> 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.

> 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. Seriously just take a step back and take stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium are being given a disadvantage, it is simply that they are being asked to play against the full squad. It is rather pathetic to complain about that.