The 2026 World Cup has already produced its share of controversy, but few incidents have sparked as much debate as the wave of dismissals involving players caught covering their mouths. Two players have now been sent off for the offence at the tournament in North America — and the rule behind it has a very specific origin.

What is the Prestianni Law?

The rule has been named after Gianluca Prestianni, a winger for Benfica, who was alleged in February to have directed racially abusive language at Real Madrid forward Vinicius Junior. Prestianni denied the accusation, and because he was covering his mouth at the time, there was no way to conclusively prove or disprove what was said.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino moved swiftly in response, championing the introduction of a new law ahead of this tournament. Under the rule, players are prohibited from covering their mouths during a heated verbal confrontation with an opponent. The intent is clear: ensure that any abusive language used in such moments is visible to cameras and fellow players alike, eliminating any plausible deniability.

How is the rule applied?

The law is not a blanket ban on covering one's mouth during a match. It applies only in situations where a player is clearly engaged in a confrontational exchange with an opponent. If team-mates are huddled together to discuss tactics — deciding who will take a free-kick, for instance — a player may still shield their conversation from the opposition without risk of punishment.

A red card is the immediate consequence for any player who violates the rule in a confrontational context. On top of that, a one-match suspension follows automatically, with the possibility of further sanctions if it is determined that abusive language was indeed used.

Who has been dismissed so far?

Two players have already received red cards under this rule during the 2026 World Cup. Piero Hincapie of Ecuador was sent off during his side's match against Mexico, while Paraguay midfielder Miguel Almiron also received his marching orders for the same offence. Both dismissals have drawn widespread attention and reignited debate about how the law is being implemented on the pitch.

Whether the rule proves effective as a long-term deterrent against on-field abuse remains to be seen, but its impact on the tournament so far has been unmistakable.