The Measure of Convenience: Why Memory Deserves the Biggest Red Card

A president picks up the phone, calls the federation president, and a few hours later a suspended player is allowed to play after all. The football world is in uproar: "unprecedented," "incomprehensible," "a red line has been crossed." And those who, five years ago, excluded millions of people from public life with a single click, suddenly discover their fondness for the rule.

The incident itself is quickly told. US striker Folarin Balogun stepped on an opponent's ankle in the round of 32, received a straight red card, and would have been suspended for the next match. Donald Trump considered this an injustice, called FIFA president Gianni Infantino , and requested a "review." The disciplinary committee subsequently suspended the ban – an unusual procedure for a one-match suspension . Belgium's appeal was rejected as inadmissible; UEFA saw a red line crossed . This can be criticized. In fact, it should be.

The outcry comes five years too late
But: Anyone now preaching the pure doctrine of fairness, adherence to rules, and equal treatment under the rule of law should take a quick look at their own calendar. In the winter of 2021/22, the 2G rule was in effect nationwide in Germany. Anyone who was not vaccinated or recovered was barred from entering: restaurants, gyms, concerts, and in many federal states, even retail stores beyond essential services. The German Bundestag's own Research Service noted that this meant that unvaccinated people were thus... "significantly hampered" I will be excluded from participating in social and cultural life. This must be acknowledged: an official document describes the exclusion – and yet the exclusion continues.

The ban didn't affect just a handful of marginalized individuals. Retailers reported average sales slumps of around a third before Christmas 2021, and in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the figure was as high as 70 percent . Entire department store chains filed lawsuits, and courts overturned the rule one after another. This wasn't a fringe phenomenon; it was the daily reality for millions – mandated, monitored, and enforced.

External protection was the magic word – until it no longer was one.
And here's where it gets interesting. 2G was sold as protecting others: those who are vaccinated don't infect anyone else, so only vaccinated people are allowed in. The problem: the transmission effect was never what the label promised. Initially, the vaccine measurably reduced transmission – but with the Delta variant and over time, this effect disappeared. British household data showed secondary infection rates of 25 percent among vaccinated individuals compared to 23 percent among unvaccinated individuals. Index cases – practically identical. The renowned New England Journal of Medicine documented that protection against transmission after the second dose. rapidly subsided. So, anyone who was vaccinated and passed the bouncer could merrily spread the virus – while the tested unvaccinated person stayed outside.

That's precisely the irony: 2G didn't sort people according to risk of infection, but according to their paperwork status. A negative test proved that someone wasn't currently infectious. It was useless. Two vaccinations proved absolutely nothing about current infection. They opened every door. A system that locks out those who have proven negative and lets in those who might be positive is many things, but certainly not what it says on the package. I dissected in more detail how this logic became a panic machine in my book, " The Golden Age of Panic ."

The courts saw the arbitrariness more clearly than the public.
It wasn't conspiracy theorists who brought down 2G, but administrative courts. The Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony ruled in December 2021 that the rule violated regulations. against the principle of equality and may no longer be used in retail. Saarland completely suspended 2G in January 2022, and Bavaria overturned it for retail due to its vagueness. An unvaccinated pharmacy student in Baden-Württemberg successfully sued to gain access to his own university. The judiciary recognized the design flaw while the general public was still applauding – and it is precisely this public that now acts as the guardian of rule-following.

Those who applauded back then are outraged today.
The real scandal isn't FIFA. The real scandal is its personnel. The same public that considered the exclusion of millions reasonable, necessary, even morally imperative, now finds a suspended one-match ban for a footballer intolerable. Those who shouted "stay out" back then are now shouting "rule violation." Those who once blasted away any doubt with "Covidiot" and "conspiracy theorist" have suddenly discovered the rule of law. My respect for those who paid the price is in the A tribute in honor of the unvaccinated – they're not clapping today.

The crucial difference remains, one that the outraged conveniently overlook. No one is forced to watch the FIFA circus. No one pays admission, turns on the television, or gives this association even a second's attention. FIFA makes its rules, and those who find them repugnant simply switch them off. End of story. The 2021 ban, however, wasn't something one could simply click away from. It directly impacted work, daily life, and social participation. One couldn't just "switch channels" when one's own country decided that one no longer belonged in the department store.

You don't have to like FIFA to see what's going on here. A rescinded red card sends the guardians of fair play into a frenzy – the exclusion of millions earns them applause. Those who call one case "unprecedented" and cheered the other aren't applying a double standard; they're applying the standard of convenience. Outrage has never been a matter of principle, but always a matter of personal experience. And the biggest red card in this story isn't for Balogun, but for a memory that's only as long as it suits their purposes!