The debate over World Cup refereeing is no longer only about missed fouls or wrong cards.
In a strongly worded editorial, L’Équipe writer Vincent Duluc has argued that the tournament is showing signs of something more serious: a move towards what he describes as “political refereeing.”
His concern is not limited to one match. It is about the impression that some decisions, and some disciplinary outcomes, no longer feel consistent across the tournament.
According to L’Équipe, Duluc believes the World Cup has reached a point where the referee still needs protection, but where football also needs protection from decisions that appear to serve forces outside the pitch.
Read also: Red Bull faces internal friction as Verstappen's engineer 'frozen out' amid McLaren links
Paraguay-France fuels the debate
The most immediate example came during France’s 1-0 win over Paraguay in the last 16.
The match was physical, tense and increasingly difficult for Uzbek referee Ilgiz Tantashev to control. Paraguay repeatedly disrupted France, with Kylian Mbappé often at the centre of the contact, yet the South American side finished without a single booking.
According to Fox Sports, Paraguay committed 12 fouls and received no cards, while France were shown three yellow cards.
That imbalance became one of the main talking points after the match.
Read also: Ibrahimovic salutes Neymar: “The skill set he had was just crazy”:
France still advanced after Mbappé converted a 70th-minute penalty, but the wider feeling was that the game had been allowed to drift too far. The absence of any Paraguayan card, despite the tone of the match, only sharpened the criticism.
Duluc points to a wider pattern
Duluc’s argument goes beyond Tantashev.
According to L’Équipe, he also pointed to earlier moments in the tournament and to a broader pattern that, in his view, has followed FIFA since the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
He referred to what he sees as a “retention of cards” around certain teams and players, with Argentina mentioned as one of the examples. Duluc cited an unpunished foul by Lionel Messi on Aïssa Mandi during the group stage as part of that wider concern.
Read also: These 16 football stars are still without a Club After the World Cup
The point is not that every decision is part of a conspiracy.
It is that inconsistent discipline creates suspicion. When some fouls are punished and others are ignored, when some players receive protection and others do not, the authority of the referee begins to weaken.
That is where Duluc’s warning becomes sharper.
“We have moved from the era of corruption, of which the big European clubs were specialists in the 60s, 70s and 80s, to political refereeing,” he wrote, according to L’Équipe.
Read also: FIA explains safety car chaos after Leclerc wins at Silverstone
Balogun case adds political pressure
The Folarin Balogun case has made the debate even more explosive.
The United States striker was sent off against Bosnia-Herzegovina in the round of 32 and was initially expected to miss the last-16 match against Belgium. Instead, FIFA suspended the one-match ban for a probationary period of one year, allowing him to play.
According to AP News, U.S. President Donald Trump personally called FIFA president Gianni Infantino and asked the governing body to review the case.
Trump later thanked FIFA publicly for “reversing a great injustice.”
Read also: Mexico star rushed to hospital immediately after England defeat with injury
FIFA did not erase the red card itself. According to The Guardian, the governing body used Article 27 of its disciplinary code to suspend the implementation of the ban, meaning it can still be enforced if Balogun commits a similar offence within a year.
That technical explanation has not ended the controversy.
For critics, the problem is the timing, the political involvement and the impression that a rule normally treated as automatic suddenly became flexible before a World Cup knockout match involving the host nation.
UEFA enters the argument
The controversy has also drawn UEFA into open criticism of FIFA.
According to RTE, UEFA said FIFA’s decision to suspend Balogun’s automatic one-match ban had “crossed a red line.”
The statement continued: “Football, like any other sport, relies on rules, which are the basis for fair, honest and transparent competition. Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case, not.”
That response gave the Balogun case a wider institutional weight.
It was no longer only Belgium protesting before facing the United States. It became a direct challenge from European football’s governing body to FIFA’s interpretation of its own disciplinary powers.
Referees must still be protected
Duluc’s central argument is not that referees should be exposed or abandoned.
It is the opposite.
His editorial returns to the idea that football must protect referees because the game cannot function without them. But he also argues that referees must protect the game by applying rules consistently and resisting pressure from reputation, politics or tournament circumstances.
That is why the phrase “political refereeing” cuts so sharply.
It suggests a shift from simple human error to a more dangerous perception: that the same game may not be refereed in the same way for everyone.
Whether one agrees with Duluc or not, the discussion has now reached the centre of the World Cup.
France are through. The United States have Balogun available. Argentina remain under the familiar glare of global attention.
But beneath the results, another question is growing louder.
If the rules do not feel equal, how long can the tournament’s credibility remain untouched?
