Politics

The California Democrat who says he ‘won’t cheer FIFA’s capitulation to power’

Published

3 months ago

July 7, 2026

Sam Liccardo said he “groaned excessively” when the U.S. national team’s Folarin Balogun was given a red card.

Yet the Silicon Valley representative objected after President Donald Trump pressed FIFA to review the play at issue, before the world soccer organization suspended the penalty and allowed the U.S.’ lead scorer to play in today’s knockout round match against Belgium.

“We can’t win this way,” Liccardo, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “I won’t cheer FIFA’s capitulation to power.”

Few other American politicians have expressed a similar sentiment, perhaps wary that they’ll be viewed as rooting against their own country’s success. But Liccardo joined a chorus of international officials who took issue with the pressure campaign that culminated in Balogun’s return to the pitch, while stressing that the “right outcome” had been reached despite what he viewed as foul play by FIFA leadership.

“The fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many,” he told Blue Light News in an interview just over an hour before the U.S.-Belgium match.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Were you at the match where the red card was issued in Santa Clara?

I was not, I’m ashamed to say. It’s slightly outside my district, and a few thousand dollars outside my tax bracket. … I watched on television and cheered wildly for the U.S. team, and groaned excessively when Balogun got his red card.

Democrats have accused President Trump of a lot of instances of corruption throughout his second term, so why speak out on this particular incident?

Well, I think in your question there’s an implication, and it’s a fair one, which is: Far be it from me to suggest that FIFA could ever be corrupt. But at least we could say that for once it was Americans that benefited from the corruption, not the Qataris or the Russians.

Look, I root for the U.S. men’s team every time they take the field, and, like virtually everyone else watching that game, I felt Balogun was treated very unfairly. That being said, since 1962, FIFA has never allowed a player to appear at a World Cup game after receiving a red card in the game immediately following. The intervention of a head of state — in what should be an international celebration of sports that should be above politics and beyond it — is troubling. And the fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many. [FIFA has repeatedly asserted that Trump’s call for a review had no impact on its decision, and Trump said the same today, while confirming he had asked for another look at the play.]

Do you think your constituents feel the same way?

People feel all kinds of different ways, and I don’t blame anyone for saying, “Hey, this is the right outcome.” That’s fine. I’m simply saying it’s the right outcome for the wrong reasons. And it’s hard to blame you global fans of the sport for having hard feelings.

Like, you said, a lot of people probably feel that this was the right outcome. Has that made this at all a tricky situation for Democrats to address politically?

No, because politicians shouldn’t address this. It’s not my problem to solve, and it’s certainly not Donald Trump’s problem to solve. So, I don’t have any problems. I’m a spectator, like everybody else. I’m simply saying we all want an umpire that calls balls and strikes, and we know that umpires get it wrong plenty of times. We just don’t want somebody bribing the umpire to get us a ball rather than a strike.

You’re a bystander in some ways, but this is also not your first time encountering FIFA. In addition to being a co-chair of the World Cup Caucus, you were the mayor of San Jose when the city was participating in the bidding process to host that tournament. Didn’t you and some of the other Bay Area mayors even go on a tour with FIFA officials of Levi’s Stadium a few years ago?

Yeah, I think we were at the stadium, and then we went to San Francisco. That’s what you do when you’re the mayor of the largest city in the region and you want the World Cup to come to your region.

So, when you say that FIFA is a corrupt organization, has that always been your view, or did this particular incident kind of drive you there?

It’s the view of the Department of Justice that indicted them for more than $150 million in bribes in 2015, it’s the view of lots of other folks who are concerned about how the Qataris ended up with the World Cup. We can go on and on. It’s not my view that matters here. The point is this: Nobody wants to see the head of state of any country calling an international sports organization to get a better call. That’s not the way sports should work.

The Olympics are coming to California in 2028. Should Democrats be trying to guard against Trump exerting influence once again to aid the host country in that international competition?

No, elected officials should be refraining from getting engaged in international sports competitions, the area where people don’t want politics. So it’s not about what we do or don’t do. It’s not about us standing up to Trump or not standing up to Trump. It’s about the fact that we should want international sports competitions to be free of political influence.

Politics

Mike Collins For Senate Memorandum

Published

49 minutes ago

September 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The memo comes at a key time for Rep. Mike Collins.

Politics

Crypto weighs revenge against Democrats — and the risks that come with it

Published

6 hours ago

September 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The cryptocurrency industry is at a political crossroads.

Reeling from the demise of its longtime top legislative priority, crypto companies must now decide how scorched-earth to go against Senate Democrats, who last week voted unanimously against the so-called Clarity Act, a sweeping bill that would create a bespoke new regulatory framework for digital assets.

A crypto-backed PAC network’s move this week provides a hint of what may be to come. The group, known as Fairshake, announced it would spend at least $30 million to help block Democrat Sherrod Brown from recapturing a pivotal Ohio Senate seat, representing the first major signal of how the industry plans to deploy its massive campaign war chest in the final weeks before the 2026 midterms.

Some crypto executives have publicly signaled an appetite in recent days for punishing Democrats. But a partisan strategy carries major political risk for the industry: A broad offensive against Democrats ahead of an election where they have a chance to reclaim power on Capitol Hill could further alienate lawmakers the industry may soon need to revive its agenda.

“As much as some people may want to, they can’t wave a wand and make Democrats go away,” said Sheila Warren, the former CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation, an industry trade group. “Every industry — not just crypto — has to figure out what to do with that reality.”

The crypto industry’s spending could have immediate consequences after the election. Democrats are signaling that a Senate GOP-aligned spending spree would suppress any appetite for lame duck dealmaking involving the Clarity bill — although it remains a long shot that it would come back to life regardless. A Senate Democratic aide involved in the crypto effort said a full-scale assault on the party’s Senate candidates “would absolutely eviscerate any hope” of a post-election deal.

The Fairshake PAC group, funded primarily by crypto firms Coinbase and Ripple and venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz, had more than $120 million at its disposal as of the end of August. It has previously deployed its war chest to help members of both parties who support industry-friendly policies.

Fairshake is preparing to announce additional spending decisions supporting both Democrats and Republicans in the coming days, according to a spokesperson for the group, Geoff Vetter. But it’s unclear what races — or which chamber — it will target next.

Kara Calvert, Coinbase’s vice president of U.S. policy, said in an interview that bipartisanship has been crypto’s “superpower.”

“Nobody is eager to erode that,” she said.

Though Fairshake says it will maintain a bipartisan approach, it hasn’t specified what shape that will take. One potential avenue for the PAC is to continue to back crypto-friendly Democrats running for the House — where the Clarity bill advanced with 78 Democratic votes last year — but primarily help Republicans in the Senate.

Fairshake spent in favor of several Senate Democrats in the 2024 elections, including in battleground general election races in Michigan and Arizona, where it backed Democratic Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego, respectively. It also plowed more than $40 million into the effort to help defeat Brown in his 2024 reelection campaign — by far its biggest spend of the cycle.

This time, Republicans are pressing the industry to recalibrate its approach and ditch the Democrats.

“To reward people who voted against the motion to proceed on Clarity after the Democrats got 126 amendments in the bill would be a huge mistake,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, the crypto bill’s leading champion in the Senate. The Wyoming Republican is retiring when her term ends in January.

Democrats, who feel increasingly confident about their chances in November despite the GOP’s spending advantages, say Republicans are trying to play the crypto industry.

It’s “been the goal of Republican colleagues all along to try to get folks to invest in races, versus them trying to get a piece of legislation done, and someone needs to call the Republicans out on their bullshit,” said Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), who added: “Sherrod’s gonna win.”