> The goal is ultimately entertainment

This is something I see so many people forgetting.

The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.

Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".

▲

NoboruWataya 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses. This is already shaping up to be a really interesting WC with or without the US.

Political leaders intervening to give their countries an advantage is what makes it boring. Tilting the scales in favour of a country where you are trying to grow the sport may make financial sense in the short term but it makes for a more boring sport overall. Look at the the historically great teams like Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have the success they do because FIFA decided that would be the most entertaining outcome. It's not wrestling.

▲

bhupy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses

With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.

And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).

Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.

▲

ViewTrick1002 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).

I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.

You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.

That’s all part of the game.

	▲	bhupy 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial. It's not just about what you believe, but what about others might believe. If there are enough people that disagree with you, then it is by definition controversial. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7415223/2026/07/01/folarin-... > You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten. > That’s all part of the game. Correct, and players can get re-instated (as happend with Cristiano Ronaldo in the very same tournament) by FIFA per Article 27. That is also part of the game. The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture.

▲

drivingmenuts 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it.

Well, that, and a President who interferes where he has no fucking business whatsoever and a governing body who kowtows to that same President.

This is just flat out cheating. But hey, fuck the rules, right? 'Cause our team got to compete.

▲

lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is more entertaining if the rules are the same for everyone. It would be fine if the official rule is red card disqualifies from next game until a dignitary calls. Or red card consequences can be modified for the top or most popular player on a team.

▲

bhupy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.

It was the right outcome, but the wrong process.

▲

rjrjrjrj 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA

With a little push from the President and Secretary of the Treasury.

▲

bhupy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct.

Hence: “which in practice will be arbitrary.”

It’s on FIFA to correct for that governance failure by making it less arbitrary via a more universal appeals process.

In any case, the rules were followed to the correct decision. It’s just that these rules as written are arbitrarily applied.

▲

rjrjrjrj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It seems like there are contradictory rules, and FIFA is confused about which to apply.

5 days ago, FIFA said there was no appeal process. Yesterday, there was a magic reversal.

	▲	bhupy an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No, those are not at all contradictory, it is entirely consistent. Two things can be true at the same time: 1. There is no appeals process that USA (or any team) can initiate 2. There is a mechanism that FIFA can initiate to suspend a match ban at their discretion That is why it's a bad system; as long as it's initiated by FIFA, it will always be arbitrary and capricious.

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I do not follow soccer all that closely, but I seem to recall reading about other heads of state appealing the ban of their players.

Sorry, I can't give details - I only have a vague memory of it. Does anyone else recall?

▲

runarberg 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Where is the fun in watching a rigged game.

I‘m actually not sure this statement is true. “The goal is ultimately entertainment” is a thought terminating cliché. What about sportsmanship, competition, beauty, experiencing a common cultural phenomena with the entire world, etc?

But even if this statement is true, FIFA needs to learn from the failure of Eurovision and see that people are not entertained by watching a rigged game. For competition to be fun, it has to be fair.

▲

bastard_op an hour ago | parent [-]

These are basically paid soap operas like American "professional wrestling", and they have quite the following, so what does it matter fake or not?

	▲	runarberg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ones it became apparent that Eurovision was rigged in favor of Israel, the viewership stats plummeted. And worse, the entire sub-culture around Eurovision enthusiast died. WWE is not an apples to apples comparison, as it is widely known among fans that the spectacle aspect of the sport weighs heavier then the competition aspect, as such both the fighters and referees play loosely with the rules to maximize the spectacle aspect. The same is not true of Eurovision, and it for sure is not true of the World Cup and the game of soccer in general.