Politics

Belgium’s complicated language politics, explained

Published

1 hour ago

July 6, 2026

Belgium recognizes three official languages: Dutch, which is dominant in Flanders; French, spoken in Wallonia; and German, spoken by a distinct community of around 70,000 people along the country’s eastern border.

Much of Belgian public life, including education, health care and the media, is organized separately along these linguistic lines. International sport is a notable exception, providing one of the few occasions when Belgians — regardless of whether they speak Dutch, French or German — rally behind the same flag.

Belgian soccer is “a sharp contrast to how the country is organized politically and culturally” Jeroen Scheerder, professor of sports politics and sports sociology at KU Leuven told Blue Light News, adding that aside from chocolate, beer and the King, he struggles to “list any other aspects of life with which people identify to feel like a Belgian … I call it the 90 minutes of nationalism.”

Professor Jef Brouwers, who worked as performance psychologist under former Belgium coach Roberto Martínez between 2015 and 2018, agreed.

“The team is one the few things that cuts through the linguistic barriers,” he said. “You cannot participate as a Flemish athlete or as a Walloon athlete or a Brussels athlete. We have those three governments, but you cannot participate in one of those shirts.”

Roughly half of Belgium’s national soccer team, the Red Devils, are native French speakers, while the other half speak Dutch as their first language. Yet communication has rarely posed a problem because English has become the team’s neutral working language.

“There are French- and Flemish-speaking (players) so it’s the habit, the necessity to speak English … when (the coach) is talking, giving an explanation on the game plan, he will speak in English so that everybody can understand,” Brouwers said.

Language, therefore has never become a major point of contention within the squad.

“I’m quite sure they don’t even think about the language,” Brouwers said. “It is absolutely not a point of attention.”

Scheerder said the arrangement comes naturally because most Belgian internationals already use English in their club soccer careers.

“Most of (the players) if not all of them are quite familiar with (English). Most of them are playing abroad in international clubs … so its not really an issue or a topic,” he added.

If Belgium’s linguistic divide is not an issue during training and after kick-off, there is one moment when it becomes impossible to ignore: the national anthem.

Belgium has not one but four official versions of “La Brabançonne”: French, Dutch and German versions, as well as a multilingual version that alternates between the three languages. Of course, using English as a neutral language provides no solution here!

Fans watching closely during World Cup matches may notice that the lyrics displayed on stadium screens are shown in three rows — one for each official language.

Players and fans can choose which line to sing, meaning that multiple different versions of the same song are being sung at the same time.

Some players, including Kevin De Bruyne, the superstar from Ghent in Flanders, often do not sing the lyrics at all. Scheerder said this is “not at all a statement” and may even reflect a desire to avoid choosing between Belgium’s different official languages.

So, while the Red Devils may spend 90 minutes speaking the same language as their American opponents on the pitch, they begin the evening with a uniquely Belgian chorus: one anthem, three languages — and no single unified version everyone sings.

Politics

‘Profoundly corrupt’: The EU’s leading FIFA critic sharpens his attack

Published

13 minutes ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

FIFA’s leading critic in the European Parliament told Blue Light News that the decision to lift a key American player’s one-game suspension was the latest example of an “unbroken pattern” of nontransparent governance in world football’s governing body.

Last week, centrist Irish MEP Barry Andrews penned a letter urging FIFA to investigate its president, Gianni Infantino, over four public statements he made in support of U.S. President Donald Trump last year, which allegedly undermined the body’s political neutrality.

On Monday, after FIFA lifted the ban on American striker Folarin Balogun following a call from Trump to Infantino, Blue Light News sat down with Andrews to discuss how the governing body’s latest decision adds fuel to his criticism.

FIFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Andrews’ latest rebuke, but Infantino released a statement Monday denying allegations that he influenced the decision to lift Balogun’s suspension.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What was your first reaction when you heard the news that Trump had got involved in Balogun’s case?

It confirms, in my view, that FIFA is a profoundly corrupt organization. Unfortunately, there’s a decadeslong litany of examples of how FIFA has corrupted sport at the highest level. It’s just a further chapter in that litany, unfortunately, and we need to figure out ways to try to put pressure on FIFA to reverse this decision.

MEP Petras Auštrevičius told Blue Light News on Friday that FIFA is “not any longer a neutral sports organization.” Do you agree?

Is it not really a lawless organization? The decisions around awarding the World Cup to Qatar and Russia have been demonstrated to be the subject of massive bribery of officials in the executive committee of FIFA and also the confederations across the world. So, unfortunately, what we’re seeing with the recent example of Infantino just proves that this is an unbroken pattern over many decades. When Sepp Blatter was [FIFA president], he had no restraint on his politicization of the role, but Infantino, if it’s possible, is worse.

Blatter said this morning that “football must never become a playground for political power.”

If Blatter thinks it’s corrupt, we’re dealing with towering levels of malpractice.

What do you think the European response should be here?

There’s a lot of people who say “politics and sport don’t mix,” but we’re dealing with an organization that is so powerful. Therefore, we should make a very clear statement on it. There’s a limit on what we can do, but I think we have to be very explicit on denouncing what has happened in this situation since Sunday.

Are you going to be watching the U.S.-Belgium game tonight?

I’ll be watching it. I’m disappointed with everything about the way the U.S. has [conducted the World Cup]. It’s not the fault of the U.S. players, but you just can’t help yourself. You couldn’t imagine what would happen if the U.S. won the tournament.

Politics

Capitol agenda: Jeffries takes hands-off approach to Israel

Published

23 minutes ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats wrestled with how to handle a politically thorny vote, Jeffries offered caucus forums but little guidance…
Read More

Politics

FIFA’s red-card committee hits back after fury over Trump intrusion

Published

28 minutes ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

FIFA’s disciplinary committee, the body that lifted American striker Folarin Balogun’s one-game suspension ahead of Monday’s U.S.-Belgium game, defended its decision in a statement released hours before kickoff in Seattle — but didn’t explain the rationale for making it.

In the 13-paragraph statement, the committee explained the body’s rationale for reconsidering Balogun’s suspension. The review came after President Donald Trump called FIFA chief Gianni Infantino last week to call for the soccer boss to take another look at the decision, after Balogun received a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Said suspension of the implementation was decided considering all of the specific circumstances surrounding the incident and evidence available,” the committee said, referring to the lifting of Balogun’s one-game ban. “The FIFA Disciplinary Committee (as any other FIFA judicial body) is independent as provided by the FIFA Statutes and the FIFA Disciplinary Code.”

The committee also argued that by not overturning Balogun’s red card entirely, but instead merely suspending his one-game ban, it had applied a “much more balanced measure.”

Soccer pundits had widely criticized the referee’s decision to send Balogun off during the last-32 encounter, but commentators, European politicians and soccer officials rounded on the move to let Balogun play against Belgium.

Earlier Monday, UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, said that FIFA’s decision “crossed a red line,” adding that it was “unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable.”

The committee fired back at UEFA in his statement, saying that previous instances of red cards being overturned in football leagues “belonging to UEFA-affiliated member associations” have “never raised concerns about crossing any ‘red line.’”

In the closest historical parallel, Brazilian star Garrincha received a red card in the 1962 World Cup, but had his suspension overturned and played in the final after the president of semifinal opponent Chile, Jorge Alessandri, lobbied FIFA to overturn the ban.