Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA / Concacaf / FMF · 2014–2026

One Word at Every Goal Kick: Mexico, FIFA and the Homophobic Chant

For years, some Mexico fans have shouted a homophobic slur at opposing goalkeepers during goal kicks. At the 2014 World Cup, FIFA dismissed a charge, saying the word was not insulting in that context. It later changed course, ordering closed-door matches in 2021 and fining the Mexican federation after chants at the 2022 World Cup. A 2023 Nations League match was ended early. On appeal, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld strict liability for federations, but found that FIFA's own officials had shown a 'passive attitude' by not activating the three-step protocol. The case asks who should answer for crowd abuse and what would stop it.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. FIFA dismisses the charge over chants at Mexico v Cameroon.
  2. FIFA fines the FMF CHF 60,000 and orders two home matches behind closed doors.
  3. The chant is heard at Mexico v Poland at the World Cup.
  4. Fans chant at the Saudi goalkeeper in the 94th and 96th minutes.
  5. The Disciplinary Committee fines the FMF CHF 100,000 and imposes a suspended closed-doors match.
  6. The Appeal Committee restructures the sanction under the 2023 code.
  7. The Nations League semifinal in Las Vegas ends early amid chanting.
  8. The FIFA Legal Journal analyses the CAS award, which cut probation to one year.

The ethical issues

  • Collective punishment for individual acts.
  • Strict liability for fan conduct.
  • Cultural defense of a slur.
  • Officials' failure to apply protocols.
  • Effectiveness of sanctions.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Targeted players and LGBTQ+ fansDignity and inclusion.
Mexican federation (FMF)Avoiding sanctions and protecting its reputation.
Fans who do not chantAccess to matches.
FIFA and ConcacafCredible enforcement.
Match officialsClear and workable procedures.
World Cup host citiesA successful tournament.

The case

Background

At Mexican football matches, it has long been common for some fans to shout a one-word slur at the opposing goalkeeper as he takes a goal kick. Mexico’s government anti-discrimination body, Conapred, and other experts consider the word homophobic [4]. The Mexican federation (FMF) and its national team have repeatedly asked fans to stop. In 2021, FMF president Yon de Luisa said the federation had already received 14 sanctions over the chant [5].

What happened

At the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the anti-discrimination network Fare reported the chant during Mexico’s match against Cameroon. FIFA charged the FMF with improper conduct but dismissed the case, saying the incident was not considered insulting in that specific context [4]. Fare replied that the decision “contradicts the expert advice” of Conapred, and warned that “a genuine zero tolerance approach to all forms of discrimination will mean that Fifa will need to take some difficult decisions” [4].

FIFA’s approach later hardened. In June 2021, its Disciplinary Committee fined the FMF CHF 60,000 and ordered its next two official home matches to be played behind closed doors. The sanction followed chants at Olympic qualifiers against the Dominican Republic and the United States in Guadalajara in March 2021. FIFA also opened a new case over a friendly against Iceland in Arlington, Texas [5]. The national team posted: “We must stop this now. The effect could be devastating for the Mexican football industry” [5].

The chant returned at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. According to the FIFA Legal Journal’s account of the case, before Mexico played Poland on 22 November 2022, a group of five to ten supporters sang a homophobic chant about Poles. About 200 fans repeated it in the 19th minute, and most of the Mexican fans in the stadium joined in around the 86th minute, after which an announcement was made [2]. On 30 November, against Saudi Arabia, fans throughout the stadium shouted the slur at the goalkeeper in the 94th and 96th minutes [2].

On 13 January 2023, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee fined the FMF CHF 100,000 and ordered one match behind closed doors, suspended for a probationary period [1][2]. In weighing the sanction, it noted FIFA’s zero-tolerance policy, the World Cup setting, the FMF’s anti-discrimination efforts, and the fact that the FMF was a repeat offender [2]. On 1 June 2023, the Appeal Committee applied the newer 2023 Disciplinary Code. It imposed a fine of CHF 50,000, with a second suspended fine of CHF 50,000 that would fall due only if the first was not invested in an anti-discrimination plan, and a suspended 20% stadium closure with two years’ probation [2].

Two weeks later, on 15 June 2023, the referee of the Concacaf Nations League semifinal between Mexico and the United States in Las Vegas paused the match in the 90th minute because of homophobic chanting. He ended it about four minutes early [6]. Concacaf said the chants “led to the activation of the anti-discrimination protocol by the match officials” and that security had ejected several fans [3].

The rules and governance

National associations are strictly liable for their supporters’ discriminatory conduct under FIFA’s Disciplinary Code. The FMF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing against strict liability and that the sanction was disproportionate [2]. The CAS panel upheld strict liability: the FMF was responsible even though it did not organize the matches, and even if only one supporter was involved [2].

The panel did, however, find that FIFA’s own officials had shown a “passive attitude” at the Poland match. Fans who had chanted before kick-off could have been identified and expelled. The announcement came late, in the 90th minute. And the referee, a FIFA official, never activated the three-step protocol under FIFA Circular 1682 [2]. As for the Saudi match, the panel agreed it may have been “impracticable and useless” to start the protocol in the 94th and 96th minutes [2].

Treating the officials’ passivity as a mitigating factor, CAS only “slightly” changed the sanction, reducing the probation period from two years to one. It noted that the penalty was already at the low end of the range and that FIFA could impose much harsher sanctions, including exclusion from competitions [2].

Aftermath

The FIFA Legal Journal commentary, published in 2026, asks “whether FIFA’s current approach is too lenient” and whether full stadium closures are needed to “truly educate supporters” [2]. The question carried extra weight because Mexico was a co-host of the 2026 World Cup [6].

The core dilemma

Should a national federation be punished for chants it cannot fully control, and do fines and suspended closures do more than show that action is being taken?

Competing values

  • Dignity and inclusion: LGBTQ+ players and fans should not face slurs.
  • Collective responsibility: strict liability puts pressure on federations to act.
  • Fairness: the many are punished for the acts of some.
  • Cultural claims: some fans insist the word is not meant as homophobic.
  • Consistency: the officials in charge should apply the protocol themselves.

Strongest arguments

For tougher sanctions: escalating fines and suspended closures have not stopped the chant [2][5]. Empty stadiums or points deductions would create real incentives for fans and federations. And strict liability is the only workable rule when individual fans are hard to identify.

For other approaches: punishing the federation hurts players and the many fans who do not chant. Stadium stewards, organizers and officials need to act in real time, which CAS found they did not [2]. Education, ticketing bans and identifying individuals may address the cause more directly.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens weighs collective liability against individual guilt. Strict liability assigns responsibility to the actor best placed to prevent the harm, though at the cost of burdening people who are innocent of it.

Utilitarian

The test is what actually reduces chanting. More than a decade of sanctions suggests the deterrent has been weak. Stronger measures might work, but they also bring costs to everyone.

Care

A care lens centers the people who are targeted. Goalkeepers, LGBTQ+ fans and players experience the slur as exclusion, whatever the chanters intend.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: how to end a persistent discriminatory chant.
  2. Gather the facts: FIFA’s 2014 dismissal, the 2021 and 2023 sanctions, and the CAS award.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: targeted players, LGBTQ+ fans, other fans, the FMF, FIFA, Concacaf and the host cities.
  4. Consider the options: fines; closed or partly closed stadiums; points deductions; identifying and banning individual fans; education.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: dignity, fairness and effectiveness.
  6. Decide and review: combine individual enforcement with escalating collective sanctions, and measure the results.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: FIFA dismissed the 2014 charge and sanctioned the FMF in 2021 and 2023. CAS upheld strict liability [1][2][4][5].

Contested: whether the chant is homophobic in intent, and what sanctions would end it.

Why this case matters

Fan abuse tests how far governing bodies are willing to go. See Vinícius Júnior and Racist Abuse in Spanish Football, Euro 2020: Online Racist Abuse of England’s Penalty Takers and Crossed Arms: FIFA’s Global Stand Against Racism and Its First Big Test.

Key terms

Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Multiple points of view
Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should a federation be punished for its fans?
  2. Does the chanters' intent matter?
  3. Was FIFA right to dismiss the 2014 charge?
  4. Should FIFA's officials share blame?
  5. What sanction would actually end the chant?

Sources

  1. Disciplinary update on FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 — FIFA
  2. CAS 2023/A/9972 Federación Mexicana de Fútbol v. FIFA: Discriminatory behaviour — FIFA Legal Journal
  3. Concacaf Statement – Discriminatory chants during CNL Semifinal — Concacaf
  4. Mexico cleared by Fifa over alleged homophobic chants by World Cup fans — The Guardian
  5. FIFA castiga a México con dos partidos a puerta cerrada por grito homofóbico — Infobae
  6. USA and Mexico soccer match ends early amid homophobic chants — CNN