Houston Texans pass rusher Azeez Al-Shaair spoke out about the fine he received for wearing a pro-Palestinian message across his eye tape during a playoff win against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Al-Shaair talked to reporters outside his locker in the wake of the Texans’ loss to the New England Patriots on Sunday. He was hit with a fine of $11,593 for having “Stop the genocide” emblazoned across the tape, according to ESPN.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

He told the media he was aware what he did would garner a fine.

“I knew that that was a fine. I understood what I was doing … I was told that if I wore that in the game, I would be pulled out the game,” he said, via ESPN. “I think that was the part that I was confused about because I understood that was a fine but I never seen Stef (Stefon Diggs) get pulled out of a game for having eye tape with writing on it.

“At the end of the day, it’s bigger than me, the things that are going on. If it makes people uncomfortable, imagine how those people feel. I think that’s the biggest thing. I have no affiliation, no connection to these people other than the fact that I’m a human being. If you have a heart and you’re a human being and you see what’s going on in the world, you check yourself real quick. Even when I’m walking off this field, that’s the type of stuff that goes on in my head. I check myself when I’m sitting here crying about football when there’s people who are dying every single day.”

The NFL rulebook states in Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 what players are allowed and not allowed to wear on game days. The rule states, “Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

Azeez Al-Shaair of the Houston Texans exits the field during the playoff game against the Steelers at Acrisure Stadium on Jan. 12, 2026, in Pittsburgh. (Cooper Neill/Getty Images)

SUPER BOWL CHAMP NICK FOLES TAKES SWIPE AT PATRIOTS AS BRONCOS SET TO START BACKUP QB IN AFC TITLE GAME

“The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, mouthpieces, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. Further, any such approved items must be modest in size, tasteful, non-commercial, and non-controversial; must not be worn for more than one football season.”

Al-Shaair has supported Palestinians in the past, including wearing “Free Palestine” cleats for the NFL’s “My Cause My Cleats” campaign during the 2024 season. 

Al-Shaair had “Free” written on one side of his shoes in the colors of the Palestinian flag. On one shoe, “Surely to Allah we belong and to Him we will all return,” was written. On the side of his other shoe, he included the number of Palestinians reportedly killed and wounded in their war with Israel.

The shoes were for the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, which he also supported in 2023.

“I feel like it’s something that’s trying to be almost silenced,” Al-Shaair told the Houston Chronicle at the time. “On either side, people losing their life is not right. In no way, shape, or form am I validating anything that happened, but to consistently say that because of [Oct. 7] innocent people [in Gaza] should now die, it’s crazy. 

Azeez al-Shaair of the Houston Texans shakes hands with Aaron Rodgers of the Steelers after their playoff game at Acrisure Stadium on Jan. 12, 2026, in Pittsburgh. (Joe Sargent/Getty Images)

“[Other people] try to make a disconnect and dehumanize people over there. And it’s like, they’re human beings. Being a Muslim, we see everybody the same; Black, White, Spanish, whatever you are; you can be orange, like, we’re all human beings.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Al-Shaair was also part of the Athletes for Ceasefire organization.

Fox News’ Ryan Morik contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Napoli head coach Antonio Conte has appeared to aim a dig at former Manchester United head coach Ruben Amorim, suggesting arrogance from previous coaches has hindered Rasmus Højlund‘s development as a striker.

Højlund joined Conte’s Napoli on a season-long loan last summer in a move that the Serie A club are obligated to make permanent should they qualify for the Champions League.

The Dane joined United in a £64 million ($85.79m) deal from Atalanta in 2023, scoring 26 goals in 95 appearances. He was frequently overlooked by Amorim during his time in charge at Old Trafford and did not feature in any of the club’s four first four Premier League fixtures of the season.

Højlund started well at Napoli, scoring nine goals in his first 20 appearances but he has not found the back of the net since scoring a brace at Cremonese on Dec. 28.

“Some young coaches nowadays are arrogant and don’t want to adapt. They see a young striker struggling, and instead of training him, they blame him,” Conte told a news conference on Friday ahead of the weekend win over Sassuolo.

“They always complain and blame everyone but themselves, because everything is handed to them on a silver platter.”

– Transfer rumours, news: Chelsea open to Fernández exit
– Serie A table

Napoli sporting director Giovanni Manna has said he considers Højlund’s permanent transfer from Manchester United a “formality.”

“We did everything we could to sign him,” Manna told Italian newspaper Corriere dello Sport.

“There were more storied clubs interested, but his will was crucial, and we are proud of it. There’s an option to buy and an obligation to buy if we qualify for the Champions League.

“The player considers himself a Napoli player, and the same goes for us. This is extremely important.”

Napoli are third in Serie A, six points behind league leaders Internazionale and face Juventus on Sunday.

Video assistant referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?

This season, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.

Nottingham Forest 0-0 Arsenal

Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Darren England
Time: 80 minutes
Incident: Possible penalty for handball

What happened: With the ball running out of play for an Arsenal corner, Nottingham Forest defender Ola Aina seemingly played the ball with his arm in an attempt to keep the ball in play. Within the same movement, Forest teammate Elliot Anderson was equally keen to keep the ball in play, creating contact in the back of Aina as they both played for the same ball.

VAR decision: The referee’s call of no penalty to Arsenal was checked and confirmed by VAR — with it deemed that the ball was played off Aina’s shoulder first, while his arm was also in a natural position.

VAR review: Referee Michael Oliver was completely unsighted of any potential offense in this situation. Therefore, the judgment as to whether this incident was worthy of an on-field review (OFR) was entirely down to VAR Darren England.

For a VAR intervention in this situation, certainly one with no live communication of the incident from the referee, he would need to have absolute evidence, clear of any mitigating circumstances, that an offense has been committed by the Forest player and missed by the refereeing team.

England looked at the replays many times, finally saying that the ball had deflected off Aina’s shoulder and onto his arm, which he also felt was in a natural position for Aina’s movement at that moment.

Equally, the contact on Aina from Anderson would have added to the level of doubt that a clear error had been made. England’s final decision was to complete the check for no penalty review.

Verdict: Despite the rationale offered for a non-intervention by the VAR, the Forest defender can, in my opinion, feel fortunate that this incident did not go to an on-field review and subsequent penalty award.

I agree that the ball deflected off his shoulder and that the contact from Anderson would have had an impact on Aina’s natural balance. However, neither of these considerations was enough to negate the deliberate secondary movement of his arm to play and ultimately control the ball in an attempt to keep the ball in play.

England clearly felt that there were too many “possibles” and not enough “definites” in this incident and therefore didn’t feel it met the criteria for an obvious error — an outcome that will certainly divide opinion.

Manchester United 2-0 Manchester City

Referee: Anthony Taylor
VAR: Craig Pawson
Time: 10 minutes
Incident: Red card challenge

What happened: Manchester United defender Diogo Dalot was late with a challenge on Jérémy Doku, catching the Manchester City attacker high on the knee. The on-field decision from referee Anthony Taylor was a yellow card, confirmed by VAR Craig Pawson.

VAR decision: The referee’s call of yellow card to Dalot for a reckless challenge was checked and confirmed by VAR — with the contact deemed to be glancing and not with excessive force.

Verdict: Without doubt, this will be a major talking point of this derby match — especially as it was just 10 minutes in, and United went on to win the game.

This was a lazy challenge by Dalot. The contact was unnecessarily late, high and across Doku’s knee, all considerations that would have put Pawson in a difficult position when reviewing the challenge so early in a derby game.

The live communication from Taylor, describing the challenge and subsequent level of contact as reckless as opposed to dangerous — understandable from an on-field perspective — would have been Pawson’s starting point in this review process.

Having watched the replays, Pawson would have felt uncomfortable given the nature of the challenge. However, considering the timing of the incident, he would not have felt that the replays offered enough evidence to recommend an on-field review and would have worked hard to make the pictures concur with the on-field decision of yellow card as opposed to red.

I feel for Pawson and understand his rationale in this situation, but I believe a red card would be expected in this incident. The nature of the challenge was dangerous, completely unnecessary and certainly endangered the safety of his opponent.