Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA, UEFA, IFAB · 2024–2026

Crossed Arms: FIFA's Global Stand Against Racism and Its First Big Test

In May 2024, FIFA's 211 member associations adopted a five-pillar 'global stand against racism'. It made racism a specific disciplinary offence with sanctions up to forfeits, introduced a crossed-arms gesture for players and referees, and made a three-step procedure to halt, suspend and abandon matches mandatory. In February 2026, referee François Letexier used the gesture when Vinícius Júnior reported abuse by Benfica's Gianluca Prestianni, who had covered his mouth. Play resumed, and UEFA later banned Prestianni for homophobic, not racist, conduct. IFAB then approved red cards for mouth-covering. The case asks whether protocols change behavior or mainly signal intent.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. UEFA establishes a three-step racism protocol.
  2. FIFA Circular 1884 sets out the five pillars.
  3. The 74th FIFA Congress in Bangkok backs the global stand against racism.
  4. Benfica v Real Madrid is halted for 10 minutes after Vinícius reports abuse.
  5. UEFA bans Prestianni for six matches for homophobic conduct.
  6. IFAB approves red cards for mouth-covering and protest walk-offs.
  7. The new measures apply at the 2026 World Cup.

The ethical issues

  • Whether protocols deter abuse.
  • Burden of proof in discrimination cases.
  • Different sanctions for racist and homophobic abuse.
  • The victim's burden of reporting.
  • Penalizing walk-offs.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Players who are abusedProtection and accountability.
Accused playersA fair hearing.
RefereesClear, workable procedures.
FIFA, UEFA and IFABCredible rules and enforcement.
Clubs and fansMatches completed and reputations protected.
Anti-discrimination advocatesReal change in behavior.

The case

Background

Football has long had procedures for stopping matches over racist abuse. UEFA set up a three-step protocol in 2009 [4]. Under it, the referee first stops the match and has a public-address announcement made. If the abuse continues, the players are taken off for five to ten minutes. If it starts again after the restart, the referee can abandon the game once the safety of players and the public has been assessed [4]. Players, however, kept reporting that the steps were applied inconsistently or not at all, and sanctions varied from country to country.

What happened

Ahead of its 74th Congress in Bangkok, FIFA sent its 211 member associations Circular 1884, dated 16 May 2024. It said FIFA had “undergone an extensive consultation process with current and former players” and set out five “pillars” [1]:

  • Rules and sanctions: racism becomes “a specific offence with mandatory inclusion” in every association’s disciplinary code, with “specific and severe sanctions, including match forfeits.”
  • Action on the field: games are paused, suspended and abandoned, using “a global standard gesture for players to communicate racist incidents and referees to signal the implementation of the three-step procedure,” made mandatory everywhere.
  • Criminal charges: FIFA will push for racism to be recognised as a criminal offence in every country.
  • Education: initiatives with schools and governments, “in recognition that no child is born a racist.”
  • Players’ voice: a Players’ Anti-Racism Panel of former players to monitor implementation.

On 17 May 2024 the Congress delegates rose and applauded. FIFA President Gianni Infantino said, “For too long we were not capable of dealing with it in an appropriate way.” Promotional video showed figures such as Pierluigi Collina and Harry Kane making the crossed-arms gesture [2].

The biggest test of the new measures came on 17 February 2026, in a Champions League play-off between Benfica and Real Madrid in Lisbon. After scoring, Vinícius Júnior was booked for his celebration. Following an exchange with Benfica’s Gianluca Prestianni, he ran to referee François Letexier and reported racist abuse. Letexier made the crossed-arms gesture. Vinícius walked off and his teammates followed. Play resumed ten minutes later, and an object thrown from the crowd later struck Vinícius [4]. Prestianni had covered his mouth with his shirt. He denied any racist insult and said Vinícius “misheard” [4][5]. Afterwards, Vinícius called it “a poorly executed protocol that served no purpose” [4].

In April 2026, UEFA banned Prestianni for six matches for homophobic conduct, not racism. One match had already been served under a provisional ban and three were suspended for two years. A racism finding would have carried a minimum ten-match ban [5]. Real Madrid’s Aurélien Tchouaméni said Prestianni had told him the remark was homophobic. The BBC reported that UEFA had struggled to meet the burden of proof for racism because the player’s mouth was covered. UEFA asked FIFA to extend the ban worldwide [5].

The rules and governance

The 2024 measures are a commitment by FIFA’s members. Each association has to write them into its own disciplinary code, and confederations such as UEFA run their own procedures [1][4]. On 28 April 2026, at a special meeting in Vancouver, the International Football Association Board unanimously approved two FIFA-proposed amendments to the Laws of the Game [3]:

  • At the competition organiser’s discretion, “any player covering their mouth in a confrontational situation with an opponent may be sanctioned with a red card.”
  • A player who leaves the field “in protest at a referee’s decision” may also be sent off, as may a team official who incites them. A team that causes an abandonment will, “in principle, forfeit the match.”

Both measures were to apply at the 2026 World Cup [3][6].

Aftermath

The protocol now has a recognised signal, a mandatory sequence and new supporting laws [1][3]. Its first high-profile use, however, ended with play resuming, a disputed account of what was said and a sanction that critics found inadequate. The BBC’s correspondent wrote that the outcome “gives the impression that homophobic abuse is being treated far less seriously than racism” [5].

The core dilemma

Do standardized protocols and gestures actually reduce abuse, or do they mainly show that governing bodies are doing something, while proof, enforcement and sanctions remain the real problem?

Competing values

  • Protecting victims: players should be able to stop a match when they are abused.
  • Due process: the accused must be sanctioned on evidence, not assertion.
  • Consistency: the same rules should apply in every association.
  • Fairness between kinds of discrimination: homophobic abuse and racist abuse are sanctioned differently.
  • Continuity of the game: abandonment punishes the many for the acts of the few.

Strongest arguments

The protocol works: a common gesture gives every player a way to report abuse and every referee a script to follow. Mandatory forfeits change the incentives for clubs whose fans abuse players. The Lisbon match was stopped in front of a global audience, and the mouth-covering rule closed a loophole within ten weeks [3][4].

The protocol falls short: the match resumed and the verdict could not establish racism [4][5]. Victims have to report abuse in the middle of a game, under pressure and often without witnesses. The new red card for leaving the field could deter the very walk-offs that bring abuse to attention. And making racism a separate offence may create a hierarchy among forms of discrimination.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

The test is whether abuse actually declines. Forfeits and red cards raise the cost of abuse. But if they are rarely applied, the deterrent is weak, and abandoned matches impose costs on everyone involved.

Justice

A justice lens asks whether sanctions are fair and consistent. They should not depend on where the match is played, which slur was used, or whether the abuser hid their mouth. Due process for the accused is also part of justice.

Rights

A rights lens focuses on players’ right to work free of discrimination and dignified treatment. It also covers the accused’s right to a fair hearing, which the mouth-covering rule tries to reconcile with the problem of proof.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: how a referee should respond to a reported slur that no one else heard.
  2. Gather the facts: the player’s report, any video, lip-reading and witnesses.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: the victim, the accused, both teams, the fans, the referee and the governing bodies.
  4. Consider the options: a pause and announcement; removing the players; abandonment; or a post-match investigation only.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: protecting the victim, due process and consistency.
  6. Decide and review: follow the steps, document everything, and review whether sanctions deter abuse.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: FIFA adopted the five pillars in 2024 [1][2]. IFAB approved the mouth-covering and walk-off red cards for 2026 [3].

Contested: whether the protocol changes behavior, and whether homophobic and racist abuse should carry equal penalties.

Why this case matters

Rules on paper become real only when they hold up on the pitch. See Vinícius Júnior and Racist Abuse in Spanish Football, Euro 2020: Online Racist Abuse of England’s Penalty Takers and One Word at Every Goal Kick: Mexico, FIFA and the Homophobic Chant.

Key terms

Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Prevent, minimize, mitigate, remedy
An order of priorities for harm: prevent it if possible, then minimize it, mitigate what remains, and remedy what has been done.
Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Did the Lisbon match show the protocol working or failing?
  2. Should racist and homophobic abuse carry the same minimum ban?
  3. Is a red card for covering one's mouth fair?
  4. Should players be punished for walking off in protest?
  5. How should governing bodies measure whether abuse is declining?

Sources

  1. Circular no. 1884: Global stand against racism by the Member Associations of the 74th FIFA Congress — FIFA
  2. FIFA Congress unites in support of strengthened anti-racism measures — FIFA
  3. The IFAB unanimously approves red card for players covering their mouths to conceal discriminatory behaviour — IFAB
  4. Benfica v Real Madrid: Champions League tie halted after Real Madrid players leave field — BBC Sport
  5. Gianluca Prestianni ban: Benfica winger given six-game ban for homophobic conduct — BBC Sport
  6. Red cards can be given to players who cover their mouths while confronting opponents — NPR