From Prestianni to Almirón : Legal Analysis of Prestianni Law

Introduction :  In the last decade, the footballing world has stood strong against racism. FIFA and UEFA joining hands to protect players from discrimination through their ‘No Racism’ and ‘Say No to Racism’ campaigns, respectively, have shaped the laws of the game to suppress racism. Continuing its commitment, FIFA and IFAB brought a new law in the game in which players can be red-carded for concealing their speech by covering their mouths. This prevents discriminatory remarks by players from escaping scrutiny.

While tackling racist practices in sports is very necessary, the measures adopted by the IFAB raise some significant questions of law. It raises the question of the proportionality of the punishment, and whether the mere concealment of speech by players undermines the principle of presumption of innocence in sports, particularly where the discriminatory marks aren’t proven. This article discusses the evolution and the first application of the law, and critically examines whether the law aimed to reduce racist incidents strikes a balance between protecting individual players and principles of sporting justice.

From Controversy to Codification : The Evolution of the Mouth-Covering Rule

The rule originates from the first leg of the round of 32 between Real Madrid and Benfica. After the celebration of the only goal scored by Vincius Jr. in the match, Gianluca Prestianni went over and confronted the Madrid winger while covering his mouth with his shirt. This incident leads Vini Jr. to rush towards the referee, alleging that the Argentine player used racist language towards him. According to Law 12.4 of IFAB, which lays down Fouls and Misconduct in the game, a person using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s) can be sent off by the referee. Under the same law, Vini asked officials to red-card Prestianni, but the referee could only halt the match in accordance with FIFA’s anti-racism protocol. It was due to the lack of evidence, which prevented the officials from punishing the Benfica player. Although in the aftermath justice was done but for the homophobic conduct as pleaded by Prestianni, as due to covering of mouth, there was no evidence that held him guilty of a racist act.

In response to this incident, in IFAB’s 140^th annual general meeting, the board unanimously approved red-carding the player for covering their mouth while confronting the opponent player. The same was agreed to be implemented in the 2026 World Cup in the Vancouver Special Meeting. The rationale behind this rule was to ensure smooth match flow and improve player behaviour. Normally, Players used to cover their mouths for various reasons, such as to spread their voice properly in a noisy stadium, for privacy reasons, to prevent lip readers from doing their job, etc. But since the introduction of VAR, the method is more widely applied for using forbidden speech in the game. So, to prevent such incidents, the rule came into force.

The Almirón Incident and Its Implications 

After the adoption of the rule, the first incident occurred in the World Cup only, when Paraguay’s Midfielder, Miguel Almiron, became the first player to be red-carded for covering his mouth with his hand. It came after a foul in a match between Paraguay and Türkiye, when the Paraguayan player covered his mouth while exchanging words with the Turkish right back Mert Müldür. The Turkish player, right after the incident, appealed for a red card, although the on-field referee couldn’t see it, Almiron was punished through VAR intervention.

This incident raised concerns regarding the potential pitfalls of this new rule. As the rule aims to prevent the concealing of speech when ‘confronting the opponent’, it becomes very necessary to establish what constitutes a confronting situation. There is no absolute definition of a confrontation in IFAB rules, but a rather general meaning of confrontation is adopted. It is left for the discretion of the match referee to decide what is confrontation, giving them absolute power. This may lead to matches where a referee decides them based on his judgment of confrontation. It may also result in the official misusing and abusing the rule to shape a match outcome.

Since the content of speech is not available, a speech that is made in a good and friendly manner may be subject to this rule. Most notably, sanctioning the concealment of the speech rather than the speech itself undermines the principle of presumption of innocence, which was also defended by former Benfica Coach. In other words, a player who innocently covers his mouth to say something can be sent off because of this rule, and may be subjected to character assassination by the public. This also leads to challenges regarding false allegations and misinterpretations. A player might say something that is not offensive while covering his mouth, but the false allegation or misinterpretation by the opposition might result in a red card to him. The Almiron incident itself reflects how an allegation can immediately trigger disciplinary intervention.

Although professional football is a public activity, the privacy of the players must be protected on and off the pitch. In the era of unprecedented media scrutiny, where technology and A.I based lip readers expose the on-field conversation, the only way to protect their privacy is by covering their mouth. This rule can create a negative effect on players who communicate confidential information or banter with their national or club teammates or friends in the opposite teams, as players might misuse it. Completely eliminating private communication between players creates a regulatory intervention beyond what is necessary for combating racism.

The challenge for dismissing and addressing racism in professional football is no question but whether the means adopted for achieving the objective is adequate or not remains a problem. It raises questions on the proportionality of the punishment while undermining the principle of presumption of innocence. The rule leaves loopholes which can be abused and also disrespects players' on-the-field privacy, ultimately harming the sporting justice.

The Way Forward: Rethinking the Rule

The objective to eliminate discrimination from football is fully legitimate, and to regulate such incidents remains a top priority. But the concern regarding the framework laid down for concealing speech needs some reforms and safeguards to make it consistent with the principles of justice.

Primarily, the proper definition of confrontation should be laid down. The absence of an absolute definition of confronting leaves the matches and decisions to the officials, which also creates inconsistency in application. The IFAB, along with major associations, should lay down guidelines for referees that they should follow while implementing the rule. It should distinguish between a confronting situation and a friendly situation, narrowing the possibility of constituting every act as a confronting act. With this it should also lay down certain procedures which enables referees to establish an offence through evidence and circumstances. This ensures fair and uniform application of the rule, creating certainty while giving only limited power to the referees. 

Additionally, the act of concealment shouldn’t itself constitute a straight red card offence, but the principle of presumption of innocence should be upheld while maintaining the objective of the rule. The player should only be sent off in situations when the officials have heard the communication and found it discriminatory, while in cases of speech that is not clear, a yellow card should be produced instead of a straight red for warning the player. Alongside a post-match investigation can be held for the concealment of speech, for which a player may be punished if found guilty. A similar model is also followed in cricket, where the officials on the evidence and through circumstances, can punish the player on field, while a post-match disciplinary proceeding is instituted, like in the famous incident of David Warner and Virat Kohli. To safeguard players from false allegations and protect the emotional human element of the game, the referee should refrain from punishing players on mere allegations. VAR check becomes important in these cases. IFAB, in addition to this, should introduce a counter in the form of a yellow card for such false allegations. 

With this, the framework must acknowledge players' privacy and retain only a limited interest in cases of confidential communications. For this, some exceptional communications should be listed in the rule in which a referee shouldn’t give a straight red card. Such a situation may include conversations between teammates at the club or national level, communication with a player after a foul, banter in a friendly and non-aggressive way, consoling an opponent, requesting an opponent to move away during a set piece, etc. This helps in achieving the objective of the rule, minimising inconsistent enforcement while protecting the individual interests of the players.

Conclusion

Football has always been a sport of emotion and human interactions in which players engage in banter, apologies, disagreements, etc. However, the Prestianni rule, although aimed at achieving a noble cause by eliminating discrimination from the game, risks making football more of a robotic game. The players in the future may refrain from communicating with their opponents due to the fear of a red card for covering their mouths or exposing their private communications to public scrutiny. The effectiveness of the mouth covering rule is not dependent upon its objective but on its implementation. The objective of eliminating discriminatory practice cannot be questioned, but a rule punishing concealment of speech rather than its content raises various concerns. A framework that constitutes a clearer definition, procedural, and evidentiary, with proportionate and consistent enforcement, would not only allow football to stand strong in its fight against racism but also help in achieving the principle of natural justice in the game, while ensuring and saving the presence of human touch in the beautiful game.

Author: Madhav Singh Bisht in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney

Endnotes

1. The International Football Association Board (IFAB), “The IFAB unanimously approves red cards for players covering their mouths to conceal discriminatory behaviour” (28 April 2026). IFAB states that, at the Vancouver Special Meeting, it approved a competition-option rule under which a player covering the mouth in a confrontational situation with an opponent may be sanctioned with a red card.

2. The International Football Association Board (IFAB), Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct, Laws of the Game 2026/27. The amended Law 12 provides for a sending-off where a player, substitute or substituted player covers their mouth while communicating with an opponent in a “provocative, derisory or inflammatory manner or situation.” The provision is expressly identified as a competition option.

3. Reuters, “Real Madrid game at Benfica suspended after Vinicius alleges racist slur” (17 February 2026). The report records that Vinícius Jr. alleged that Benfica's Gianluca Prestianni made a racist remark during a confrontation after Vinícius scored, following which the referee temporarily suspended the Champions League match under the anti-racism protocol.

4. Reuters, “Paraguay's Almiron sent off for covering his mouth with his hand against Turkey” (20 June 2026). Reuters reports that Miguel Almirón received a straight red card during Paraguay's World Cup match against Türkiye after covering his mouth during a confrontation with Mert Müldür, with the decision confirmed following VAR intervention.

5. FIFA, “Red and yellow cards at the FIFA World Cup 2026” (13 July 2026). FIFA's official tournament statistics record Miguel Almirón among the players who received a red card during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.