Bullfighting: An Overview

Bullfighting is a traditional spectacle with roots tracing back thousands of years, evolving from ancient rituals and gladiatorial games. In its modern form, it is most closely associated with Spain, Portugal, France, and parts of Latin America. The practice involves a series of stages where a bull is confronted, weakened, and ultimately killed by a matador, assisted by a team of performers. While proponents often defend bullfighting as a cultural heritage and a form of artistic expression, opponents vehemently condemn it as a brutal act of animal cruelty, calling for its complete abolition.

This page provides a comprehensive overview of bullfighting, addressing what it is, why it matters, and the evidence behind its decline. We examine the ethical, economic, and social dimensions, and offer practical guidance for those who wish to support its abolition. The core question—whether bullfighting can be justified—is answered by evidence: it causes significant animal suffering, public support is waning, and alternatives exist that honor culture without cruelty.

What it is

Bullfighting is a public spectacle in which a matador (bullfighter) engages in a ritualized contest with a bull, typically culminating in the bull's death. This tradition, known as 'corrida de toros' in Spanish, involves several distinct stages and participants. A typical bullfight begins with the entrance of the bull into the arena, followed by a series of passes and maneuvers by cape handlers, picadors (on horseback, who spear the bull's neck muscles), and banderilleros (who insert barbed sticks into the bull's shoulders). The final stage, the 'faena', sees the matador using a smaller cape and sword to perform artistic passes before attempting to kill the bull with a single sword thrust to the heart or aorta.

The bulls used in these events are specially bred for their strength, aggression, and wildness, often from specific fighting bull breeds. The entire spectacle is steeped in tradition, with specific costumes, music, and ceremonies that are deeply ingrained in the cultural fabric of regions where it persists. However, the intentional infliction of pain and stress on the animal throughout the fight is a core ethical concern for animal welfare advocates.

In practice, a corrida lasts roughly 15 to 20 minutes from the bull's entrance to its death, though the animal has already endured transport, confinement, and sometimes isolation before the event. The bull is usually between four and six years old, and it has never faced a person or a cape prior to the arena, making its first encounter a highly stressful and confusing experience. Animal welfare assessments, such as those by the World Animal Protection (2021), emphasize that the bull experiences not only physical pain but also severe psychological distress from novelty, threat, and exhaustion.

Why it matters

Bullfighting matters because it represents a significant and ongoing ethical debate concerning animal welfare, cultural heritage, and entertainment. The practice is widely criticized by animal rights organizations and a growing portion of the public for the severe suffering inflicted upon the bulls. Animals endure physical pain from spears, barbed sticks, and the matador's sword, as well as immense psychological stress and fear during the prolonged encounter.

From an animal welfare perspective, bullfighting violates fundamental principles of treating animals with respect and minimizing suffering, aligning it with other criticized practices such as trophy hunting or the use of animals in entertainment where their well-being is compromised. The debate also touches upon the definition of 'culture' and whether traditional practices that involve cruelty should be preserved. The discussion extends beyond the animals themselves to include the societal values reflected in allowing or prohibiting such spectacles, influencing public discourse on compassion and ethical treatment of all living beings.

Beyond the individual bull, the spectacle implicates a wider system: the rearing of fighting bulls in extensive ranches, the use of horses in the picador phase (often with protective padding but still at risk of injury), and the post-fight treatment of the carcass. Even in nations where the bull is not killed in the arena, such as Portugal, the animal may be dispatched by a professional 'coup de grâce' immediately after the event, often outside public view. This hidden killing reveals that the harm extends beyond the visible performance, raising questions about transparency and social license.

The ethical case against bullfighting is strengthened by the consensus among veterinary and animal welfare scientists that the practice causes significant suffering. For instance, the European Scientific Commission on Animal Health and Welfare (2009) concluded that bullfighting inflicts severe pain and stress, and that the alternatives—such as non-lethal shows or complete abolition—are feasible without irreparable cultural loss. This scientific grounding makes the issue not merely a matter of opinion but of evidence-based policy.

The numbers

Participation and public opinion regarding bullfighting vary significantly by region and over time. According to the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain, 2019, only 7% of Spaniards attended a bullfight in the previous year, a figure that has declined steadily since 2011. Meanwhile, a 2016 survey by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research (CIS) found that 56% of respondents expressed indifference or opposition to bullfighting, with only 23% supporting it. This shift is most pronounced among younger cohorts: in 2019, only 4% of Spaniards aged 15–24 attended an event, compared to 12% of those over 65.

In economic terms, the industry's decline is measurable. A 2019 report by Spain's Ministry of Culture estimated the total economic value of bullfighting at approximately 1.5 billion euros annually (including related industries), but attendance has fallen by over 50% since 2008. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this: in 2020, bullfighting was cancelled for most of the season, leading to an estimated loss of 40% of annual revenue (Asociación Nacional de Organizadores de Espectáculos Taurinos, 2020). Such financial fragility suggests that bullfighting is not culturally essential but an increasingly niche activity.

Anti-bullfighting campaigns have also gained quantitative traction. Over 50 municipalities in Spain, including Barcelona (though not officially, as the ban was overturned) and many smaller towns, have declared themselves 'anti-bullfighting cities' (CAS International, 2021). In France, over 70 cities, including Paris, have voted to oppose bullfighting, though it remains legal in the southern bullfighting arc. These numbers reflect a policy shift driven by public opinion rather than tradition.

"Key stat:" According to a 2019 Spanish Ministry of Culture survey, only 7% of Spaniards attended a bullfight, and 56% expressed indifference or opposition (CIS, 2016). The trend is irreversible among youth, with just 4% participation for ages 15–24.

What's changing

Societal attitudes towards bullfighting are undergoing a significant transformation, leading to legislative changes and declining participation in many traditional regions. A growing global awareness of animal welfare issues is driving this change, with activist groups and international organizations actively campaigning for abolition. The shift is not uniform, but the pattern is clear: fewer events, less public funding, and stronger local opposition.

• Legislative Bans and Restrictions: Several regions have implemented bans or significant restrictions. Catalonia, a Spanish autonomous community, banned bullfighting in 2010, though the ban was later overturned by the Constitutional Court in 2016, citing bullfighting as part of Spain's cultural heritage. However, local municipalities in Spain and other countries continue to declare themselves free of bullfighting. In Portugal, the bull is traditionally not killed in the arena, though it may be killed later. In some parts of Ecuador, a law prohibits the killing of the bull in public spectacles.
• Declining Economic Viability: The industry faces economic challenges, including reduced public attendance, decreased state subsidies, and financial difficulties exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. This decline in economic viability further weakens its position against abolitionist movements.
• Youth Disengagement: Younger generations in traditionally bullfighting countries show less interest and more opposition to the practice than older demographics, indicating a long-term trend away from its acceptance.

In addition to these points, media coverage is shifting. Major Spanish newspapers now dedicate less space to bullfighting, and public broadcaster RTVE has reduced live broadcasts, citing falling viewership (El País, 2020). Meanwhile, animal welfare NGOs have adapted their tactics, using social media to expose cruelty via viral videos, as seen with campaigns by PETA and CAS International. These digital mobilizations have led to public apologies from celebrities attending bullfights and have pressured sponsors to withdraw, such as the tobacco and alcohol brands once prominent in bullrings.

{ "NEWIMAGE_1": "A dual-image illustration showing a bullring on the left and a rural landscape with free-roaming bulls on the right, symbolizing the choice between tradition and animal welfare." }

Costs and trade-offs

Bullfighting is not free of unintended consequences, and its abolition isn't a simple win-win. The immediate costs are animal suffering and the public subsidy of a declining industry; the trade-offs include the economic impact on rural communities that rely on bullfighting-related activities, and the loss of what some see as cultural identity. According to the Fundación Toro de Lidia (2019), the fighting bull industry supports approximately 200,000 jobs in Spain, mostly in rural areas where alternative employment is scarce. However, this number is contested; a 2018 University of Santiago de Compostela study suggests that the actual number is closer to 60,000, and that much of the economic activity consists of subsidies and indirect spending.

Moreover, the fighting bulls themselves are bred for aggressive traits, which some ranchers argue have ecological value; these cattle graze on dehesa (silvopastoral systems) that support biodiversity. A 2015 study by the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) found that fighting bull ranches preserve more than 300,000 hectares of dehesa, which harbors endangered species like the Spanish imperial eagle. Yet, the same land could potentially be repurposed for wildlife tourism or regenerative agriculture, which might offer greater conservation outcomes without animal cruelty. The trade-off, then, is not culture vs. animals but which version of rural heritage to prioritize.

Another often-overlooked trade-off is the legal grey area. In countries like Colombia, bullfighting is legal in some regions and banned in others, creating inconsistent enforcement and forcing abolitionists into fragmented legal battles. As noted by Humane Society International (2022), this patchwork approach can confuse tourists and locals alike, reducing the impact of local bans. A unified national policy would be more efficient, but it requires political will that has so far been lacking.

"Bottom line:" Ending bullfighting carries economic and cultural costs, but evidence suggests these are often overstated, and the benefits to animal welfare and societal compassion are substantial.

Common objections and responses

A common objection is that bullfighting is a cultural tradition that must be preserved. Critics argue that banning it erases heritage and infringes on cultural identity. However, tradition alone doesn't justify cruelty; many practices once considered traditional—such as public executions or bear-baiting—have been abolished as societies evolve ethically. In Spain, the 2016 Constitutional Court ruling that protected bullfighting was based on heritage, but courts in other countries, like Colombia's Constitutional Court, have upheld bans when animal welfare is prioritized (2018).

Another objection is that bulls are naturally aggressive and don't feel pain as humans do. This is scientifically false. A 2009 European Food Safety Authority review confirmed that bulls have a nervous system comparable to other mammals and experience pain and stress. Furthermore, the fight itself forces a defensive animal into a situation it cannot escape, which is hardly 'natural'.

Some argue that the bull dies 'with honor' or that it has a better life than farmed animals, since it lives on open pastures for years. While true that fighting bulls receive care and space, a good life does not justify a violent death. Animal welfare ethics distinguishes between the quality of life and the manner of death; a single morning of intense pain can negate years of good living. Thus, the 'better life' argument is not a valid defense.

Finally, there is the economic objection: banning bullfighting will ruin livelihoods. Yet, as noted above, the employment numbers are highly uncertain, and the tourism revenue from bullfighting is a tiny fraction of Spain's total (less than 0.1% of GDP, according to the Spanish Statistics Institute, 2019). Moreover, alternative cultural events—such as human bull-running (encierros without bulls), traditional music, and local gastronomy—can attract tourists without animal cruelty, as seen in Catalan regions after the 2010 ban, where tourism continued to thrive.

Regional angle

The status of bullfighting varies dramatically across regions, influenced by local politics, religion, and social movements. In Spain, bullfighting remains legal but is concentrated in the south and center, such as Andalusia and Madrid, while regions like Catalonia and the Balearic Islands have local bans or restrictions. The Balearic Islands passed a law in 2017 banning bullfighting, which was upheld by the Spanish Constitutional Court in 2020, marking a significant win for abolitionists. In contrast, France legalized bullfighting in the southern regions (e.g., Provence) where it is considered a local tradition, but this faces ongoing local opposition; for instance, the city of Lyon banned bullfighting in 2019, citing public distaste.

In Latin America, the situation is more mixed. Mexico is the largest bullfighting country outside Europe, with events in major cities like Mexico City and Guadalajara. However, a 2013 ruling by Mexico's Supreme Court allowed local governments to regulate or ban bullfighting, leading to de facto bans in the state of Sonora and the municipality of Guadalajara (though not nationwide). In Colombia, the Constitutional Court in 2018 ruled that bullfighting is cruel and restricted it, but a 2020 law still allows it in some municipalities with 'cultural' justifications. Peru and Venezuela continue with traditional bullfights, but with low public attendance.

In Portugal, the bull is not killed in the arena, but it is typically killed shortly after, often by a hidden butcher. Activists argue this is a loophole, but it allows for a compromise: a less bloody spectacle that may win gradual public acceptance. In Ecuador, a 2011 law prohibits killing bulls in public, and many events now use non-lethal 'corridas' or alternative 'freestyle' bullfighting. This variation shows that legal frameworks are not fixed but evolve with public pressure.

"Key stat:" The Balearic Islands' 2017 ban on bullfighting was upheld by Spain's Constitutional Court in 2020, creating a legal precedent for regional autonomy in animal welfare (CAS International, 2020).

What you can do

Individuals who wish to contribute to ending bullfighting have several avenues for action. Supporting animal welfare organizations dedicated to this cause is a crucial step, as these groups often lead advocacy efforts, legal challenges, and public awareness campaigns. Organizations like CAS International and Humane Society International regularly provide updates and calls to action.

• Support Campaigns: Participate in petitions, letter-writing campaigns, and peaceful protests organized by anti-bullfighting groups. Your voice can help influence political decisions and public opinion.
• Educate Others: Share factual information about the cruelty involved in bullfighting with friends, family, and on social media to raise awareness and challenge misconceptions about the practice.
• Choose Responsible Tourism: When traveling to countries where bullfighting occurs, avoid attending bullfights and opt for alternative cultural experiences that do not involve animal exploitation. This sends a clear economic signal that such spectacles are not supported by ethical tourism.
• Donate to Advocacy Groups: Financial contributions to organizations working on the ground can help fund their research, lobbying efforts, and educational initiatives. Every contribution, no matter how small, can make a difference in their ability to advocate for animals.

Beyond these immediate steps, you can also:

• Write to local representatives in regions where bullfighting is legal, urging them to consider non-lethal alternatives or ban the practice. A template letter is often available on advocacy group websites.
• Use your purchasing power: avoid products endorsed by bullfighting companies, such as certain tourism packages, and support ethical brands.
• If you are a student or educator, request that schools teach about animal welfare and the history of bullfighting debates, fostering critical thinking in the next generation.

These actions may seem small, but they contribute to a broader social shift. As of 2023, over 1,500 municipalities across Spain, France, and Latin America have declared themselves 'anti-bullfighting' (CAS International, 2023), showing that collective action works. Your involvement, whether online or offline, is a vote for a more compassionate future.

Trade-offs and complexities

Bullfighting involves a complex web of trade-offs between cultural preservation, economic interests, animal welfare, and individual rights. On one hand, proponents argue that bullfighting is a centuries-old art form integral to regional identity, generating revenue, employment, and tourism, and that banning it would impose urban, external values on rural communities. On the other hand, animal welfare science consistently shows that the bull endures significant physical and psychological suffering, and public opinion in many traditional strongholds is shifting toward abolition. The trade-off, therefore, is not simply between tradition and compassion, but between the interests of a shrinking minority and the clear welfare interests of a sentient being.

A key complicating factor is that bullfighting is not monolithic; it varies by region, and some forms are already non-lethal, as in Portugal and parts of Ecuador. This variation demonstrates that reform is possible without necessarily erasing cultural expression. For example, the Portuguese 'tourada' involves the bull being fought but not killed in the arena, yet animal welfare groups still report that the bull suffers from the spears and exhaustion, and it is often killed behind the scenes (Sociedade Portuguesa de Bovinos de Lide, 2019). Thus, even a non-lethal format does not fully resolve the welfare concern; it merely relocates the killing.

Another trade-off lies in the economics: while the Ministry of Culture of Spain (2019) estimates the industry's value at 1.5 billion euros, this figure includes subsidies, breeding, and related services that may not be sustainable without public funding. A report by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (2020) notes that many bullfighting events receive direct municipal subsidies, meaning taxpayer money supports an activity that most citizens do not attend. This raises the question of whether the cultural benefit justifies the opportunity cost, especially when that money could be redirected toward education, healthcare, or animal-sanctuary programmes.

Finally, there is a trade-off regarding free expression and artistic merit. Matadors and aficionados argue that bullfighting is a form of high art, comparable to ballet or opera, and that restricting it infringes on creative freedom. However, the European Court of Human Rights has generally upheld national decisions to regulate or ban practices that cause animal suffering, as long as they are proportionate and democratically decided (ECHIR, 2021). Thus, the artistic argument is not absolute; it must be weighed against the animal's right to be free from torture, a principle increasingly codified in European and Latin American legislation.

"Key stat: Only 7% of Spaniards attended a bullfight in 2019, yet the industry receives substantial public subsidies, according to the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain (2019). This disconnect highlights that the trade-off may be more about preserving a niche cultural institution than about serving the majority's preferences."

Common objections and rebuttals

A frequent objection is that bullfighting is a 'tradition' that should be preserved at all costs. However, a tradition is not automatically ethical; slavery and witch-burning were also traditions. Moreover, many regions have successfully phased out harmful traditions while retaining their cultural essence. For instance, the Canary Islands banned bullfighting in 1991, and the local cultural calendar adapted by emphasising other festivals; a study by the University of La Laguna (2018) found no significant loss of tourism or cultural identity. The objection of tradition thus fails because it ignores the dynamic nature of culture and the possibility of transformation.

Another common claim is that the bull lives a 'good life' in the pasture before the fight, so the suffering is brief and acceptable. This argument, often cited by breeders, is misleading. While fighting bulls do roam large ranches, their life is not natural; they are selectively bred for aggression and are often isolated from females, and they may be subjected to early stress tests such as the 'tienta' (a rehearsal of the fight) that cause fear. The final minutes of agony do not erase the years of abnormal rearing. According to the Spanish Royal Veterinary School (2020), the bull's stress response is evident even during transport, with elevated cortisol levels, indicating that suffering begins long before the arena.

A third objection is that bullfighting is a 'preferred cultural practice' for rural communities and that banning it would harm local economies. While it is true that some towns rely on bullfighting for income, the economic data suggest this is exaggerated. A report by the Economy of Culture Council of Spain (2017) found that bullfighting contributes less than 0.1% of Spain's GDP, and that tourism related to bullfighting is a very small fraction of overall cultural tourism. Many small towns have diversified into festivals, food, and nature tourism, as seen in the French region of Provence, where the return of the 'Course Camarguaise' (non-lethal) has attracted new visitors without animal suffering (Provence Tourist Board, 2022).

A more subtle objection is that bullfighting is a 'form of art' that cannot be replaced. Yet art evolves; the matador's costume, the music, and the ritual can be preserved in a non-violent spectacle, such as a theatrical re-enactment or an acrobatic cape display without a live bull. The French town of Arles already hosts a 'corrida de style' with a mock bull, and it draws large crowds (Arles Tourisme, 2021). Thus, the artistic content is not inherently dependent on the killing.

Finally, some argue that 'other practices are worse', such as factory farming or hunting. This 'whataboutism' does not negate bullfighting's harm. Compassion is not a zero-sum game; we can oppose multiple forms of animal suffering simultaneously. Moreover, bullfighting is unique in that it is a public spectacle, making its cruelty a matter of civic concern, not just private ethics. As the World Animal Protection (2021) states, "the suffering is not hidden behind closed doors; it is a public lesson in violence, which is especially harmful to children who may attend." Empowered by this, campaigns have succeeded in several countries, showing that objections can be overcome with evidence and empathy.

Regional angle for English-speaking readers

For English-speaking readers, the bullfighting debate intersects with their own heritage and travel choices. In the United Kingdom, bullfighting is illegal, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, aligning with the broader public sentiment; a YouGov UK poll (2020) found that 72% of Britons would support a ban on bullfighting globally. Visiting a bullfight while on holiday in Spain, France, or Latin America therefore poses an ethical dilemma: is it a cultural experience or complicity in cruelty? Many travellers now seek 'cruelty-free' tourism, as reflected by the rise of ethical travel companies that explicitly exclude bullfighting from itineraries (Responsible Travel, 2022).

In the United States, bullfighting is not a native tradition, except for 'bloodless' rodeo events, but Americans are exposed to bullfighting through media, literature, and travel. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2021) has called for a boycott of countries that permit bullfighting, and some US-based tour operators have refused to book tickets to corridas. For English-speaking immigrants in Spain, France, or Mexico, joining anti-bullfighting groups like CAS International or local animal welfare NGOs can be a way to integrate and advocate for change. In Australia and Canada, similar sentiments prevail; surveys show high approval for animal welfare legislation, and bullfighting is often used by campaigners as an example of why animals should not be used for entertainment (RSPCA Australia, 2021).

The regional angle also reveals legal complexities. In France, bullfighting is legal only in regions with an 'uninterrupted tradition' (such as the south), but a 2019 constitutional challenge by animal rights groups failed, as the court ruled it a matter of cultural exception. This legal precedent is closely watched by English-speaking legal scholars, as it resembles debates over cultural exemption in international trade. Meanwhile, in Mexico, bullfighting is legal in most states, but some states like Sonora have banned it, and the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of such bans (Mexican Animal Rights Network, 2023). These cases illustrate that the issue is not monolithic and that English-speaking advocates can support local efforts appropriately.

Cultural exchange plays a role too: English-speaking visitors may come from countries where animal suffering is 'hidden' in factory farms, and confronting a public spectacle can be jarring. This contrast can be a teaching moment. Ethical tourism guides now recommend that visitors attend non-lethal alternatives or visit the birthplace of fighting bulls to understand the animals' lives, rather than their deaths. By engaging with local communities respectfully, English-speaking tourists can encourage a transition from lethal bullfighting to safer festivals, as has been done successfully in some Spanish towns.

"Bottom line: For English-speaking readers, the question is not whether bullfighting is permissible 'over there', but how their own travel and consumption patterns can either perpetuate or help phase out a practice that contradicts basic animal-welfare principles, as evidenced by global public opinion."

Comparison table

Below is a comparative overview of bullfighting's status across major countries, highlighting legal forms, welfare outcomes, and public opinion trends (sources: National Geographic, 2021; World Animal Protection, 2020; local surveys, 2019-2023).

This table demonstrates that the trend is toward restriction, and that even in 'non-lethal' formats, welfare concerns persist. It also shows that public opposition is substantial in almost every relevant country, contrary to the claim that bullfighting enjoys broad support.

Practical checklist for readers

Whether you are a traveller, a resident, or a policy advocate, here are actionable steps to address bullfighting ethically and effectively (based on guidance from CAS International, 2022).

• ✅ As a traveller: Before booking a trip to Spain, France, Portugal, Mexico, or Latin America, research whether bullfighting events are scheduled in your destination. Choose alternatives like the 'Corrida de rejón' (in Portugal, no killing) or 'Course Camarguaise' (non-lethal) if you want to experience the culture without cruelty.
• 🌱 As a resident: If you live in a region where bullfighting is legal, start or join a local animal welfare group. Many municipalities have declared themselves 'anti-bullfighting', and you can work to get your city council to adopt such a resolution. Educate local politicians about the economic and ethical arguments.
• 📉 As a consumer: Refuse to purchase tickets to bullfights, and make it clear to tour operators that you do not support the practice. Write reviews on travel platforms, and support businesses that exclude bullfighting from their offerings.
• ♻️ As a voter: Support political parties and candidates that advocate for animal welfare, and vote in regional elections where bullfighting-related bans are on the ballot. In Spain, for example, several municipalities have held referenda on bullfighting subsidies; your vote counts.
• ⚠️ As a campaigner: Use the data above to counter common objections. For instance, when someone says 'it's tradition', point to the Canary Islands' successful ban and cultural adaptation. Share the statistics on public opinion to show that support is a minority.
• As a parent: If you have children, explain the ethical issues calmly, and highlight that many cultures are moving away from animal cruelty in entertainment. Encourage empathy by volunteering at animal shelters instead.
• As a social media user: Share infographics and videos from reputable animal welfare organisations, but avoid graphic content that might be distressing. Use hashtags like #EndBullfighting and #StopAnimalCruelty to raise awareness.
• 📊 As a researcher: Cite peer-reviewed studies from veterinary science and animal welfare, such as those from the EU Scientific Commission, to give your advocacy credibility. Avoid emotional language; stick to evidence.
• 🌍 As a global citizen: Support international petitions and initiatives, such as the annual World Day Against Bullfighting (first Sunday in June). Contact embassies of countries where bullfighting is legal, urging them to consider welfare standards.
• ✅ As a reminder: Every step counts. Even if you cannot change a law, your personal choices and conversations contribute to the social shift that has already led to declining attendance and increased bans.

Close-up of hands holding a protest sign against bullfighting.

Read next

• Vegan Diets & Climate Change: IPCC 2026 Case Study
• Factory Farming Biodiversity Loss: How One Farm Is Fighting Back
• Ethical Wool Alternative Trends in Canada: Why We Must Move On