How other football bodies cleaned house — and what Malaysia must adopt

After scandal, some associations rebuilt systems while others only reshuffled names. Malaysia must choose which path to follow.

The Football Association of Malaysia now stands at a familiar crossroads: the leadership has gone, public anger has somewhat cooled, and an external review is under way.

What comes next will decide whether this moment delivers reform or merely resets the cycle.

History offers a warning. Around the world, football scandals often begin the same way: exposed failures, high-profile resignations and sackings, promises of change.

The outcomes, however, differ sharply. Some associations used crisis to redesign power. Others treated departure as closure.

The difference lies not in who left, but in what changed.

When exits triggered reform

The 2015 Fifa corruption crisis did more than force senior figures out. It compelled a rethink of how authority was concentrated.

New checks were introduced. Oversight and compliance roles were formalised and executive power, at least on paper, was constrained.

Fifa’s reforms remain imperfect. But the episode showed one thing clearly: exits tied to institutional redesign can reset norms; exits alone cannot.

Germany offers another example. The German Football Association (DFB) and its professional leagues invested heavily in compliance systems following governance controversies.

Oversight was embedded into daily operations. Procurement rules tightened. Hospitality and conflict-of-interest policies were codified and monitored.

These were not one-off audits. They were permanent controls designed to make misconduct harder to hide.

The Japan Football Association took a different but equally instructive route. It published multi-year reform plans that linked governance changes to measurable targets.

Timelines were public, benchmarks were clear and progress could be tracked.

That transparency mattered. Reform stopped being an internal promise and became a public commitment.

South Korea, after repeated match-fixing scandals, combined investigation with prevention.

Task forces were formed not just to probe wrongdoing, but to reformat systems and educate stakeholders. Inquiry and reform moved together.

What unites these cases is not perfection, but intent. Leadership exits were paired with visible, enforceable change.

What actually works

Three patterns emerge from these experiences.

First, separation of power. Oversight must be structurally independent from operations. No single body should control selection, verification and appeals.

Second, permanent compliance. Effective associations invest in standing audit and compliance units with real authority — access to records, reporting obligations, and the power to escalate findings.

Third, public reform road maps. When timelines, terms of reference and milestones are published, reform becomes verifiable. Silence breeds suspicion, disclosure builds trust.

Where these elements were absent, scandals returned. Where they were enforced, governance improved, even if slowly.

What Malaysia must adopt

For Malaysia, the lessons are practical, not abstract.

Football governance needs a clear redesign. Policy-making, administration and compliance must sit in distinct, auditable lanes. Informal influence thrives where lines blur.

An independent compliance office is essential. It cannot report to the same structures it monitors. Its findings must be published. Its authority must be protected.

Cooling-off rules matter. Officials under review should step away from all football governance roles — national, state and club — until inquiries conclude. This protects due process and public confidence.

Transparency must be non-negotiable. The AFC review should come with published terms of reference, named reviewers, a fixed timeline and full disclosure of findings.

Reform plans should follow, with milestones that can be tracked.

Player eligibility and naturalisation require special attention. Verification must be centralised, digital and auditable. Paper systems fail quietly digital trails do not.

Finally, expertise matters. Governance reform is not a football problem alone. It requires compliance specialists, forensic auditors and legal professionals, not just administrators recycling familiar roles.

The choice ahead

There are obstacles. Patronage networks resist exposure, reform threatens entrenched interests and external oversight invites discomfort.

But the alternative is familiar: new committees, old habits, another scandal.

International experience is clear. Where exits marked the start of structural reform, institutions emerged stronger.

Where they marked the end of scrutiny, failure returned.

Malaysia’s football crisis has created an opening. Not a guarantee — an opening.

The question is no longer whether people have stepped aside.

It is whether the system they left behind will be rebuilt or merely inherited. - FMT

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