Dr. Peter J. Watson
Lecturer in the Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Studies department at the University of Leeds. His research is on the importance of sport in Latin American history, politics, culture and society. He is the author of Football and Nation Building in Colombia: The Only Thing that Unites Us (2022, Liverpool University Press) and regularly appears on football podcasts.
Email: p.j.watson@leeds.ac.uk
Bluesky: @drpeterwatson.bsky.social
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/drpetewatson
As every four years the men’s football World Cup converges with the Colombian presidential election, provided Colombia qualify, football and politics overlap during presidential campaigning. As Colombia’s most popular sport, candidates need to legitimize themselves as supporters of the Selección (the national team). This usually occurs through speeches and social media posts pledging support and celebrating team victories whilst wearing the national football shirt as an overt indicator of fandom. These messages and media platforms also provide opportunities for political narratives.
In the 2026 campaign, Colombia witnessed a significant footballization of politics, with a resultant politicization of football. The main debate was the use of the national football shirt by the eventual winner of the election, the hard-right Abelardo de la Espriella. Despite hating football and never having attended a game, de la Espriella followed the playbook of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, in urging his supporters to wear the football shirt at rallies and when voting. His left-wing opponent, Iván Cepeda (also not a known football fan), criticized his rival, claiming that he was “stealing the shirt”, a national symbol that belonged to everyone. He also complained to the Colombian Football Federation (FCF), who should be ensuring that the shirt remains neutral. Ramón Jesurún, head of the FCF, eventually gave a public statement agreeing that the shirt was for everyone. The delay in commenting was telling, particularly as de la Espriella’s law firm defended Jesurún following his arrest at the Copa América final in Miami in 2024.
A legal case was brought against de la Espriella, but not by the FCF; the judge banned de la Espriella from wearing it for political events. De la Espriella, however, doubled down on wearing the shirt, though adapting the shirt with his tiger logo and his “Firmes por la patria” (Firm for the fatherland) slogan. As a result, the shirt seemed to indicate support for the far-right politician, much as it did in Bolsonaro’s Brazil. Many experts saw Cepeda’s complaint as a grave tactical error, arguing that it had made de la Espriella voters seem more numerous, and had hardened their resolve to rebel by banning something popular. Cepeda, in fact, quickly adapted his campaign, receiving a shirt himself from 32 organized football fan groups (barras) and tried to contest the meaning of the shirt for the country, but perhaps some damage had already been done.
This is not the first time the Colombian shirt has been politicized by presidents and politicians. Around the 2014 and 2018 World Cups, President Juan Manuel Santos made the shirt a symbol of his peace process with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), even including the message “I am playing for peace” above the number 10 on his shirt. This angered Álvaro Uribe supporters who also wore the shirt in their plebiscite campaigns against the peace process. Leaders of the FARC also wore it to proclaim their own citizenship during the peace negotiations in 2013 and 2014. As is therefore evident, the shirt, an initially ‘empty’ national symbol, can quickly become charged with contrasting political messages depending on the wearer and the narratives they produce.
The footballization / sportization of politics did not stop with shirt-wearing. The de la Espriella campaign used barra chants as jingles and publicized the support of sport stars such as cyclist Nairo Quintana, baseballer Edgar Rentería, and Olympic gold medal-winning athlete Caterine Ibargüen. Legendary footballers like Carlos Valderrama and Faustino Asprilla and others stars of Colombia’s golden generations appeared in an advert in which de la Espriella captained his team to a heroic victory, scoring goals against “corruption”, “lies”, “FARC”, all rhetorically associated with current President Petro and Cepeda. De la Espriella also pledged his support for the women’s team after they won the Liga de Naciones, alleging that they too had been failed by Petro. Cepeda, by contrast, almost stood out by the absence of support from sport stars.
This footballization of politics has, in turn, politicized football. The amount of (mostly retired) footballers supporting de la Espriella, may have tainted the national team with suspicions of right-wing tendencies, and not just of the footballing kind; Colombians question how many of the World Cup squad have similar political opinions. Sensibly, none of them have made statements on their politics, though defender Yerry Mina, has previously visited controversial right-wing former president Álvaro Uribe. A viral video in which star midfielder James Rodríguez seemed to ignore President Petro’s daughter at a ceremony giving the flag to the team before they departed for the tournament also raised eyebrows, though he quickly dealt with the situation. At the same event, several players were said to look displeased by Petro’s speech (he was, naturally, wearing the football shirt. A fake video was even made purporting to show Colombian players celebrating a goal vs Uzbekistan using gestures likened to de la Espriella
Consequently, de la Espriella’s divisive politics have affected the symbolism of the national shirt, becoming another venue for national polarization that football has historically been called on to remedy. With the presidency won, the shirt may have served its purpose for de la Espriella, but, as Colombia advanced through the tournament, what fans wearing the shirt signified became a thorny issue.
