The FIFA World Cup is set to take place next year. All players are hoping to be picked by their national squad so that they can punch their ticket to America; Canada and Mexico. However, there is a risk of not being picked because of a potential match ban/s as a result of a previously given red card.
One such player who was at risk of missing two games was star player, Cristiano Ronaldo. He was shown a straight red when Portugal faced Ireland two weeks ago. While he missed the game against Armenia, there were high risks of him missing 2 of the 3 group games. All that has led to nothing as FIFA has cleared him and he's free to play.
Most people aren't happy with this news.
When I saw this news, I, too, wasn't surprised. When I saw this, the term, psychological entitlement, came to mind. His star power and fandom is so big that FIFA can't afford to omit him from the tournament.
Psychological entitlement refers to a general belief that one deserves more or is entitled to more than others are. Psychological entitlement is defined as a general belief because it is consistent over time and across different situations (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
The concepts of entitlement and deservingness play an important role in much of social life. They both reflect the commonly held idea that when individuals contribute to a situation, they should get something back in return. When individuals don't get what they feel they are entitled to or deserve, they consider the situation unjust or unfair and may get upset or angry and seek redress (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
Entitlement and deservingness are similar but have slightly different meanings. Entitlement usually refers to a reward that a person should receive as the result of a social contract. Deservingness, in contrast, usually refers to a reward that a person should receive as a result of his or her efforts or character (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
Psychological entitlement encompasses the experience of both entitlement and deservingness across time and across situations. In this sense, psychological entitlement can be considered an individual difference variable. That is, it reflects a very general difference between persons in beliefs and behaviours: Some individuals have chronically high levels of psychological entitlement, others have moderate levels of psychological entitlement, and still others have low levels of psychological entitlement. Individuals who have high levels of psychological entitlement think that they deserve more than do others in most situations (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
An individual's level of psychological entitlement is typically measured with a self-report scale, the Psychological Entitlement Scale. This scale asks individuals to rate the extent that they agree with certain statements. These include “I deserve more things in my life,” “People like me deserve an extra break now and then,” and “I feel entitled to more of everything.” Individuals who have high levels of psychological entitlement are more likely to agree with these and similar statements (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
Psychological entitlement has a wide range of important and often negative consequences for human thoughts, feelings and behaviour. In the workplace, for example, individuals who have high levels of psychological entitlement often believe that they should be paid more than are others in similar positions. This can potentially lead to conflict or divisiveness at work and leave the psychologically entitled person constantly dissatisfied (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
Finally, individuals who have high levels of psychological entitlement are more prone to aggression. These individuals believe that they deserve special treatment, so they are particularly likely to be aggressive toward those who criticize them. In short, individuals who have high levels of psychological entitlement often feel shortchanged by others. This is linked to feelings of resentment or anger, selfish and self-centered behaviours and even hostility and aggression (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
Ronaldo should have received a three-match ban for elbowing Dara O'Shea during Portugal's 2-0 qualifying defeat earlier this month. Yet, FIFA's disciplinary committee said it took into account that he hadn't received a red card in his other 225 international appearances.
Article 27 says FIFA can "fully or partially suspend" a disciplinary measure for "a probationary period of one to four years." Article 25 states "the relevant FIFA judicial body may scale down the disciplinary measure to be imposed or even dispense with it entirely."
There hasn't been a World Cup reprieve quite the same as Ronaldo's, where a three-match ban has remained in place but partially suspended. There are several other examples of FIFA looking kindly upon players, reducing their ban from the mandatory punishment.
The World Cup finals are the pinnacle of most players' careers. Articles 25 and 27 give FIFA the freedom to consider the merits and impact of a suspension. It's not only been about star players.
In 2014, France defender, Laurent Koscielny, was sent off for slapping Ukraine's Oleksandr Kucher in the first leg of the World Cup play-off.
Like Ronaldo, Koscielny was automatically banned for his country's final qualifying fixture. FIFA then chose not to extend the then-Arsenal centre-back's suspension beyond one match, allowing him to play at the World Cup.
Croatia's Mario Mandzukic should've missed the opening two games of the 2014 finals after he was sent off for serious foul play in the second leg of the play-off win over Iceland. FIFA gave him a one-game ban, meaning he could play the second match against Cameroon - a 4-0 win in which he scored twice.
Towards the end of qualifying for the 2006 World Cup, Netherlands midfielder, Phillip Cocu, was sent off for an alleged retaliatory elbow on an Albania player. FIFA chose to ban Cocu for two matches, meaning he missed the final UEFA qualifiers against the Czech Republic and Macedonia but was free for the opening match of the World Cup.
Japan's Makoto Hasebe was sent off for an elbow at the end of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup and, like Cocu, was given two matches. He wasn't so lucky, however, as the second match was the first game of the World Cup.
Likewise, Iran's Saeid Ezatolahi was sent off for bringing his boot down on the head of an opponent in their penultimate qualifier. FIFA chose to give the midfielder two games rather than three and he missed just the first game at the 2018 World Cup.
In 2002, Mexico midfielder, Jesus Arellano, was given a three-match ban for violent conduct against Costa Rica. He missed the final qualifier against Honduras and was set to sit out the first two matches of the World Cup. Mexico were successful in a late appeal just before the finals kicked off, claiming the suspension was too harsh. Arellano's ban was reduced and he only had to sit out their opener.
The sole basis for FIFA’s clemency appears to be that Ronaldo had never previously been shown a red card in his international career. We all make mistakes, previous good character, can’t be too harsh on him, etc, etc.
Which is fine, and suspending punishments in football is not especially unusual, as long as that sort of thing is applied consistently.
However, consider Armenia captain, Tigran Barseghyan, who, like Ronaldo, was dismissed for an act of violent conduct against Ireland during the qualifiers. Like Ronaldo, he was given a three-match ban. Like Ronaldo, this was the first red card of his international career. Unlike Ronaldo, he was given no leniency: he has served two of his three games and still has one to go whenever Armenia next play a competitive game.
Cristiano Ronaldo was initially shown a yellow card against Ireland, before it was changed to a red. There doesn’t appear to be much precedent here — or at least, not much relevant precedent.
A couple of examples of these powers of discretion being used previously to suspend punishments were pointed out. One was about an employment-related dispute between an Israeli second-division club called Kfar Qasem and the Ivory Coast midfielder, Alfa Mamadou Diane, another related to homophobic chants by Mexico fans during their game against Poland at the 2022 World Cup.
A couple of things do occur. The first is that neither example relates to an on-pitch incident, so they’re both extremely tenuous and have little connection to what appeared to be a relatively open and shut case of violent conduct during a game. The other is that using the Mexico example — in which part of the punishment was to make the national team play one game behind closed doors, a ban that was suspended on condition of good behaviour — is grimly funny because it merely draws attention to FIFA being lenient about a blatant case of homophobia.
To put it another way, if FIFA attempts to logic its way out of this one using precedent, that would be utterly laughable.
It appears that the Portugal star could yet miss his nation's opening games at the major international competition as FIFA could face legal action over their decision to suspend the ban.
Although he promised that he would be a "good boy" ahead of kick-off, Ronaldo was sent off for the first time in his 226-cap Portugal career during the match against the Republic of Ireland.
The red card meant that he missed Portugal's final qualifier against Armenia but FIFA's decision meant that he other two matches were suspended for “a one-year probation period,” allowing him to play at the World Cup.
Football writer, Henry Winter, meanwhile, called it, "special treatment." "FIFA admits the seriousness of Ronaldo’s offence and yet punishes him lightly. A good day for marketing. A bad day for discipline," he added.
He wrote on X: "FIFA undermines the credibility of its disciplinary process and the authority of its referees with its special treatment of Cristiano Ronaldo. He’s undeniably one of the greats of the game, a fabulous footballer (if in inevitable decline at 40), hugely important for Fifa in marketing and spreading the game through his 1bn social media followers, and a Messi-Ronaldo last dance at the World Cup is a dream for Fifa and TV. But justice should be blind to status and commercial value."
"Fifa could have gained some respect by punishing Ronaldo properly as they do other players. And Portugal would surely survive the group stage without Ronaldo for two games, which should have been his punishment for violent conduct. Ronaldo elbowed Dara O’Shea in the back, was initially given a yellow card which was rightly upgraded to a red by VAR for violent conduct which usually brings a three-match ban. So Fifa has effectively undermined VAR."
"Ronaldo has already served one game, with Fifa now suspending the other two for a year. How convenient. USA, land of the freed. Fifa did get Messi into the Club World Cup..."
"And will any player sent off in the March play-offs expect similar clemency from Fifa?"
"It was Ronaldo’s first dismissal in 226 internationals, an impressive disciplinary record, that bought him sympathy from Gianni Infantino’s organisation. Fifa says in its statement that “if Cristiano Ronaldo commits another infringement of a similar nature and gravity during the probationary period, the suspension set out in the disciplinary decision shall be deemed automatically revoked and the remaining two matches must be served immediately”."
"The key word here is “gravity”. Fifa admits the seriousness of Ronaldo’s offence and yet punishes him lightly. A good day for marketing. A bad day for discipline."
Even by FIFA’s standards, this level of manoeuvring is so blatant, so obvious, that the audacity of ushering it through in plain sight almost defies belief.
The case for Ronaldo’s defence was led by his Portugal manager, Roberto Martinez, who argued: “I think the action looks worse than what it actually is, I don't think it's an elbow.”
Ronaldo, assuming he gets through the next few months while on his best behaviour, will be free to play in Portugal’s opening match of the World Cup, with their group-stage opponents to be confirmed at the December 5 draw, where Trump is expected to join Infantino in Washington, DC.
There is another element to the optics here, one where Ronaldo and Messi are effectively in a race to become the first player to appear at a sixth World Cup finals.
Ronaldo may still be scoring overhead kicks for Al-Nassr but he will be 41 when the World Cup kicks off next summer and he has already confirmed that it will be his last.
For Ronaldo, FIFA and what is evolving into Trump’s World Cup, every minute of his involvement will be valued as if it’s a rare earth mineral; its content to be mined, packaged and exported to as wide an audience as possible.
Surely, the show was never going to start without its biggest star.
However, a report from Mail Sport has revealed that the countries that are drawn to play against Portugal in next week's World Cup group stage draw could attempt to overturn this decision. The report claims that the countries could make a claim at at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to overturn the suspension of Ronaldo's ban and uphold the original punishment.
If they chose to do so, a panel would sit in Switzerland to consider the claim before delivering a verdict, however as it stands it remains to be seen if the impacted countries will decide to go down this route.
Due to the format of the draw, England cannot face Portugal in the group stage but Scotland and potentially the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales, could be drawn against them, should they win their respective play-off matches.
Portugal's group stage opponents are not the only countries that are likely monitoring the situation surrounding Ronaldo's ban, as other countries whose players will miss World Cup matches due to suspensions could also raise a claim.
According to the report, any aggrieved party raising a claim at the CAS would need to prove that they have been directly impacted by FIFA's decision and that there is a legal interest worthy of protection.
I just can't believe that the selfish, self-centred, hypocritical prima-donna (no offence to Ronaldo fans reading this) got off scot free. Everyone should be treated equally and none should get special treatment.
To me, this is a classic case of psychological entitlement. Ronaldo most likely got special treatment because of his star power. I hope other countries take legal action.
Reference List
Baumeister, R.F. and Kathleen D. Vohs, K.D..(2007)Psychological Entitlement. (2007). (Eds) Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Encyclopedia of social psychology, pp. 717. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.