The jersey had transformed from sports apparel into a political uniform
A citizen lawsuit prompted the judicial ban, arguing the jersey's use as a campaign symbol violated rights to equality, non-discrimination, and fair elections. De la Espriella's supporters wore the yellow jersey en masse during voting, making it a de facto political uniform for his far-right movement.
- Bogotá judge ordered de la Espriella to stop wearing Colombia's national football jersey in campaign activities
- Citizen Wilman Ramiro Bocanegra Calderón filed the legal challenge citing violations of equality and non-discrimination rights
- Thousands of de la Espriella's supporters wore the yellow national team jersey during May 31 voting and celebrated his runoff advancement on the Barranquilla riverfront
- Colombian Football Federation stated it lacked legal authority to restrict the jersey but lamented its politicization
- Second round of presidential voting scheduled for June 21, 2026
A Bogotá judge ordered far-right presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella to stop wearing Colombia's national football jersey in campaign activities, ruling it violates electoral neutrality and equal rights protections.
A Bogotá judge has ordered far-right presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella to stop wearing Colombia's national football jersey during campaign events. The ruling came in response to a legal challenge filed by citizen Wilman Ramiro Bocanegra Calderón, who argued that the jersey's use as a campaign symbol violated fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and fair electoral participation. Municipal Criminal Court 120 issued an immediate injunction barring both de la Espriella and his political party, Defensores de la Patria, from displaying or using the official Colombian national team uniform in any campaign activities.
The jersey had become a potent symbol of de la Espriella's movement. During the first round of voting on May 31, thousands of his supporters arrived at polling stations dressed in the yellow national team shirt, then celebrated his advancement to the runoff wearing the same garment along the Barranquilla riverfront. The image was unmistakable: the jersey had transformed from sports apparel into a political uniform, a visual shorthand for his far-right brand. De la Espriella himself had worn it repeatedly at campaign rallies, cementing its association with his candidacy.
The Colombian Football Federation initially resisted taking a position, stating it lacked legal authority to restrict the sale or wearing of a garment available to any citizen. Yet the federation acknowledged discomfort with the politicization, releasing a statement lamenting that the jersey—which it said symbolizes discipline, teamwork, and the nation's athletic excellence—had become entangled in controversies unrelated to sport. The timing was particularly sensitive: the World Cup was set to begin within a week of the federation's statement.
Leftist candidate Iván Cepeda, who also advanced to the June 21 runoff, had publicly questioned de la Espriella's use of the jersey and called on the federation to take an official stance. The court's intervention effectively resolved the matter before the second round of voting, though the precedent it sets extends beyond Colombia's borders. The case reflects a broader pattern of politicians worldwide weaponizing national sports symbols to build political identity and connect with voters.
Brazil offers the most instructive parallel. Former president Jair Bolsonaro wore jerseys from 74 different Brazilian clubs as part of his communications strategy, but the yellow national team shirt—the canarinha—became his signature. He adopted it during the 2014 protests demanding the removal of leftist president Dilma Rousseff, a moment when the jersey became an unofficial uniform of the anti-left movement. Bolsonaro revived the symbol in his 2018 campaign, which carried him to the presidency in 2019. As president, he gifted the Brazilian national jersey to Donald Trump during an Oval Office meeting in March 2019, and wore the Spanish national shirt when hosting far-right leader Santiago Abascal of Vox during a December 2021 visit to Brazil.
Trump himself, despite claiming indifference to football, has participated in moments where sports jerseys functioned as diplomatic gestures. When Inter Miami visited the White House in March 2026, the club presented him with a personalized jersey bearing the number 47—a reference to his current presidency being the 47th. The gift sparked global controversy; videos emerged of Iranian youth burning Lionel Messi jerseys in protest. In June 2025, European Council President António Costa gave Trump a Portugal jersey signed by Cristiano Ronaldo, inscribed with the message "Playing for peace." Trump, holding the shirt, responded: "I like it. I play for peace."
Venezuelan leaders took a different approach. Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro adopted the tracksuit—not a football jersey, but sportswear nonetheless—as an iconic symbol of their socialist movement, following Fidel Castro's example of wearing athletic clothing to project humility and connection to ordinary people. The garment became so associated with Maduro that when he was captured and detained on January 3, 2026, during a military operation in Caracas, photographs of him wearing a gray tracksuit aboard the USS Iwo Jima went viral. The model sold out globally within hours. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later wore a similar tracksuit on a trip to China, prompting Trump to joke to reporters: "I think he looked very good in that outfit. Look, I don't know if I would wear it, but I think he looked very good."
The Colombian court's decision arrives as the nation heads toward its June 21 runoff election, a contest already marked by polarization and violence. By removing the jersey from de la Espriella's campaign arsenal, the judge has attempted to restore the symbol to its original domain—sport—and away from electoral competition. Whether the ruling holds, and whether it influences how other candidates deploy national symbols in the final weeks of campaigning, remains to be seen.
Citas Notables
The jersey symbolizes discipline, sport, teamwork, and the capacity of our players, and the federation lamented its use in controversies unrelated to athletics.— Colombian Football Federation statement
The court ordered de la Espriella and his party to immediately cease using or displaying the official Colombian national football team jersey in campaign activities.— Municipal Criminal Court 120, Bogotá
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did a judge think a football jersey needed to be banned from a campaign?
Because it had stopped being a jersey. It became a uniform—thousands of people wearing the same shirt to vote, to celebrate, to signal they belonged to a movement. Once that happens, it's no longer just clothing. It's a political tool.
But people can buy that jersey anywhere. How is wearing it different from wearing any other shirt?
Context is everything. When a candidate wears it repeatedly at rallies, when his supporters coordinate to wear it on election day, when it becomes the visual identity of his campaign—that's appropriation. The court saw it as unfair: he was using a national symbol, something that belongs to all Colombians, to build his own political brand.
The football federation said they couldn't legally stop people from wearing it. So how could a judge?
The federation was right about their limits. But the judge was ruling on electoral law, not property rights. The question wasn't whether people could own the jersey. It was whether a candidate could use national symbols as campaign props without violating other people's right to equal treatment in elections.
This seems to happen everywhere, though. Bolsonaro did it in Brazil. Trump gets gifted jerseys all the time.
True. But those are different contexts. Bolsonaro wore it as a citizen and as president—it was his personal choice. Trump receives jerseys as diplomatic gifts. De la Espriella was systematically using it as a campaign uniform, turning a national symbol into a party identifier. That's the distinction the court made.
What happens now? Can he appeal?
The ruling is provisional while the court studies the full case. But the damage to his strategy is already done. The runoff is June 21. He's lost a powerful visual tool with only weeks to go. Whether he challenges it or not, the court has signaled that national symbols have limits when it comes to electoral politics.
Does this set a precedent for other countries?
It could. It's one of the clearest rulings I've seen on this question—that national sports symbols belong to the nation, not to politicians. But enforcement depends on each country's legal system. Colombia's court was willing to act. Many others wouldn't be.