{"id":1839,"date":"2025-12-02T16:03:55","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T16:03:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/centre-for-the-study-of-corruption\/?p=1839"},"modified":"2025-12-02T16:03:56","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T16:03:56","slug":"ronaldo-fifa-and-the-challenge-of-integrity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/centre-for-the-study-of-corruption\/2025\/12\/02\/ronaldo-fifa-and-the-challenge-of-integrity\/","title":{"rendered":"Ronaldo, FIFA and the Challenge of Integrity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Source: Pexels\/Chris wade NTEZICIMPA<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On 25 November 2025 FIFA decided that one of football\u2019s global superstars, Cristiano Ronaldo, would indeed be allowed to play in all of his country\u2019s games at the 2026 World Cup finals. The decision will no doubt by cheered by Ronaldo\u2019s legion of fans, but it\u2019s also the perfect example of how the Beautiful Game is administered by those for whom integrity means very little at all. The Politics Department\u2019s <\/em>Dan Hough<\/strong><\/a> explains.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 13 November 2025 the Portuguese football team travelled to Dublin to play the Republic of Ireland in a qualifying game in the 2026 World Cup. Portugal were more or less assured of their place at football\u2019s biggest jamboree, but the Republic of Ireland most definitely were not. In order to keep their dreams of qualifying alive they needed to pull off what would be a shock win. And, that they did, winning 2-0 (see here<\/a> for more on how the game unfolded). They followed that up with an even more dramatic \u2013 and no less vital \u2013 win in Hungary three days later; Troy Parrott, largely unknown beforehand, scored a hat-trick to send football watchers on the Emerald Isle off into delirium (see here<\/a> for the goal itself, here<\/a> for magnificent celebratory scenes at Dublin Airport and here<\/a> for more from a bar in Toronto where the barman plays a starring role).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With an hour of the game against Portugal gone, The Republic of Ireland were well on the way to gaining that win. That man Parrott had scored both goals as the hosts went two up. Their task of holding on to that lead was further helped by an incident that took place in the 61st<\/sup> minute. Cristiano Ronaldo launched an elbow<\/a> at an Irish defender, Dara O\u2019Shea. The video assistant referee had a good look at what had happened and decided that Ronaldo\u2019s behaviour was tantamount to violent conduct. Ronaldo was given a red card and forced to leave the pitch. He also faced a ban from playing in future games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The length of the ban that a player receives for receiving a red card will vary. If the sending off is for two yellow cards (i.e. two offences, neither of which on their own added up to a red) or for what\u2019s often referred to as a \u2018professional foul\u2019 (a bad foul, but not one where violent conduct was involved) then the ban will usually be for one game. If the red card is for dissent then it\u2019ll be two games. If we are talking violent conduct then it\u2019s three games. So, a three game ban for the Portuguese superstar it would be then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FIFA and Ronaldo\u2019s Red Card<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, FIFA\u2019s own disciplinary code states that red cards for violent conduct should lead to a ban of \u2018at least three matches or an appropriate period of time\u2019. There have been cases around the world (see here<\/a> for example) where bans have been much longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ronaldo was subsequently, and entirely in line with existing protocol, banned for three matches. He was not allowed to play in Portugal\u2019s final qualifying game against Armenia (they hardly missed him; Portugal won 9-1) on 16 November. But, games two and three of the ban were scheduled to be Portugal\u2019s first two games of next summer\u2019s World Cup finals. That was a much bigger deal for Madeira\u2019s finest than missing a dead-rubber against one of the qualifying group\u2019s whipping boys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ronaldo appealed against the ban. FIFA, world football\u2019s governing body, decided to follow Article 27 of its own code and reduce the ban to one game (already served) with two more \u2018suspended\u2019. They did this as Article 27 allowed them to \u2018fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure\u2019 if they so wished. So, despite \u2018assault, including elbowing, punching, kicking and biting\u2019 all warranting \u2018at least three matches<\/a>\u2019 in terms of a ban, FIFA were going to take the highly unusual step of declaring that the final two games of the ban were to be in effect offset. If Ronaldo were to transgress again (i.e. defined as getting another red card within the next 12 months) then that two game ban would be activated on top of whatever punishment he received for that dismissal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The outcome? Ronaldo can play in the World Cup finals. FIFA argued that given it was his first sending off for Portugal his good record should mitigate the punishment. That is particularly noteworthy for two reasons. Firstly, Ronaldo had never previously received a red card for Portugal, but he\u2019s received 12 in club football. A one-off indiscretion from someone with an otherwise unblemished record? Hardly. Secondly, FIFA has shown little inclination at all to offer such mitigation when others have been sent off for similar offences. Did FIFA reduce Wayne Rooney\u2019s ban when he stamped on Ricardo Carvalho in England\u2019s 2006 World Cup game against Portugal? No, Rooney missed England\u2019s next two European Championship qualifying games. And that even though he had never been sent off for England before and indeed had only been sent off twice in club football. Whilst opting to reduce Ronaldo\u2019s punishment may not be completely unprecedented, it was still decidedly unusual and didn\u2019t fit in with much previous precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Talking Integrity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why does all this matter? Surely allowing one of the world\u2019s most well-known footballers to have a final swansong (Ronaldo is now 41) on the biggest stage is a \u2018good thing\u2019? Maybe, although some wags have even made the case that Portugal\u2019s opponents should really be the ones celebrating; if Ronaldo plays Portugal often appear to be a significantly worse side on account of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The broader issue is nonetheless more serious (if more abstract) than whether one player can play a few games of football next summer. It is (yet another) example of FIFA, football\u2019s world governing body, bending previous practice to suit its own needs and thereby behaving without anything that could be understood as integrity. FIFA looks like it does what it wants when it wants, regardless of the messages that behaviour may send out. As Sam Wallace noted in the Daily Telegraph<\/em><\/a>, FIFA re-engineers World Cup cycles, tears up the football calendar, brings in bespoke transfer windows to suit its own needs and generally focuses on making as much money as possible from everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complaining about FIFA\u2019s apparently incessant drive to make money and its consistent lack of integrity may come across to some as a soppy idea pushed by wishy-washy do-gooders. Integrity, in other words, is something talked of when things happen that FIFA\u2019s critics don\u2019t like. For others, it\u2019s a cornerstone of what makes things like sport worth doing at all. Integrity, as one of the academic leading lights in this area, Paul Heywood, once said<\/a>, involves \u2018doing the right things\u2019 (principles) \u2018for the right reasons\u2019 (morals) and \u2018in the right way\u2019 (by following the right process).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lynne McFall<\/a>, one of the first in the modern era to really try and operationalise integrity, argued that there are four key parts to trying to make integrity meaningful:<\/p>\n\n\n\n