogun's ban, why Quansah had been handed a two-game suspension, and whether he could offer any comment on the way the matter had been reported in the media. Al Kamali did not respond to any of the questions.

Following the Balogun decision, FIFA released an 871-word statement insisting the ruling had been reached after "considering all of the specific circumstances surrounding the incident and evidence available." The statement, however, offered no detail on precisely what circumstances or evidence had been taken into account — leaving the disciplinary process as opaque as ever.