Abelardo de la Espriella, a right-wing Colombian presidential candidate who won office in mid-June, successfully transformed Colombia's national soccer jersey into a campaign symbol, sparking debate over the political appropriation of shared national symbols.
The yellow shirt, worn by fans during World Cup celebrations and moments of collective national pride for decades, became a defining feature of de la Espriella's victorious campaign. A Bogotá judge even issued an order banning him from wearing the jersey while campaigning before the June 21 vote, citing concerns about political weaponization of national symbols.
Political analysts say the strategy reflects broader patterns in populist movements worldwide, where patriotic imagery is deployed to blur distinctions between support for a nation and support for a specific political project. The tactic drew parallels to how MAGA politics in the United States has incorporated American flags and patriotic symbols as markers of partisan identity, and how Chavismo in Venezuela utilized national colors and sporting imagery.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters argue that displaying national symbols is a legitimate form of patriotic expression and that critics are attempting to police how Colombians express their love for their country. De la Espriella, who has styled himself as a law-and-order candidate, presented his embrace of the jersey as straightforward national pride rather than political calculation.
In Miami on Saturday night, fans vociferously voiced support for de la Espriella and his policies, many wearing the yellow jersey in solidarity with his campaign. Supporters contend that the jersey represents authentic connection to everyday Colombians rather than elite political posturing.
Professor Eduardo Gamarra of Florida International University noted that despite concerns about appropriation, the tactic succeeded because it allowed a partisan project to present itself as synonymous with national identity. "The Colombian jersey is one of the few symbols that can still claim to belong to all Colombians, across region, class and ideology. That is precisely why it is attractive to a populist campaign," Gamarra said.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics argue that de la Espriella's use of the jersey risks transforming a symbol of collective celebration into a marker of political identity. They contend that appropriating shared national symbols for partisan purposes undermines their unifying function and fragments national cohesion.
Opposition candidate Ivan Cepeda's campaign publicly came out against the jersey's use, arguing it should remain a non-partisan emblem of Colombian pride rather than a campaign accessory. However, analysts note this response may have inadvertently amplified the symbol's association with de la Espriella by making its wearing an act of political defiance.
Professor Julian Gerez, assistant professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine, said the opposition's stance may have strengthened rather than weakened de la Espriella's position. "Ivan Cepeda's campaign ironically made it more effective by coming out against its use, which led to greater awareness of the jersey as linked to de la Espriella's campaign — and stronger defiance among his supporters in wearing the jersey," Gerez said.
What the Numbers Show
De la Espriella won the presidential election final round in mid-June 2026. A Bogotá judge issued an order banning him from wearing the national team jersey while campaigning before the June 21 vote, citing concerns about political weaponization of symbols. The ruling was among the first legal interventions attempting to protect shared national emblems from partisan appropriation in Colombian electoral history.
Gamarra noted that opposition groups were largely ineffective in defending the jersey as a non-partisan symbol. "The surprise is how ineffective opposition groups were in defending the shirt as a shared national symbol. They allowed a symbol that should belong to the whole country to be claimed by one political camp," he said.
De la Espriella is described as a multimillionaire lawyer who has crafted an image of being "a man of the people" through deliberate sartorial choices, including wearing the jersey instead of formal attire more typical of presidential candidates.
The Bottom Line
The episode illustrates how populist politicians worldwide routinely appropriate national symbols to present partisan agendas as expressions of authentic patriotism. Experts say the effectiveness of such tactics depends partly on whether opponents inadvertently amplify their significance by publicly opposing them.
Gamarra drew parallels between de la Espriella's approach and strategies used in other countries where patriotic imagery has become politically contested. "In Venezuela, Chavismo also understood the power of national colors, patriotic imagery and sporting symbols," he said. The outcome in Colombia may inform how democratic institutions worldwide address questions about protecting shared symbols from partisan capture.
The case remains under academic study as an example of modern populist political communication strategy.