Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.

Breakdown of Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.

estar
to be
em
in
dever
must
respeitar
to respect
o árbitro
the referee
a bancada
the stand
quem quer que
whoever
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Portuguese grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Portuguese now

Questions & Answers about Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.

What exactly does quem quer que mean? Is it literally “who wants that”?

Quem quer que is an idiomatic expression meaning “whoever / anyone who / no matter who.”

It is not understood literally as “who wants that” here, even though it contains the verb querer (to want).

You can think of it as a fixed chunk:

  • quem quer que + [subjunctive]whoever / no matter who

So:

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas…
    Whoever is in the stands… / Anyone who is in the stands…

Could you just say quem instead of quem quer que? What’s the difference?

You can sometimes use quem alone, but there is a nuance difference.

  • Quem estiver nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.
    Whoever is in the stands must respect the referee.

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.
    → Also whoever is in the stands must respect the referee, but with a slightly stronger sense of “no matter who it is” / “absolutely anyone who…”

So:

  • quem
    • subjunctive (quem estiver…) is already “whoever”.
  • quem quer que
    • subjunctive (quem quer que esteja…) is a bit more emphatic and often more formal or written.

Why is esteja used instead of está? What’s going on with the verb form?

Esteja is the present subjunctive of estar.

In Portuguese, after quem quer que, you must use the subjunctive, because you’re talking about an unspecified / unknown person in a general or hypothetical way:

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas…
    → unknown person(s), not identified
    → subjunctive esteja

If you said:

  • Quem quer que está nas bancadas…

this would be incorrect in standard Portuguese; está (indicative) clashes with quem quer que, which requires the subjunctive.


The subject seems plural (all the people in the stands). Why is deve singular and not devem?

Grammatically, the subject of the sentence is quem quer que esteja nas bancadas, and the core word there is quem (who), which is treated as singular.

So the verb agrees with quem:

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.
    deve (3rd person singular)

Even though logically it can refer to many people, Portuguese normally follows grammatical agreement here, not logical agreement.

You might occasionally hear plural in casual speech (influenced by the idea of “all of them”):

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas devem respeitar o árbitro.

but in standard/educated usage, singular (deve) is the correct and recommended form.


Is there a simpler or more common way to say this in Portuguese from Portugal?

Yes, a very natural alternative is:

  • Quem estiver nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.

This uses quem + future subjunctive (estiver) instead of quem quer que + present subjunctive (esteja).

Both are correct in European Portuguese:

  • Quem quer que esteja… → a bit more formal/emphatic (“no matter who”).
  • Quem estiver… → very common, sounds a bit more straightforward and colloquial.

What does nas bancadas mean exactly, and why the preposition em + article?

Nas bancadas literally is “in the stands” (of a stadium).

Breakdown:

  • em (in / on / at) + as (the, feminine plural)
    em + as = nas
  • bancadas = the seating areas/stands in a stadium (rows of seats for spectators).

So:

  • nas bancadas = in the stands (spectator areas).

In European Portuguese, bancada is the usual word for the stands in a sports stadium. In Brazilian Portuguese you’re more likely to see arquibancada in this sense.

The contraction nas is obligatory in normal speech/writing; you don’t say em as bancadas.


Why is bancadas plural here and not singular (na bancada)?

Using the plural is more natural because a stadium normally has several stands or sections of seating:

  • nas bancadas → in the stands (all of them, in general)

You might use na bancada in a very specific, limited context:

  • Na bancada norte, os adeptos do clube X…
    In the north stand, the fans of club X…

But for a general rule or announcement addressed to everyone in the spectator areas, nas bancadas (plural) is what you expect.


Why is it respeitar o árbitro and not respeitar ao árbitro?

In Portuguese, respeitar is a transitive verb that takes a direct object with no preposition:

  • respeitar alguémto respect someone
  • respeitar as regrasto respect the rules

So the correct form is:

  • respeitar o árbitro

Adding a (respeitar ao árbitro) would be incorrect in standard Portuguese in this sense.

The preposition a would only appear in a different construction, for example with an indirect object (dar algo a alguém), but not with respeitar.


Why is it o árbitro and not just respeitar árbitro or um árbitro?

Portuguese often uses the definite article where English drops it, especially when talking about people in roles or professions in a general rule:

  • Respeitar o professor.
  • Respeitar o polícia.
  • Respeitar o árbitro.

Here o árbitro can mean:

  1. The specific referee of this match (in context, at a stadium), and
  2. More generally, the referee as the person in that role.

You cannot drop the article like in English:

  • respeitar árbitro (ungrammatical in this sentence)
  • respeitar o árbitro

Using um árbitro (a referee) would change the meaning to “a (random) referee” and doesn’t fit this kind of stadium rule phrase. The definite article is the natural choice.


Does deve mean “must” or “should” here? How strong is the obligation?

Deve comes from dever, which can express obligation but with a bit of flexibility in strength depending on context.

In this sentence:

  • Quem quer que esteja nas bancadas deve respeitar o árbitro.

it’s close to “must” in English: it’s a rule / obligation.

Nuance in Portuguese (roughly):

  • deve → “must / should” (obligatory or strongly expected)
  • tem de / tem que → usually a bit stronger, more clearly “has to / must”
  • deveria → softer, more like “should” / “ought to”

For a stadium rule, deve is perfectly natural and sounds official enough.


Is this sentence more formal, or could it be used in everyday speech?

The content is neutral (it’s just a rule), but the structure quem quer que esteja is relatively formal / written.

Possible uses:

  • On a sign in a stadium.
  • In written regulations.
  • In a formal announcement or rulebook.

In everyday spoken Portuguese, people are more likely to phrase it more simply:

  • Quem estiver nas bancadas tem de respeitar o árbitro.
  • Toda a gente nas bancadas tem de respeitar o árbitro.

So the given sentence is correct and idiomatic, but it leans towards a formal or written register.