Prestianni Law Enforced for First Time as Almirón Sees Red at 2026 World Cup

Football history was made at the 2026 FIFA World Cup as FIFA’s controversial new disciplinary measure, widely referred to as the “Prestianni Law,” was applied for the first time in a high-profile match, resulting in Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón being sent off.

The rule, which targets players who cover their mouths during on-field confrontations, was introduced to prevent individuals from concealing abusive or discriminatory language from cameras and lip-reading technology. 

Under the regulation, match officials are now permitted to issue a straight red card if a player obscures their mouth while engaging in a verbal exchange, based on the assumption that the gesture may be used to hide misconduct.

The law traces its origins back to a UEFA Champions League match in February 2026 between Benfica and Real Madrid, where Argentine forward Gianluca Prestianni was accused of using discriminatory language toward Vinícius Júnior while covering his mouth. 

UEFA later imposed a six-match suspension, partially suspended, after concluding that the language involved was homophobic. The incident sparked wider debate across football governing bodies about how to address hidden verbal abuse on the pitch.

In response, FIFA and the International Football Association Board formally approved the regulation in April 2026. 

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has strongly supported the measure, framing it as part of a tougher disciplinary approach in which covering the mouth during disputes can itself be treated as evidence of wrongdoing, even without clear proof of the spoken words.

The new rule was brought into effect during Paraguay’s World Cup fixture when Miguel Almirón was shown a straight red card after covering his mouth during an exchange with an opposing player. 

The decision immediately drew attention, marking the first official enforcement of the regulation on football’s biggest stage.

However, the incident has already sparked debate, with some reports suggesting the situation may have involved a VAR misinterpretation and a possible confusion with a separate booking for simulation. 

The uncertainty surrounding the decision is likely to fuel further discussion over how the rule should be applied and whether it risks overreach in high-pressure matches.