Why hiding your mouth while abusing rivals is a bad idea at 2026 FIFA World Cup

The 20-year-old Benfica forward retorted by claiming the Brazilian “misinterpreted what he thinks he heard”, and was eventually handed a six-match ban for homophobic remarks instead.

FIFA later extended the ban globally, which meant Prestianni would have missed Argentina’s first two World Cup games had he been picked in the squad. Racism and homophobia lie in the same offence category under Article 14 of UEFA’s disciplinary regulations, and the striker’s mouth-shielding with his jersey would certainly not have aided the ethics and disciplinary investigator appointed to probe the incident.

This was not the first time something of the sort had transpired. In March 2021, Slavia Prague defender Ondrej Kudela hid his mouth while racially abusing Rangers’ Glen Kamara in a Europa League clash, and eventually served a 10-match ban.

History of abuse

According to the BBC, Prestianni’s unbecoming words marked the 20th time Vinicius called out racist abuse against him since arriving at the Bernabeu in 2018. It began in October 2021 during a Clasico at Camp Nou, where a spectator screamed “monkey” at him. The invective has since continued across Spanish stadiums, including a mannequin wearing Vinicius’ shirt hung from a bridge in January 2023.

Court cases, arrests and widespread outrage have not deterred such behaviour. FIFA’s latest move aims to rein in players at least, shifting the burden of transparency onto them by making the speech-hiding act a dismissible offence.

The regulation came into effect on June 1 but the European governing body has decided against following it for now, The Guardian reported. But FIFA has adopted the rule for its flagship event, given the sheer scale of the upcoming extravaganza and the variety of countries and cultures involved. If an Asian or African player is subjected to racial abuse during the tournament, the issue could snowball into a global controversy.

How rule will be enforced

The International Football Association Board’s (IFAB) Law 12 stipulates a straight red card for players “using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)”. Referees rely on what they hear, their assistants and the video assistant referee’s (VAR) inputs, as well as players’ reactions and the context of the incident.

With the new rule, the referee will have more discretion in trying to ascertain the nature of conversation between opposing players. Banter is not a problem, but if the official sees a player covering their mouth with a hand, arm or shirt in a confrontation, a send-off is prescribed.

It remains to be seen how this would play out, as footballers routinely cover their mouths during matches. Further, given language barriers across nationalities, mishearing is a possibility. The onus would thus be on referees to adapt their decision-making from clear proof to interpretation.

It is worth noting that the aforementioned Law 12 also has a yellow card provision for players covering their faces with masks and the like, though that pertains to celebration of a goal. The mouth-covering directive, in a way, clubs the two aspects as a safeguard against racism, for that is a malady best nipped in the bud.

Expert speak:

“We respect that there are players who are friends and it is normal to chat before, during or after the match. When it is confrontational, it is a completely different story. Covering the mouth means you are doing something potentially very wrong. This is something you do on purpose. It is not something that a player can do instinctively.”

Pierluigi Collina, head of FIFA’s referees committee