Benfica have launched an impassioned defence of midfielder Gianluca Prestianni, taking the unusual step of releasing video footage at 2am local time to refute allegations that he racially abused Real Madrid star Vinicius Junior during Tuesday’s explosive Champions League clash at the Estadio da Luz.
The match was halted for ten minutes after Vinicius reported to referee Francois Letexier that he had been called a “monkey” by the Argentine midfielder, a claim that has since polarised the football world and drawn fierce reactions from both camps.
The Brazilian forward, who had just scored a stunning solo goal to secure a 1-0 victory for Madrid, gestured towards Prestianni after the pair exchanged words, with the Benfica player appearing to cover his mouth with his shirt during the confrontation.
In a statement accompanying the newly released pitchside footage, Benfica’s official account challenged the accounts of Vinicius and his teammates.
“As the images demonstrate, given the distance, the Real Madrid players could not have heard what they claim to have heard,” the club wrote, prompting immediate backlash from fans and pundits who noted the proximity of the players in the footage.
Prestianni, 20, has vehemently denied the accusations, taking to social media to clear his name. “I want to clarify that at no time did I direct racist insults to player Vinicius Junior, who regrettably misunderstood what he thought he heard,” the Argentine said in a statement.
“I was never racist with anyone and I regret the threats I received from Real Madrid players”.
The incident has drawn sharp responses from both dressing rooms. Real Madrid defender Trent Alexander-Arnold did not mince words, describing the episode as “a disgrace to football”.
Kylian Mbappe, who was seen confronting Prestianni on the pitch, went further, calling for the Benfica midfielder to be banned from the competition entirely.
“We cannot accept that a player who plays in Europe’s top competition behaves like this,” the French forward told reporters. “This guy doesn’t deserve to play in the Champions League anymore”.
Vinicius, who has endured repeated racist abuse throughout his career in Spain, delivered a characteristically powerful response on Instagram. “Racists are, above all, cowards.
They need to put their shirts in their mouths to show how weak they are,” he wrote, referencing Prestianni’s gesture. “Nothing that happened today is new in my life or in my team’s life”.
The controversy deepened when Benfica manager Jose Mourinho offered his own analysis of the flashpoint. The Portuguese coach suggested Vinicius had provoked the reaction with his goal celebration, stating the forward should have celebrated “in a respectful way”.
Mourinho also invoked the memory of Benfica legend Eusebio, telling Vinicius during the stoppage that “the biggest person in the history of this club was black,” as proof the institution was not racist.
Mourinho’s comments drew immediate criticism from pundits. Former Netherlands international Clarence Seedorf, working as an analyst for Amazon Prime, said the veteran coach had “made a big mistake.”
“He’s saying it’s OK, when Vinicius provokes you, to be racist – and I think that is very wrong,” Seedorf said . Theo Walcott added that it was “the one night he should not have been in front of the cameras”.
Real Madrid midfielder Federico Valverde offered his perspective on the incident, pointing to Prestianni’s decision to cover his mouth as telling. “If you cover your mouth to say something it’s because you are saying something that is not nice,” the Uruguayan said . “The players who were near said that he said something ugly that shouldn’t be said.”
UEFA has confirmed it is reviewing reports from the match and is expected to launch a formal investigation. The governing body’s disciplinary authorities will examine the conflicting accounts, with potential sanctions ranging from fines to match bans should the allegations be substantiated.
The incident has also drawn attention to the effectiveness of football’s anti-racism protocols, with Vinicius himself suggesting the procedure was “poorly executed” and served “no purpose”.