A symbol that belongs to all citizens became a tool for one man's campaign
In Colombia, a Bogotá judge has ordered presidential frontrunner Abelardo de la Espriella to stop wearing the national football team jersey at campaign events, ruling that a symbol belonging to all citizens cannot be conscripted into partisan service. The decision arrives days before the World Cup and weeks before a June 21 runoff, at a moment when the boundary between patriotism and political theater has grown dangerously thin. It is a reminder that in deeply divided societies, even the most ordinary garments can become contested ground — and that courts are sometimes asked to draw the lines that politics cannot.
- A presidential frontrunner's habit of wearing the national football jersey at every rally has crossed from campaign quirk into legal controversy, with a judge ordering him to stop immediately and permanently.
- The timing is charged: the World Cup begins June 11, meaning millions of ordinary Colombians will soon wear the same shirt — making the distinction between civic joy and electoral manipulation nearly impossible to see.
- Left-wing candidate Iván Cepeda brought the complaint, arguing that De la Espriella was effectively stealing a shared national symbol and converting it into a private political tool.
- De la Espriella's camp frames the ruling as an attack on patriotism itself, deepening a polarization in which even the most neutral symbols are now weapons in an ideological war.
- The ruling sets a precedent that could reshape how candidates in Colombia — and beyond — are permitted to deploy national imagery in their campaigns.
A Colombian judge has ordered presidential frontrunner Abelardo de la Espriella to immediately stop wearing the national football team jersey at campaign events, in an unusual ruling that places the symbolic terrain of electoral politics under judicial scrutiny. De la Espriella, a 47-year-old lawyer known as "The Tiger" and the polling favorite ahead of a June 21 runoff, had made the tricolor shirt a fixture of his public appearances — a choice his opponent argued amounted to the theft of a symbol that belongs to all Colombians.
The complaint was filed by left-wing candidate Iván Cepeda, political heir to sitting president Gustavo Petro. Cepeda argued that De la Espriella's repeated displays of the jersey — timed conspicuously to coincide with the World Cup's June 11 opening — deliberately blurred the line between genuine national pride and electoral advantage. The Bogotá judge agreed, issuing a categorical order barring De la Espriella from using the jersey as an identifier for his campaign, his party, or his personal image in any public space or medium.
The ruling exposed a fault line running through Colombian society. For De la Espriella's supporters, the jersey was an expression of patriotism, consistent with a political brand built around nationalist fervor and tiger-emblazoned shirts. For his opponents, it was a calculated appropriation — politics colonizing a space that should remain neutral. The right saw the ruling as an attempt to police patriotism; the left saw it as a necessary defense of shared civic symbols.
For the millions of ordinary Colombians who will wear the same shirt to cheer their team at the World Cup, the jersey remains what it has always been. But the court's intervention stands as evidence of how thoroughly political struggle can reach into even the most seemingly apolitical corners of national life.
A Colombian judge has ordered a presidential frontrunner to stop wearing the national football team jersey at campaign events, marking an unusual intervention into the symbolic terrain of electoral politics. Abelardo de la Espriella, a 47-year-old lawyer and polling favorite heading into a June 21 runoff, had made the tricolor shirt a fixture of his public appearances—a choice that drew sharp rebuke from his opponent and ultimately landed in court.
The complaint came from Iván Cepeda, the left-wing candidate and political heir to sitting president Gustavo Petro. Cepeda accused De la Espriella of appropriating the national team's jersey as a political symbol, essentially stealing something that belonged to all Colombians and converting it into a tool for his own campaign. The timing was pointed: De la Espriella's frequent displays of the shirt came just days before the World Cup was set to begin on June 11, a moment when millions of ordinary Colombians would naturally be wearing the same garment in genuine support of their team.
A Bogotá judge sided with the complaint, issuing an order that De la Espriella must immediately and permanently cease using the jersey as an identifier for his political party, his campaign, or his personal image in any public space or medium. The ruling was categorical in its scope, leaving little room for interpretation or exception.
The decision cuts to the heart of a deeper tension in Colombian politics. De la Espriella, known by the nickname "The Tiger," has cultivated a distinctive political brand that includes supporters wearing tiger-emblazoned shirts and performing a characteristic military salute at his rallies. The national team jersey fit neatly into this aesthetic of nationalist fervor. But what his supporters framed as patriotism—a natural expression of love for country and team—his opponents saw as political manipulation, a deliberate blurring of the line between civic pride and electoral advantage.
The left viewed the jersey's politicization as a troubling appropriation of a symbol that should remain neutral and accessible to all citizens. The right, by contrast, saw the ruling itself as an infringement, an attempt to police patriotism and prevent a candidate from expressing national pride. The dispute revealed how polarized Colombian society has become, with even the most basic national symbols now contested terrain.
For millions of ordinary Colombians preparing to cheer for their team at the World Cup, the jersey remained what it had always been—a simple garment worn in hope and solidarity. But in the hands of a political candidate, it had become something else: evidence of how thoroughly politics can colonize even the most seemingly apolitical spaces. The judge's order stands as a reminder that in a deeply divided country, almost nothing remains untouched by the struggle for power.
Citas Notables
The left views the jersey's politicization as an appropriation of a symbol that should remain neutral and accessible to all citizens— Court reasoning and left-wing position
The right frames the use of the national team jersey as a natural expression of patriotism— De la Espriella's supporters and right-wing perspective
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would a judge get involved in what a candidate wears? Isn't that a free speech issue?
In Colombia's legal framework, there are rules about how national symbols can be used in campaigns. The court saw this as De la Espriella converting a collective symbol—something that belongs to all citizens—into a personal political brand. It's less about what he wore and more about how he was deploying it.
But his supporters genuinely love their country. Doesn't wearing the jersey express that?
It does, and that's exactly what makes this complicated. Millions of Colombians will wear that same shirt to support the team at the World Cup. The question the court had to answer was whether a candidate can claim that symbol as his own during an election. His opponents argued he was hijacking something sacred.
What does this say about Colombian politics right now?
It shows how fractured things have become. The left sees nationalist symbolism as a tool the right uses to consolidate power. The right sees the ruling as censorship of patriotism. There's almost no neutral ground left.
Will this actually stop him from winning?
Probably not. He's still leading in polls. But it does constrain his campaign messaging just before the runoff. He'll have to find other ways to project strength and national pride without the jersey.
What happens if he ignores the order?
That's the real test. If he appears in the jersey after this ruling, he faces legal consequences. It becomes a question of whether he's willing to defy a court order to make a political point.