Messi spared, Almiron sanctioned: FIFA’s mouth-covering rule sparks debate | FIFA World Cup 2026

Miguel Almiron made history at the 2026 FIFA World Cup, albeit for reasons he would not have anticipated.  The Paraguay winger became the first player to be sent off under FIFA’s new mouth-covering rule during his side’s match against Turkiye, bringing one of football’s newest regulations into the spotlight. A day later, attention shifted to Lionel Messi after videos emerged showing the Argentina captain speaking with his hand covering his mouth.

The clips quickly prompted comparisons between the two incidents, with many fans questioning why Almiron was shown a red card while Messi faced no sanction.

At the centre of the debate is a rule that FIFA introduced ahead of the tournament in an attempt to address a growing concern within the game: the concealment of abusive or discriminatory remarks during confrontations.

A rule born out of a wider concern

The origins of the law can be traced to an incident earlier this year involving Real Madrid forward Vinicius Junior and Benfica midfielder Gianluca Prestianni.

During a Champions League match, Vinicius alleged that the Argentine youngster had made discriminatory remarks while concealing his mouth with his shirt. Although the allegation itself remained disputed, the episode reignited discussions over how football authorities should tackle verbal abuse hidden from cameras and lip-readers.

For FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB), football’s law-making body, the controversy highlighted an increasingly difficult challenge.

Players have long covered their mouths while speaking, whether to prevent opponents from overhearing tactical instructions or to keep conversations private. Yet governing bodies feared the same practice could also be used to hide abusive or discriminatory language.

In April, IFAB approved a law change allowing referees to issue a straight red card to players who deliberately conceal their mouths during confrontational situations.

What exactly does the law say?

Much of the confusion surrounding Almiron’s dismissal stems from a misunderstanding of the regulation itself.

Contrary to popular perception, players are not prohibited from covering their mouths altogether.

The law applies specifically to confrontations and heated exchanges. Match officials are empowered to dismiss players who deliberately hide what they are saying during arguments or aggressive interactions.

Routine conversations with teammates, coaches or opponents do not constitute an offence.

In other words, covering the mouth is not automatically punishable. Context matters just as much as the gesture itself.

That distinction ultimately explains the different outcomes involving Almiron and Messi.

Almiron becomes the first player punished

The regulation remained largely unnoticed until Paraguay’s meeting with Turkiye.

During the match, Almiron became involved in an exchange with Turkish defender Mert Muldur. Television replays showed the Paraguayan winger covering his mouth while speaking during the confrontation.

Following a VAR review, referee Ivan Barton produced a straight red card, making Almiron the first player to be dismissed under the new law.

The decision immediately generated debate. Some observers viewed it as a straightforward application of a regulation that had been communicated to teams before the tournament. Others questioned whether a straight red card represented too severe a punishment.

Paraguay coach Gustavo Alfaro later defended his player while acknowledging that football’s regulations were evolving.

Why was Messi not sanctioned?

The debate intensified when footage emerged of Messi covering his mouth while speaking during Argentina’s match.

Supporters and critics alike questioned whether the Argentina captain should also have been punished. However, according to FIFA’s interpretation, the two incidents were not viewed in the same light.

Messi was not engaged in a confrontation when the gesture occurred. Since the regulation targets heated exchanges rather than ordinary conversations, match officials did not consider his actions an offence.

For match officials, the absence of a confrontation proved decisive.

The explanation, however, has done little to silence criticism. Detractors argue that the law leaves considerable room for subjective interpretation and could lead to accusations of inconsistency.

Supporters and critics split

As with many recent innovations in football, the new rule has drawn both support and criticism.

Backers argue that it represents another step in the game’s campaign against discrimination and abuse. They point out that players and teams were informed of the change well before the start of the World Cup.

Australia midfielder Jackson Irvine, who serves on FIFPRO’s global player council, said players had been made aware of the regulation and suggested there should be little sympathy for those who breach it.

Others, however, have questioned whether a straight red card is proportionate and raised concerns over the practical difficulties facing referees. Former players and commentators have also highlighted the challenge of distinguishing between routine conversations and confrontational exchanges in the heat of a match.

The debate has inevitably drawn comparisons with other innovations that initially divided opinion before becoming accepted parts of the game.

Football’s latest experiment

World Cups have often served as testing grounds for change. Goal-line technology made its tournament debut in 2014, VAR followed four years later in Russia, while semi-automated offside technology arrived in Qatar in 2022.

Now, the mouth-covering rule has become football’s latest experiment.

Whether it survives in its current form may depend on how events unfold over the coming weeks. If the measure succeeds in discouraging abusive behaviour without generating widespread controversy, FIFA and IFAB may regard it as a success.

But if accusations of inconsistency continue to dominate the conversation, football’s lawmakers could face pressure to refine the wording of the regulation or even reconsider the severity of the punishment.

For now, a rule designed to prevent hidden words has produced an unintended consequence. It has become one of the most visible talking points of the 2026 World Cup.

And in a tournament where every gesture is scrutinised and every decision dissected, the debate over football’s newest law may only just be beginning.