Benfica vs UEFA: Prestianni Ban Legal Battle 2025

Sport Lisboa e Benfica will travel to Madrid for their Champions League playoff second leg without one of its attacking options, after UEFA's Disciplinary Committee issued a one-match provisional suspension to Argentine forward Gianluca Prestianni following a heated first-leg encounter on February 17 at Estádio da Luz. Real Madrid's Vinícius Júnior had accused the 20-year-old of racist abuse—a charge Prestianni categorically denies and one that has now triggered legal threats, regulatory debate, and accusations of procedural overreach.

Why This Matters

• Benfica enters the Santiago Bernabéu tie trailing 1-0 and without a key squad member, after UEFA invoked Article 49 provisional measures.

• The precedent is controversial: Prestianni was sidelined before the investigation concluded, raising questions about presumption of innocence in European football's disciplinary apparatus.

• A defamation lawsuit is reportedly in preparation against Vinícius Júnior and Kylian Mbappé, potentially involving Portuguese courts, UEFA, and FIFA.

• Head coach José Mourinho also misses the match after being sent off in Lisbon, compounding the tactical limitations for the Portuguese club. Mourinho's suspension adds another layer of difficulty for Benfica's tactical setup in this crucial European fixture.

The Incident That Sparked the Crisis

The controversy erupted moments after Vinícius Júnior scored Real Madrid's only goal in the first leg. The Brazilian international immediately approached French referee François Letexier, alleging that Prestianni had directed offensive language at him. The match was halted for approximately ten minutes as the official activated UEFA's three-step anti-racism protocol, which permits interruption, suspension, or abandonment of fixtures in cases of discriminatory conduct.

According to sources close to the investigation, Prestianni admitted to using offensive language but denies any racial element. The player reportedly told UEFA inspectors he said "maricón" (a Spanish homophobic slur roughly equivalent to "maricas" in Portuguese) rather than the racist term allegedly cited by Vinícius Júnior, a distinction with profound disciplinary consequences. His agent later contested even that version, deepening the confusion over what was actually said on the pitch.

Kylian Mbappé was nearby during the exchange, and according to reports from the incident, corroborated aspects of the account of the exchange that occurred on the pitch. That testimony may have been considered in UEFA's decision to impose the precautionary ban.

UEFA's Regulatory Gambit

Following the incident, UEFA's Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) announced the provisional suspension, citing a "prima facie violation of Article 14" of its Disciplinary Regulations, which governs discriminatory behavior. The ruling bars Prestianni from the return leg at the Bernabéu, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing inquiry.

The statement from UEFA headquarters in Nyon was carefully worded: "This decision arises without prejudice to any subsequent ruling that UEFA disciplinary bodies may issue following the conclusion of the investigation." In practical terms, this means if Prestianni is ultimately found guilty, he faces a minimum ten-match suspension under current UEFA rules for racist conduct. If exonerated, the provisional ban stands as an irreversible loss for the Portuguese club in a decisive European tie.

Benfica's Institutional Response

Sport Lisboa e Benfica issued a formal protest, announcing an appeal to UEFA's Appeals Body, though the club acknowledged the tight procedural timelines. The statement reaffirmed the club's "unwavering commitment to combating any form of racism or discrimination," invoking the legacy of Eusébio and the work of Fundação Benfica.

Despite the suspension, Prestianni is expected to travel with the squad to Spain, a symbolic gesture of institutional support. The club's legal team is reportedly preparing documentation to challenge both the suspension and, potentially, the investigative process itself.

Legal Counteroffensive: Defamation Claims Loom

According to Spanish journalist Marcos Benito of El Chiringuito TV, Prestianni is preparing a defamation lawsuit against Vinícius Júnior and Mbappé, to be filed with Portuguese courts and submitted to UEFA and FIFA disciplinary channels. The claim rests on the allegation that both Real Madrid players publicly accused Prestianni of racist conduct without definitive proof, damaging his reputation and professional standing.

Portuguese sports law specialists interviewed by Lusa offered diverging views on the strength of such a claim. One expert noted that if Prestianni is ultimately cleared by UEFA, he would have grounds for a civil suit in Portugal, given the public nature of the accusations and the harm to his career prospects. Another cautioned that the provisional suspension itself does not constitute proof of guilt and that defamation cases hinge on demonstrating malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth—a high bar when statements are made in the context of an official match incident.

The legal dimension extends beyond individual reputations. Portuguese anti-discrimination statutes have been tested in football contexts before, and the outcome of this case could influence how clubs, leagues, and governing bodies handle on-field allegations in the future.

Backlash from Argentina: "Tremendous Stupidity"

The suspension drew immediate condemnation from Javier Castrilli, one of Argentina's most prominent former referees. In a scathing social media post, Castrilli accused UEFA of abandoning due process: "UEFA has suspended Gianluca Prestianni without proof. From now on, anyone can accuse anyone else without evidence. This is the level of degradation Europe is suffering... It has reached football."

He continued: "Following the logic implemented by UEFA, referees will now be able to expel any player accused of insulting an opponent. Tremendous stupidity." Castrilli also criticized Vinícius Júnior, arguing that his interactions on the pitch amounted to provocation. "Two stupidities from UEFA," he wrote. "On one hand, it sanctions by presumption, without objective proof. On the other, it fails to address provocative conduct on the pitch."

The comments reflect broader Latin American frustration with European football governance, particularly perceptions that South American players are held to different standards or become easy targets in racially charged disputes.

What Legal Experts in Portugal Are Saying

Three Portuguese specialists in sports law offered contrasting interpretations of the provisional suspension to the Lusa news agency.

Alexandre Miguel Mestre, a university professor specializing in sports law, noted that Article 49 of UEFA's regulations permits provisional measures "to maintain sporting discipline, avoid irreparable harm, or for reasons of security and protection." He emphasized that UEFA's statement referenced "discriminatory conduct" rather than explicitly racial abuse, leaving interpretive room. However, he cautioned that without access to the evidence—documentary, testimonial, or audio—it is impossible to assess whether the threshold for provisional action was met.

Lúcio Miguel Correia took a more critical stance, arguing that the suspension reflects "a preliminary assessment pointing toward a future disciplinary conviction." He explained: "This provisional suspension is related to the fact that the UEFA inspector has gathered sufficient evidence to guarantee a high probability of future sanction." He added that UEFA has moved away from the presumption of innocence standard used in Portuguese criminal law, relying instead on circumstantial evidence, referee reports, and witness testimony.

Gonçalo Almeida offered a third perspective, suggesting the measure may have been driven by security concerns rather than guilt. "Given the worldwide repercussion of this situation—not only because of the racism issue, but also due to the athletes involved, the clubs, and the competition—UEFA may have opted for this provisional suspension for security purposes, both for those involved and for the public at the match." He rejected the notion that the suspension anticipates a guilty verdict: "This does not mean we are already foreseeing a conviction. It may have been solely for security reasons."

All three agreed that if Prestianni is ultimately cleared, the inability to reverse his exclusion from a Champions League knockout match could constitute irreparable harm, potentially opening UEFA to legal challenge.

Impact on Expats, Investors, and Portuguese Football's Reputation

For residents and stakeholders in Portugal, the Prestianni case touches on several sensitive areas:

Reputational Risk: Portuguese clubs compete in a global marketplace for talent, sponsorship, and broadcast rights. High-profile racism allegations—whether substantiated or not—can affect investor confidence and commercial partnerships, particularly with brands that prioritize diversity and inclusion.

Legal Precedent: The case could set a benchmark for how Portuguese courts handle defamation claims arising from on-field incidents, especially when foreign players and international federations are involved. Jurisdictional questions—whether Portuguese law applies, whether UEFA's internal tribunals have exclusive authority—may take years to resolve.

Fan Sentiment and Security: If the appeal process drags on or if new evidence emerges, tensions between Portuguese and Spanish fan bases could escalate, affecting safety protocols at future fixtures. Authorities in Madrid have reportedly increased security measures for the match in anticipation of heightened emotions.

Football Governance: The controversy adds to a growing list of disputes between Portuguese clubs and European football authorities, from financial fair play to VAR protocols. Each incident strains institutional relationships and complicates future negotiations over regulatory reform.

The Broader Context: Racism in European Football

Vinícius Júnior has emerged as the most visible target of racist abuse in European football in recent years. Since his arrival in Spain, the Brazilian has faced numerous documented incidents of racial harassment, ranging from monkey chants to objects thrown onto the pitch. These historical incidents highlight the persistent problem of racism within European football stadiums and reflect broader concerns about discriminatory conduct in the sport.

The cumulative effect of these incidents has placed a spotlight on the broader problem of how Europe's football institutions confront systemic racism. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has publicly expressed commitment to addressing such issues, reiterating that "there is no place for racism in sport." Yet critics argue that provisional suspensions based on contested testimony may undermine rather than strengthen anti-discrimination efforts, particularly if players fear being suspended on the basis of accusations alone.

What Happens Next

The second leg will take place at the Santiago Bernabéu, with Slovenian referee Slavko Vincic in charge. Benfica enters the tie trailing 1-0 and will attempt to overturn the deficit without Prestianni and without head coach Mourinho, who was sent off during the first match.

UEFA's investigation continues, with no timeline announced for a final ruling. If Prestianni is found guilty, the minimum sanction is ten matches; if cleared, questions about the legitimacy of the provisional ban will intensify. The club's formal appeal to the Appeals Body is expected to be heard within the relevant procedural timelines, though urgent reversal before the second leg appears unlikely.

Meanwhile, legal representatives for Prestianni are reportedly gathering documentation for the defamation claim, which could involve depositions, forensic audio analysis, and testimony from players, officials, and broadcast crews present at the match. Portuguese courts have jurisdiction over defamation claims involving residents or entities domiciled in Portugal, meaning a civil suit could run parallel to UEFA's disciplinary process, adding another layer of complexity.

For Benfica supporters and Portuguese football observers, the outcome of this case will determine not only the club's immediate Champions League prospects but also the contours of a legal and regulatory battle that may reshape how European football handles its most sensitive disputes.