⚠️ Fifa extends ban, Prestianni could miss Argentina in the Copa

⚠️ Fifa extends ban, Prestianni could miss Argentina in the Copa

FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee has confirmed that the suspension imposed on Benfica forward Gianluca Prestianni will have worldwide effect.

The information was reported by The Athletic and confirmed by other major media outlets, such as Spain’s AS.

According to the sports arm of the New York Times, a FIFA spokesperson said this Wednesday (6) that the “FIFA Disciplinary Committee has decided to extend the six-match suspension imposed by UEFA on SL Benfica player Gianluca Prestianni so that it has effect worldwide.”

The decision ratifies the sanction previously imposed by UEFA for "discriminatory conduct" during a Champions League match against Real Madrid.

The Argentine player was accused of making racist insults toward Brazilian forward Vinicius Jr., which now has a direct impact on Argentina’s plans for the 2026 World Cup.

Details of the Punishment

UEFA handed Prestianni a total six-match suspension.

However, the punishment was divided as follows:

• Three matches to be served immediately.
• Three matches suspended, to be enforced only if the player repeats similar conduct within the next two years.

As Prestianni has already served one match of the suspension, he still owes two more.

With FIFA extending it worldwide, if he is called up by Lionel Scaloni, the forward will have to serve those two matches during the World Cup group stage, missing the opening rounds of the tournament.

New IFAB Rule

The incident took place in February at the Estádio da Luz, after Vinicius Jr. scored a goal and was targeted with insults.

At the time, the Brazilian reported the racism to referee François Letexier, who activated the official protocol, stopping the match for 10 minutes.

Kylian Mbappé, Vini’s teammate, backed up the complaint, saying he heard the insults repeatedly.

Prestianni’s defense argued that the term used was a homophobic insult ("maricón") rather than a racist one ("mono"), but the explanation did not prevent the discrimination ruling.