The Fifa red card fiasco is a mirror for governance

FOOTBALL is often called the world’s game because its rules are universal. From a dusty village pitch to a World Cup final, players enter the game believing the same laws apply to everyone.

Referees may err, fortunes may swing on a deflection or a dubious offside call, but the integrity of the contest rests on a simple assumption: The rules are established before the match begins and remain unchanged until it ends.

That is why Fifa sparked global controversy when it rescinded US striker Folarin Balogun’s red card amid pressure from US President Donald Trump to review the decision. Fifa’s apparent willingness to suspend or reinterpret its own regulations deserves scrutiny, with implications far beyond the sporting world.

Whether it was motivated by commercial realities, political pressure or exceptional circumstances is almost beside the point. The more consequential question is institutional.

If the body responsible for enforcing the rules can decide when they no longer apply, what distinguishes a rule from a recommendation?

It is an uncomfortable question because rules are not merely administrative devices. They are the architecture upon which trust is built.

The slow erosion of institutions

Institutions rarely lose credibility through one dramatic failure. They decline through a succession of reasonable exceptions.

Each exception arrives with a persuasive rationale. The circumstances are unprecedented. The tournament is too important. Commercial commitments cannot be ignored. Fans deserve to see the biggest stars. Flexibility is necessary.

Each argument may be defensible on its own. Together, however, they establish a more damaging principle: Rules are binding only until they become inconvenient.

That is how institutional erosion begins.

The first exception is extraordinary. The second becomes easier. Before long, discretion quietly replaces principle.

Lawyers call it precedent. Economists describe it as institutional drift. Citizens experience it more simply: They begin to lose confidence.

The discipline of constraint

The strongest institutions are rarely admired for their flexibility. They are respected for their restraint.

Judges refuse to comment on cases before them. Central banks protect their independence even when governments demand easier money. Boards insist directors recuse themselves over even perceived conflicts of interest. Auditors enforce procedures that often appear unnecessarily cumbersome.

Such rigidity can seem frustrating. Yet it is also indispensable.

Rules acquire legitimacy precisely because those empowered to bend them choose not to.

Every respected institution understands that today’s pragmatic exception becomes tomorrow’s expectation. Once discretion enters the system, pressure for further exceptions inevitably follows.

The authority of an institution depends less on the wisdom of its leaders than on their willingness to submit themselves to the rules they administer.

Football is merely the mirror

It would be tempting to dismiss Fifa’s actions as another episode in the colourful politics of international football. That would underestimate the significance of what is at stake.

Sport has always reflected society more faithfully than many assume.

Corporate governance weakens when companies proudly comply with every code except the inconvenient ones.

Financial regulation loses credibility when some institutions become “too big to fail” and are therefore exempt from consequences faced by smaller competitors.

Governments diminish the rule of law when politically connected individuals receive treatment unavailable to ordinary citizens.

Different arenas. The same dynamic. People seldom expect institutions to be flawless. But they expect them to be fair.

The distinction matters. Mistakes can be forgiven. Double standards rarely are.

Why consistency matters more than perfection

Football supporters understand this principle instinctively.

Fans can live with a referee’s mistake. Players can accept an unfortunate decision. Managers eventually move on from controversial calls.

What people struggle to accept is inconsistency. The same foul punished differently. The same rule applied differently depending on the player, club or occasion.

Fairness matters more than perfection because consistency creates legitimacy. The same principle underpins every successful institution.

Democracies function because elections are governed by rules that apply equally to winners and losers.

Markets function because contracts are expected to be enforced consistently.

Corporations attract investment because shareholders believe executives are accountable to standards that cannot be rewritten midway through the financial year.

Trust depends less on outcomes than on predictability.

The price of convenience

There is a revealing irony in all this.

Institutions usually bend their rules to preserve confidence. But in doing so, they often undermine the very confidence they seek to protect. Often, short-term flexibility purchases long-term scepticism.

Once people begin to suspect that principles can be adjusted, whenever circumstances become inconvenient, they cease believing in the principles altogether.

Football will survive this controversy, as it has survived many others.

The larger concern is what such episodes reveal about the age we inhabit. Across public life, there is an increasing temptation to treat rules not as commitments but as obstacles – binding on ordinary days, negotiable on exceptional ones.

Yet exceptional moments are precisely when principles matter most.

Anyone can uphold a rule when it is convenient. The true test of an institution is whether it does so when the cost is high.

Football’s governing body is entrusted with more than organising tournaments. It is the custodian of a global compact that billions of people intuitively understand: that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of reputation, wealth or circumstance.

The lesson reaches well beyond the touchline. Civilisation itself depends on a remarkably modest proposition that rules are known in advance, applied equally, and cannot be rewritten once the game has begun.

When that proposition weakens, it is not merely football that loses. It is trust itself.

The writer is a football fan who is a senior accredited director of the Singapore Institute of Directors serving on several boards, including as chairman of SGListCos