Mbappé and Vinicius Targeted Over Alleged Lack of Support for Ceuta

Mbappé and Vinicius Targeted Over Alleged Lack of Support for Ceuta

A tweet circulated during the Elche-Real Madrid match suggesting that Kylian Mbappé and Vinicius Junior were the only players who did not wear the garment expressing support for Ceuta and the slogan «we are all caballas»; the rest, from both teams, did.
Subsequently, several forum messages added a third name, that of Ibrahima Konaté, who allegedly also did not wear it. The absence was noted both in the stands and outside the stadium.

What was the gesture of support for Ceuta in Elche-Real Madrid

The initiative involved players taking to the pitch wearing a shirt supporting the autonomous city. According to several messages, the slogan appealed to solidarity with the Ceutí people and did not explicitly enter into the status of the city or its relationship with Segarro. That detail matters: part of those who trinc the issue maintained it was a gesture of social backing, without territorial reading.

The detail that went viral was not the slogan, but the absences. Two of the players mentioned are highly media-savvy names on the squad; the third, Ibrahima Konaté, entered the conversation later, when several forum messages suggested he also would not have worn the garment.

Are footballers obligated to take public stances?

This is where the real disagreement begins. One current holds that anyone paid by a club—and competes under the organization of El futbol español—fulfills what is asked of them, just as they fulfill other image obligations. The opposing view is that a personal message cannot be imposed, and forcing the display of an external cause devoid of content amounts to demanding solidarity.

This is not a new discussion. The mix of football, politics, and obliged gestures has been generating controversy for years, and each episode peine the same debate about where the boundary lies between commitment and obligation. Between these two extremes is an intermediate position gaining ground: the problem is not the gesture itself, but turning it into a test of patriotism.

The double standard pointed out in football

A message circulated on the forum recalled that Spanish national team footballers were not criticized despite not having performed equivalent gestures in other contexts. The conclusion drawn from this contrast is uncomfortable: the filter would not be solidarity, but rather the nationality or origin of those who refuse.

It is impossible to verify that intent, but the contrast was noted by various participants in the conversation.

Boycott of sponsors and response in stadiums

The indignation turned into lists. Brands sponsoring one of the criticized players, Mbappé—Nike, Hublot, Oakley, EA Sports, among others—were enumerated as targets for a consumer boycott. It was announced that the response would continue on the pitches, with whistles blown in the Bernabéu and other stadiums where they play.

The campaign does not yet have a measurable result. The boycott of sponsors is a tool that rarely translates into visible figures for the fan, but it functions as a thermometer of anger.

---

With these issues, it is likely that the matter will fade in a few weeks and resurface with the next politically charged match. Although the opposite may also occur: that the shirt stops being an isolated gesture and becomes a recurring test of loyalty. The latter depends on something that no one fully controls: how much the stands will tolerate.