Abelardo de la Espriella, known for his alignment with MAGA principles, has stirred controversy by using Colombia’s national soccer jersey as a focal point in his successful right-wing presidential campaign. This decision has ignited discussions about the political appropriation of national symbols.
The yellow jersey, traditionally a symbol of communal joy, is now at the center of a debate. Critics fear that its association with a political candidate could transform it into a symbol of political allegiance. A Bogotá judge even prohibited de la Espriella from wearing the jersey during his campaign before the June 21 election.
On a Saturday night in Miami, de la Espriella received enthusiastic support from fans for his stringent law-and-order policies. POLITICO consulted two Colombian political experts who suggest that this incident is part of a larger trend in populist movements, where national imagery is used to blur the distinction between national pride and political advocacy.
“In my view, he was very deliberately politicizing the national team’s shirt,” Eduardo Gamarra, a professor of politics and international relations at Florida International University, stated. “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: it allows a partisan political project to present itself as the nation itself.”
Gamarra explained that this tactic is not exclusive to Colombia. Worldwide, populist politicians frequently seek to claim national symbols. In the United States, MAGA politics has transformed the American flag and other patriotic emblems into partisan identifiers. Similarly, in Venezuela, Chavismo harnessed the influence of national colors, patriotic visuals, and sports icons like the Vinotinto [the national team]. According to Gamarra, de la Espriella’s use of the jersey effectively converted the national team’s emotional resonance into a mark of political identity.
“But to me the real surprise is not that de la Espriella tried to use the jersey, or even that it worked. 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,” Gamarra noted.
The appeal of the jersey extended beyond nationalism; it helped solidify de la Espriella’s well-crafted populist image as he secured victory in the final round of the election in mid-June.
“Abelardo de la Espriella used the national team’s shirt, traditionally a symbol of unity and celebration throughout the country, especially at the time of the World Cup, to associate his campaign with strong patriotism,” said Julian Gerez, assistant professor of criminology, law and society and political science at the University of California, Irvine. “But I think more importantly, it’s about de la Espriella’s own image: he is a multimillionaire lawyer but it is essential to his brand to appear as a man of the people. And as opposed to wearing a suit jacket or other formal attire, which is what might be expected, the jersey and hat play an important role in the way he portrays his image.”
“Ultimately, I think it was an effective tactic, but [leftist candidate] 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 concluded.
