How can FIFA intervene in Ronaldo’s ban? A look at the history behind its decisions

December 14, 2025 Oliver Obel

Cristiano Ronaldo will head into the 2026 World Cup with a disciplinary warning still hanging over him, but not the suspension many expected.

His red card for elbowing Dara O’Shea during a qualifier against the Republic of Ireland set off days of speculation about whether he might miss part of the tournament. That talk ended once FIFA stepped in though not in the way critics anticipated.

According to the BBC, FIFA placed most of Ronaldo’s three-match ban on probation for a year, pointing to his previously clean international record across 225 appearances.

He has already served the initial match of the suspension, and the remaining two will only take effect if he commits a comparable offence within the next twelve months. For Portugal, that means their all-time leading scorer remains eligible from the opening whistle in a tournament expected to be his last.

Why FIFA had the power to intervene

The ruling might look unusual, but FIFA’s disciplinary code gives its judicial bodies broad leeway. Articles 25 and 27 allow them to cancel, shorten or place bans on hold when they believe circumstances justify it.

Whether that flexibility leads to fairness or inconsistency depends on whom you ask, but it has long been part of how the organization approaches discipline at major competitions.

One official familiar with past cases who spoke on background because disciplinary deliberations are not public noted that committees often weigh a player’s intent, record and “the broader context,” which can include the timing of major tournaments. Still, decisions like Ronaldo’s inevitably invite scrutiny.

A long history of case-by-case judgments

FIFA has rarely handled two disciplinary cases in quite the same way. In some years, players have benefited from reduced bans just in time for world tournaments; in others, appeals have fallen flat.

To take a few examples:

Laurent Koscielny was cleared to play at the 2014 World Cup after FIFA declined to extend a ban stemming from a playoff incident.
Mario Mandzukic, also in 2014, served only a single match following a serious foul, then famously scored twice in Croatia’s next game.
Phillip Cocu, ahead of the 2006 finals, completed his suspension during qualifying, allowing him to suit up for the opener.

Not every player has been as fortunate.

Makoto Hasebe, though his ban was trimmed, still missed Japan’s opening match in 2010.
Mike Hanke served his full two-game punishment at the 2006 World Cup because Germany, as host nation, had no competitive fixtures remaining in which to absorb the ban.
More recently, Tarek Salman, Moises Caicedo, and Nicolás Otamendi have all been ruled out of their teams’ first matches next summer.

England has seen both sides of the equation

Disciplinary discretion isn’t limited to the men’s tournament. At the 2023 Women’s World Cup, Lauren James returned sooner than expected after FIFA reduced what many assumed would be a three-match absence.

And before Euro 2012, Wayne Rooney successfully appealed his three-match ban for kicking an opponent, ultimately sitting only two games before scoring in England’s decisive win against Ukraine.

The bigger picture for Portugal

For Portugal, Ronaldo’s availability removes what would have been a major complication in a group expected to be tightly contested.

The national team staff has publicly avoided criticizing the disciplinary process, though one assistant coach said last week that “clarity helps planning,” a remark widely interpreted as relief that the issue was settled early.

Still, a probationary ban is not nothing. One misjudged moment between now and next summer could activate the remaining suspension a risk that may linger in the background even as Portugal prepares its lineup.

A debate that isn’t going away

Every World Cup cycle brings a similar question: Should FIFA try to enforce discipline more rigidly, or does flexibility produce fairer outcomes? Ronaldo’s case is unlikely to settle that debate.

What it does confirm is that FIFA continues to treat suspensions as situational rather than automatic, ensuring each decision will be parsed and sometimes challenged as football’s biggest stage approaches.

Sources: BBC