By Michael Every of Rabobank

It’s easy to talk of the ‘collapse of the rules-based order’, but for most people it’s too abstract to impact on their day-to-day lives. Then the US president –who claims he didn’t know what a red card was– calls up the head of FIFA to ask if the US World Cup team’s leading scorer Balogun can have one suspended to play the round of 16 game vs Belgium – and it is. That prompted outrage from Belgium, UEFA, and billions of football fans.

Could this intervention ruin the competition or even the Beautiful Game? Those asking the question –perhaps during a previously non-existent, FIFA-approved ‘hydration break’ (for advertising) that breaks up the flow– overlook that neither FIFA nor UEFA are paragons of transparency and this red card shenanigan already happened in November 2025, when advert-magnet Christiano Ronaldo had his 3-match red card ban suspended under the same disciplinary process Balogun just benefited from so he could take part in this World Cup.

In that regard, the rules-based order has been collapsing for some time. Russia hosted the World Cup in 2018 after seizing parts of Ukraine that Europe today is insistent must be returned. In 2022, we got a winter World Cup in football giant Qatar, which nobody else wanted due to the disruption it brought to other football leagues’ seasons. One can make the argument that the US is now acting at the same level as those who make phone calls to get what they want – and it is. Yet it’s the global bodies that pliantly allow those calls to have an impact, which can be read to mean there’s little incentive in not giving it a try. England, for example, still led by a former human rights lawyer PM for now (but without him calling FIFA), are asking if they can have the red card they just picked up vs. Mexico suspended… just as Mexico would have done the same if the roles were reversed. Welcome to realpolitik, which will be co-hosting every World Cup from now on.   

At the more serious ‘Great Game’ level, today has a NATO summit in Ankara at which there are serious questions about if the alliance can hold together for the long term. There are more over how it will fund what it needs to do either way: Germany is to increase defense spending by 1/3 in 2027 via borrowing more and few else in Europe come anywhere close. Then there is the issue of how that money will be spent, regarding systems and production facilities; in big lumps at big sites or networks of smaller drone manufacturers, etc., as Japan says converting auto factories to the latter doesn’t work; buying from whom, as Canada opts for German submarines; and state- or private-owned given the latter keep refusing to step up capex? Moreover, will Trump grant Turkey F-35s at last when it already has the counterpart Russian S-400 antiaircraft system, which could render the NATO benchmark fighter jet’s air superiority void if its tech were to leak? (NB Turkey with F-35s would only increase rising Israel-Turkey tensions.)

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Zelenskyy claims the “battle in the sky” will determine the outcome of that war, so not peace talks?, and Finland’s president says NATO backs Ukraine hitting Russia harder, as the FT talks of the risks of Russian escalation, even including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but perhaps ‘just’ settling for grey-zone destabilisation of the European economy.

Likewise, Iran is seeing millions march at the last Supreme Leader’s funeral calling for death to America and Israel and trolling the Saudis and Turkey, as Trump repeated if there’s no deal, he’ll ‘finish the job.’  Markets might think they can shrug that off, even though it’s our base case, but will have to note another attack on an oil tanker just off Oman during this ‘peacefire.’

There’s no movement in Lebanon, but in Gaza Hamas has offered to hand over authority to a US-backed administration – while not promising to disarm unilaterally. Some cynics are wondering if the timing is based around the Turkish NATO summit, where F-35s are potentially on the table and Turkish help may be needed on the ground.

In Asia, the US just rebuked China’s “opaque” nuclear buildup after it carried out a Pacific missile test; and North Korea is lobbying to be included in future China-Russia military drills after its own recent missile test, making the teams and other fronts even clearer.

There’s no FIFA to issue or suspend red cards in these kinds of situations – just the UN, with no referees on the pitch or agreement on the rules from the big players, whose Secretary General has now called for “killer robots” to be banned. I’m sure Skynet will take his call as major militaries all try to fuse AI with automation. I’m less sure that killer tech will be red carded as a result.

In markets, a paradigm-shift dynamic is also evident. It’s not just an expected headline, like hedge fund managers being the most negative on JPY since 2007 at a time when it already trades like 1986(!)

It’s that the Fed’s Waller has joined new Chair Warsh in wanting to shake up Fed communications to do so less: ahead of the FOMC minutes today, one wonders if they could just be a truncated, “We talked about stuff,” leaving analysts to… well, analyze, rather than being spoon-fed.

It’s that the WSJ reporting JPMorgan, Bank of America, and other banks are exploring a deal to shake up the payments world.

It’s Jim O’Neill, when not advising Andy Burnham, saying that a BRICS alternative to the US dollar is “no longer a fantasy.” (Perhaps: but it’s still going to be an Odyssey, I’d wager, and it won’t look or act like a dollar as is now, if it appears.)

It’s China’s banking regulators having to take over online lender Zhongbang from Wuhan over “severe credit risks” in an economy running epic trade surpluses that should provide equally epic levels of domestic liquidity.

Perhaps things will just ‘sort themselves out’, as some in markets like to think always happens. After all, Belgium just beat the US 4-1, the latter crashing out with a limp performance and a bizarre gift of a goal to their opponent.

However, four-one’d is not forearmed. Will we really see Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea all losing in a great global competition the same? That said, we can all see a lot more presidential phone calls being made to global acronyms.