By Opta Analyst | Created at 2026-07-18 17:28:13 | Updated at 2026-08-03 21:55:19
4 weeks ago
First, a FIFA intervention into a red card from five days prior. Then, a rejected Belgium appeal. Regardless of how it plays out before kick-off, what is it that Folarin Balogun and his potential replacement Ricardo Pepi bring to the striker position for the United States?
At some point on Monday – likely 5pm in Seattle – a football match will start between the United States and Belgium. The winners will advance to the quarter-finals of the World Cup, and the losers will be eliminated. And Folarin Balogun either will or will not be on the pitch for the United States.
In the second half of Wednesday’s last-32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina, a VAR review of Balogun’s foul on Tarik Muharemovic resulted in a straight red card. It was accepted that Balogun – like the many recipients of red cards at World Cups before him – would miss the next match.
It was announced on Sunday that FIFA had not rescinded the red card but suspended it for one year. Belgium confirmed on Monday morning that they, unsurprisingly, appealed after expressing astonishment when learning of the decision themselves through media reports.
The move by football’s governing body has been widely criticised, even by UEFA, the governing body of Europe, in a statement on their website.
“A minimum automatic suspension of one match following a red card is not a discretionary option and does not require the decision of a competent body to be enacted. It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension,” UEFA wrote.
“When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined.”
Making matters more complicated, US President Donald Trump has since confirmed he contacted FIFA president Gianni Infantino after the United States’ win over Bosnia-Herzegovina and requested a review of the decision.
Caught in the middle of it is the 25-year-old Balogun, who, it is broadly accepted, didn’t have malicious intent in the foul committed and accepted the verdict.
It matters on the pitch because Balogun had for four matches resolved one of the biggest ongoing questions facing the United States men’s national team. That discussion, on and off for decades, has been about what USMNT coaches should do with their options to lead the attacking line, and those options haven’t always been enticing. The answer now is Balogun, except for when the rules say he can’t be.
FIFA is, seemingly, doubling down on its decision to let him play, however. Belgium’s appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, though they have informed the US that they will contest “the eligibility of the player” if he’s listed on the team sheet.
It now seems to be in the hands of Mauricio Pochettino. The US coach seems set on playing Balogun, citing that the US were the team wronged by the initial VAR review on the pitch that resulted in them playing the remainder of the match with 10 men. But playing Balogun against Belgium is a lose-lose for the US. This is a story that is just as big in places such as England as it is in the US. And the overriding neutral sentiment outside the US is that of disbelief. The international football community is well on its way to placing an asterisk on this tournament. Winning with Balogun will move the United States through the tournament, which they may very well deserve given how they have performed, but a large percentage of football fans outside of the US will not accept the result if Balogun is a part of it.
In the event the US opt to take the pragmatic approach and leave Balogun out to kill any whiff of controversy (as unlikely as that seems), it’s very likely the US coach would select Ricardo Pepi. Pepi started with Balogun in the US’s second match of the tournament when Christian Pulisic missed the 2-0 win over Australia through injury, and Poch elected to go with a two-striker formation. The potential next option, Haji Wright, has only played one minute at this tournament.
So what are the differences between Pepi and Balogun?
Balogun is seen as a striker with individual ingenuity who might not consistently finish at a level a coach may want, but with the trade-off of bringing the ability to find a shot with a little more work than your average striker. We saw this with his second goal against Paraguay, with Balogun shaking off a defender and touching the ball around another before finding the top-left corner of the goal.
Balogun scored 13 goals from 13.5 expected goals (xG) in Ligue 1 for Monaco last season. His finishing has been fantastic in this tournament with three goals from 1.25 xG, while also completing the carry and low cross that led to the US’s first goal against Australia (an own goal).
Pepi, across a larger sample size, is seen as the more clinical finisher. In his time at PSV in the Dutch Eredivisie, he averages a goal every 75 minutes. That came with a significant xG overperformance last season, with 16 goals from 11.5 xG.
Pepi’s involvement tends to be in advanced positions, while Balogun – as we’ve seen at this tournament – poses more of a threat receiving the ball around the edge of the penalty area and working himself into a shot. Pepi, rather, operates consistently within the box.
Beyond that, what do they actually do differently? Comparing numbers across leagues and team systems isn’t necessarily insightful, but the truth is Balogun isn’t shredding French defenders off the dribble with regularity. His 0.56 successful take-ons per 90 ranked among the bottom half of Ligue 1 forwards last season (900+ minutes played). Pepi isn’t either.
Perhaps the key difference in a single knockout match, if Pepi were picked, may be his ability to impact the game in an instant with what he brings in the air. Balogun isn’t much of an aerial threat. He didn’t score a headed goal (0.44 headed shots per 90) in Ligue 1 this season, while the 6-foot-1 Pepi scored six (0.38 headed goals per 90 from 1.08 shots) in far fewer minutes played in the Eredivisie.
The US have been impressive going forward through four matches, but they haven’t done much with their crosses. As we wrote in our US-Belgium subplots, the US have completed six of 42 open-play crosses. Certain teams prioritise crossing, others don’t. But, when considering the US were in the top four for runs ending in the box (103) and runs with a crossing option (51) ahead of the last-16 games, it feels somewhat wasteful.
On the surface, Pepi has also been a much more accurate passer in the final third domestically (79.8% vs 59.5% for Balogun), but that certainly comes down to the systems they play in, the quality of opposition, and the ambition of the passes they’re playing.
Perhaps the main question for Pepi would be whether he can maintain a role in the fluidity of the US attack as Balogun has. Part of what has made the United States difficult to defend against is the combination of individual skill one-on-one and movement in the attacking third to break lines and create space. Balogun’s contribution to that has often been with runs in behind. More than half of his 38 runs have been in behind (20) and 13 have ended in the box. Five of those have been followed by a team shot and two by a team goal.
Pepi, in 41 fewer minutes in the tournament, has actually made more off-ball runs (46) and in behind (22), with nine of those followed by a team shot. But there’s a bit more variety to Balogun’s and perhaps a predictability to Pepi’s when considering their runs ending in the attacking third.
FIFA has had its say. Belgium wanted theirs considered. If nothing changes between now and kick-off, it’s likely Pochettino will go with Balogun, and Pepi will be used as a substitute. Whether either’s impact can live up to the magnitude of the saga that’s been created remains to be seen.
Enjoy this? Add Opta Analyst as a preferred source by clicking here.
Subscribe to our football newsletter to receive exclusive weekly content. You should also follow our social accounts over on X, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.
