Vinícius, the Brazilian forward for Real Madrid, has repeatedly been subjected to racist chanting in Spanish stadiums. Each time, the ritual is familiar: outrage, condemnation, symbolic sanctions, rebranded anti-racism campaigns. Yet the incidents recur.
The recurrence is the indictment. The issue is not one chant. It is the structure that makes such abuse foreseeable.
Europe’s Political Climate and the Stadium as Echo Chamber
Racism in football does not exist separately from European politics. Across Europe — particularly in the United Kingdom — immigration has been repeatedly weaponized in electoral discourse. When migrants are framed as threats to stability or cultural cohesion, such rhetoric shapes public culture.
Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the British government has aligned itself politically with Israel’s military campaign in Gaza while calling for humanitarian protections and ceasefire arrangements. Critics describe Israel’s actions as genocidal; the UK government does not use that terminology. Regardless of terminology, political alignment influences domestic discourse — and football institutions operate within that climate.
When a staff member at Arsenal FC reportedly lost his role after publicly expressing pro-Palestinian views, questions arose about selective neutrality. By contrast, former player Andriy Shevchenko has publicly expressed support for Israel without comparable sanction. Whether legally identical or not, the perception of asymmetry reinforces the belief that football regulates political speech unevenly.
Selective neutrality is not neutrality. It is alignment disguised as principle.
Celtic, UEFA, and the Hierarchy of Acceptable Solidarity
Supporters of Celtic FC have repeatedly displayed Palestinian flags and banners during European fixtures. Under regulations enforced by UEFA, the club has faced fines for what are classified as “political” messages.
Yet Israel’s national team and affiliated clubs continue to compete in UEFA competitions and globally under FIFA. By contrast, Russia was swiftly suspended from international football competitions following its invasion of Ukraine.
The comparison is structural.
If solidarity with Palestinians is deemed impermissibly political while state participation during large-scale military devastation proceeds uninterrupted, a troubling asymmetry emerges.
That asymmetry risks creating an implicit hierarchy of whose suffering is institutionally actionable and whose is administratively containable.
Racism is not only individual hostility. It is structural differentiation in how human lives are valued. When one population’s suffering justifies sporting exclusion while another’s generates disciplinary action against those expressing solidarity, the message conveyed — intentionally or not — is that some lives disrupt global sport and others do not.
That is not consistent with the universalist anti-racism principles UEFA and FIFA publicly promote.
The GAA, Allianz, and the Global Hierarchy of Values
This pattern is not confined to international football governance.
The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), an organization historically rooted in Irish cultural identity and anti-colonial heritage, has faced controversy over its continued sponsorship relationship with Allianz.
Critics have argued that Allianz’s global activities raise ethical concerns that appear to conflict with the GAA’s stated community-centred ethos. In response, the GAA has relied heavily on procedural language — emphasizing contractual obligations, corporate independence, and neutrality — rather than directly addressing whether the sponsorship relationship aligns with its declared moral framework.
The relevance to the racism critique is not incidental.
When institutions retreat into technical language to justify continued financial relationships despite moral challenge, they participate in a broader system where economic stability outweighs ethical consistency. The hierarchy becomes visible: financial relationships are preserved; moral discomfort is managed rhetorically.
This mirrors the logic seen in global football governance:
- Anti-racism campaigns are emphatic.
- Equality slogans are prominent.
- Human dignity is marketed as universal.
Yet when those values collide with commercial interests or geopolitical alliances, institutions pivot to procedural defensiveness.
The effect is cumulative.
If sport repeatedly signals — through sponsorship, sanctions, and speech regulation — that certain moral concerns are negotiable while others trigger decisive action, it contributes to a global hierarchy of value.
And hierarchies of human value are the structural foundation upon which racism operates.
The GAA controversy therefore is not peripheral. It illustrates how even culturally rooted sporting bodies can become embedded in global systems where capital and political alignment quietly outrank proclaimed solidarity.
The Myth That Sport and Politics Are Separate
Whenever these contradictions surface, the familiar refrain appears: “Keep politics out of sport.”
This position is unsustainable.
- Politics determines:
- Tournament hosts.
- Ownership structures.
- Sponsorship relationships.
- Sanctions regimes.
- Which conflicts trigger bans.
- Which conflicts are absorbed as background noise.
The awarding of the 2026 FIFA World Cup to the United States was not apolitical. It was a geopolitical decision shaped by commercial and diplomatic considerations.
The United States has a documented history of racial terror, including the campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan. Former President Donald Trump remains a polarizing political figure facing civil judgments and legal proceedings while retaining influence.
When political actors propose alternative diplomatic mechanisms (Board of Peace) that appear to sideline institutions such as the United Nations, questions of mandate and legitimacy arise. Football governance operates within the same geopolitical ecosystem.
To claim that sport should be separate from politics while federations ban nations selectively, clubs are state-owned (Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, Newcastle Utd, Girona FC) sponsorships are geopolitically embedded, and supporter solidarity is fined is not principled. It is naïve.
Sport is not outside politics. It is structured by it.
Infantino, Access, and Moral Flexibility
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has cultivated relationships across political systems, including leaders in Saudi Arabia and Western administrations alike.
If Russia’s invasion triggers exclusion but other devastating military campaigns do not, the principle appears flexible. If supporter banners are punished while state participation is protected, neutrality appears selective.
Selective neutrality is alignment.
The Structural Nature of Recurrence
If:
- Political discourse normalizes racialized hierarchies,
- Governments align with controversial military campaigns,
- Clubs discipline political speech selectively,
- Federations apply sanctions unevenly,
- Sponsorship ethics yield to commercial necessity,
- Institutions retreat into procedural language when values are tested,
then racist abuse in stadiums is not shocking. It is structurally predictable.
Each incident involving Vinícius is treated as a scandal. Yet governance structures remain intact. Fines are absorbed. Campaigns are refreshed. Optics are managed.
The system endures.
The Core Crisis
When José Mourinho invoked Eusébio in discussions about racism, it evoked a revered Black icon of European football history. But referencing historic greatness does not resolve contemporary systemic discrimination.
Celebrating past Black excellence while failing to protect present Black players risks transforming anti-racism into symbolism rather than substance.
The frustration surrounding racist incidents is not only about individual wrongdoing. It is about accumulated contradiction.
Football presents itself as universal and inclusive. Yet it operates within — and often reinforces — systems marked by selective moral application and hierarchies of value.
The stadium reflects society’s power structures. The tragedy is not merely that racist abuse happens. It is that it happens within a global sporting order that repeatedly signals — through action more than words — that some lives, some conflicts, and some solidarities matter more than others.
Until values are enforced consistently — across nations, across conflicts, across speech, across sponsorship — incidents like those faced by Vinícius will not feel exceptional. They will feel inevitable.
⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.
There has been a problem with this kind of behaviour in Spanish football for a while and I’m not an expert by any means in Spanish issues or society, but is what it the likes of Vini Jr a microcosm of a societal problem in Spain? It does seem to happen with regularity and while Vini Jr has been the most recent and high profile recipient of this abuse, it certainly did not start with him. As for the wider implications outside of Spain and covering Europe as a whole, maybe a stronger deterrent is required. As you point out, a number of initiatives have been put in place and media outlets such as Sky have done a good job in promoting anti-racist messages reinforced consistently, but the problem continues to flare up at intervals. Custodial sentences for fans found guilty of chanting racist abuse is a start as well as issuing life time bans for people shouting or chanting any abuse of a racist or discriminatory nature
ReplyDelete