Owens’ argument is that the original decision can be defended or criticised, but the surrounding optics are harder to contain. “The perception is now that the president of the United States has rung the president of to ensure a red card is rescinded,” he said.
That perception matters because refereeing already operates under constant suspicion. Supporters regularly believe major clubs, star players or powerful nations receive favourable treatment, even when decisions are explainable. Once outside influence appears to enter the process, those suspicions can move quickly from frustration to conspiracy.
Owens praised the tournament as a strong spectacle, highlighting England’s “fantastic performance” and the quality of Egypt against Argentina. Yet he believes the Balogun episode has provided fresh “oxygen” for claims that officiating is shaped by forces beyond the laws of the game.
His warning is not that every controversial decision proves corruption. It is that governance must be clear enough to prevent doubt taking hold. Football can survive arguments over VAR, handball or red cards; it is far less equipped to absorb the belief that influential figures can intervene privately.
Owens also acknowledged that rugby has faced its own criticism over disciplinary consistency. His point is not that one sport has solved the problem, but that officials in every code must recognise how quickly reputations form around controversial calls.
The next major refereeing dispute at the World Cup will therefore be judged against this backdrop. ’s challenge is to explain the Balogun decision transparently and ensure future disciplinary reviews look independent, consistent and beyond political reach.