The true measure of U.S. power is not limited to its trade figures or international treaties, because its authority is felt in any arena where decisions affecting the world order are made. Sports is just one such arena, although it seems that many are bothered by the fact that the same rules that apply to everyone also apply when this country has something at stake.
What happened at the World Cup—even though the U.S. team was disqualified—is a perfect example of how things work, no matter how much some people want to portray it as a scandal or an abuse of power. Behind every loud complaint lies nothing more than frustration at the evidence that not everyone has the same ability to assert what is rightfully theirs.
It all began when President Donald Trump directly asked Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s head, to review the penalty imposed on player Folarin Balogun, who had been sent off for a foul that apparently warranted a red card. Shortly afterward, the organization announced that the forward could return to play, and a storm of protests immediately erupted—a reaction that only demonstrates how selective many people are when it suits their interests.
It’s curious that no one mentioned any flaws in the rules until the United States asked that they be interpreted exactly as written. Those who are now crying foul over the rules being broken aren’t questioning the text itself, but they’re annoyed that someone knew how to use it to their own advantage without asking anyone’s permission.
This issue, of course, goes beyond the realm of sports, because it serves to make clear that U.S. primacy is exercised in every arena where positions are defined. And if we apply that same logic to what is happening this week at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Ankara, we will see that the reasoning is exactly the same.
In NATO member countries, rules apply that everyone knows, but which seem to bind some more than others. For years, the United States has shouldered the bulk of the burden of collective security, while many partners have grown complacent in the knowledge that someone else was covering the costs and risks.
The summit comes at a time when the differences can no longer be hidden, while President Trump insists on a demand that some describe as an affront but which, in reality, is something far less scandalous. Each member must fulfill the commitments it has accepted and contribute its fair share to sustain the common defense. It seems that asking for the rules to be respected equally provokes more outrage than breaking them for years. It’s the same stance seen in soccer: respecting the rules, but ensuring they’re applied without favoritism that ends up hurting those who invest the most.
Those who criticize this demand speak of undermining cooperation, but in reality they’re only defending their own comfort. Both on the soccer field and at international negotiating tables, the United States operates at a level that others cannot even begin to comprehend. While some limit themselves to doing the bare minimum or looking for excuses to avoid taking responsibility, this country decides how the rules are applied. The fact that many find this unfair or excessive does not change reality, because the position of the one who sets the pace can never be explained through the logic of equality to those who only know how to follow.
