# Colombian court blocks presidential candidate from using national jersey in campaign

*Event date: 2026-06-04*

A court in Bogotá has ordered hard-right Colombian presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella to stop using the national football jersey as a campaign symbol, in a ruling that adds a new legal twist to an already heated runoff race. The decision came after objections from his left-wing opponents and shows how quickly symbols can become legal as well as political battlegrounds.

According to AFP via RFI, the judge issued an “immediate and definitive cessation” of the political use of the shirt. The ruling said the jersey could not be used as an identifying symbol of the candidate’s party, campaign or personal image in public squares or through any medium.

De la Espriella has been using the jersey at public events as he runs ahead of a June 21 runoff against left-wing Senator Iván Cepeda. The dispute became sharper because the World Cup was approaching, making the national shirt even more visible and emotionally charged. In a country where football imagery can easily be folded into patriotism, the court’s intervention draws a line between national identity and partisan branding.

The candidate’s image has already been built around a harder-line political persona. He has promised to take a tougher stance on Colombia’s armed groups, and the report says supporters have even adopted jerseys bearing a tiger’s head, reflecting his self-styled nickname, “The Tiger.” The court order therefore targets not just a piece of clothing but a broader campaign aesthetic.

The AFP report also shows why the symbol mattered in the first place. De la Espriella won the first round narrowly, taking 43.7% of the vote compared with Cepeda’s 40.9%. In a closely balanced runoff, visual identity matters. A jersey can be more than a shirt if voters read it as a claim to national ownership.

The reaction to the case has been politically polarized. Left-wing critics accused him of appropriating a shared national symbol, while some on the right celebrated the jersey as an expression of patriotism. That disagreement helps explain why a judge became involved at all: the shirt had moved from sports apparel to campaign shorthand.

The ruling is also a reminder that election disputes increasingly play out around symbols, colors and online imagery, not just policy platforms. A campaign object can become a legal issue if it is seen as misleading voters or monopolizing something that belongs to the public. In this case, the national team jersey was treated as a public symbol too important to be claimed by one candidate.

With the runoff only weeks away, the decision may do more than remove a visual prop. It could also sharpen the contrast between the two camps, particularly if de la Espriella’s supporters portray the ban as establishment interference. Either way, the court has made clear that a football shirt is not free to serve as a campaign logo.