A bad call by FAM at the worst possible time

Speed can masquerade as leadership, and unity as resolve. But when decisions arrive before investigations end, they signal fear, not strength.

When a football association is punished for forged documents, the smallest test of its recovery is whether it chooses transparency over convenience.

Yesterday, the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) failed that test.

The question is not whether Noor Azman Rahman “served his suspension”. That is a procedural matter, and a narrow one.

The real question is whether FAM still believes in accountability that can withstand scrutiny, especially when international credibility, police investigations and the trust of a long-disillusioned football community are at stake.

By reinstating its general secretary while both the police and Fifa continue to investigate the naturalised players scandal, FAM has chosen expediency over prudence.

It has cleared its own decks while external authorities are still asking basic questions.

That decision may be defensible in a thin procedural sense. In the court that matters most — public confidence — it is deeply flawed.

This is not a technical governance exercise or a clerical lapse. FAM has already been sanctioned by Fifa, seven “heritage” players have been suspended and the association has been fined 350,000 Swiss Francs.

Those penalties alone should have imposed caution and humility. Instead, FAM has behaved as though closure can be declared internally, regardless of what remains unresolved outside its walls.

Against that backdrop, reinstating a senior administrator before all investigations conclude was always going to look premature, if not tone-deaf.

FAM’s disciplinary committee says Noor Azman was guilty only of administrative negligence, not document forgery.

It relied on findings of the independent investigation committee (IIC), chaired by a former chief justice, which could not conclusively determine who falsified the documents.

That distinction matters legally, but in sports governance, perception is inseparable from legitimacy.

The issue is not that FAM conducted an internal process. The issue is timing, judgment and optics.

When multiple jurisdictions are involved, restraint is usually the wiser course.

A mismatch of standards

FAM’s decision exposes a troubling mismatch between domestic self-assessment and external accountability.

Internally, it frames the matter as administrative negligence. Externally, Fifa has already ruled that forged or falsified documents were submitted and imposed sanctions. The Malaysian police, meanwhile, are investigating whether criminal offences were committed.

When an organisation restores one of its most senior officials while those parallel processes remain open, it invites a simple question: whose standard of accountability carries weight?

It is not enough to say the IIC could not identify the forger. That finding does not equal exoneration. Nor does it answer questions of oversight, responsibility and governance failure.

Senior administrators are judged not only by what they sign, but by the systems they run and the controls they are meant to enforce.

By lifting the suspension now, FAM has signalled that its internal bar for reinstatement is lower than the standard that prompted Fifa’s punishment.

That may satisfy lawyers but it does not satisfy common sense. More importantly, it places FAM in a vulnerable position.

If Fifa’s investigation or the police inquiry later concludes that responsibility runs higher or wider than currently acknowledged, the association will face not only renewed scrutiny, but also the charge that it moved too quickly to protect its own.

Resignations without a roadmap are hollow

This brings us to the second development: the executive committee’s readiness to resign collectively if it would avert a Fifa suspension.

On the surface, the offer sounds dramatic, even noble. Leaders willing to step aside for the good of the game can be a powerful symbol. But symbols without structure rarely deliver reform.

A mass resignation, without a credible transition plan, risks replacing one vacuum with another.

Who takes over? Under what authority? With what safeguards to ensure that the same governance weaknesses are not simply recycled under new names?

There is also the risk of performance. If resignation is floated but never executed, it erodes trust further. Fans have seen this pattern before.

If the exco is serious about protecting Malaysian football, resignation should not be framed as a threat or a sacrifice.

It should come with a reform package: independent interim oversight, clear timelines, and binding commitments that outlast individual office-holders.

Absent that, stepping down delivers little more than headlines.

What real accountability looks like

Real accountability is rarely convenient. It requires waiting when rushing feels easier, and restraint when self-vindication beckons.

In this case, a more credible course would have been to maintain Noor Azman’s suspension, or place him on administrative leave, until all external investigations conclude.

That would not have implied guilt. It would have respected process.

Likewise, if leadership change is necessary, the exco should invite independent oversight rather than simply offering to walk away. Transparency does not weaken institutions; it strengthens them.

FAM’s emphasis on its appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is understandable. Every organisation has the right to contest sanctions it believes are unjust.

But appeals do not cancel responsibility. Nor do they relieve an association of its duty to uphold strong governance while those appeals are pending.

Football supporters are not asking for perfection. They are asking for seriousness. They are asking for humility from an organisation that has too often appeared defensive and insular.

Malaysian football cannot afford another decade lost to boardroom misjudgment.

Every error at the top trickles down to players, coaches and fans who have no say in governance, yet pay the price for its failures.

FAM had an opportunity to demonstrate maturity: to wait, to cooperate fully, and to place the integrity of the game above internal convenience. Instead, it chose speed.

The damage may not be immediate. But if future findings contradict yesterday’s assurances, the cost will exceed any fine or suspension. It will be the further erosion of public trust.

Accountability done privately may satisfy committees. Accountability done publicly is what restores faith.

On that measure, FAM still has work to do, and time is no longer on its side.

Panic in institutions does not look like chaos. It looks like speed, certainty and sudden unity, all deployed before someone else takes control of the story.

That is the indicator coming out of FAM now. Not confidence or closure, but a rush to define events before external authorities do it for them.

In trying to steady itself, FAM may have revealed the truth it hoped to avoid: this crisis is bigger than any one individual, and the answers it fears most may still lie ahead. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.