Opinion Football Governance Legal & Policy

FAM vs FIFA: A Rebuttal, A Reality Check, and The Road to CAS

By Amarjeet Singh @ AJ • Coaching4Champions • 5 Nov 2025

This piece answers the viral takes about TMJ’s 25 Oct PC and sets out what really matters now: facts, law, and a clean push to CAS. FIFA’s Appeals Committee has upheld all sanctions on FAM and the seven players. That’s the context—not the endgame. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Executive Summary

• Citizenship vs. Eligibility: Malaysia can lawfully naturalise players under Article 19 FC; FIFA eligibility is a different test. Confusing the two created today’s mess. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
• FIFA’s legal hook: Article 22 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code penalises forgery/falsification or use of forged/falsified documents; associations can be held liable. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
• Where we are: Appeal dismissed, CHF 350k fine upheld, players’ 12-month bans remain. CAS is the next (and only) legal escalator. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
• What government can do: Proceed carefully; overt interference risks FIFA suspension and shuts the whole ecosystem down. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

Point-by-Point: Replies to the 9 Claims Circulating Online

1) “If they’re lawful Malaysians, why did FIFA still punish?”

Because citizenship (domestic law) ≠ eligibility (FIFA law). The Home Minister/NRD can confirm nationality under Malaysian law, but FIFA judged the eligibility filings under its own rules and said the documents presented to prove ancestry did not match originals it sourced. That is an Article 22 issue. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

2) “Admitting only a ‘reduction’ means admitting guilt.”

No. At appeal, you argue law, facts, and proportionality. You can ask for annulment and/or mitigation based on evidence or process. Now that FIFA’s appeal is dismissed, proportionality and procedure are exactly what CAS will examine de novo. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

3) “Who hired the agents? Why use agents at all?”

In practice, heritage recruitment involves multiple intermediaries (FAs, clubs, licensed agents). The key question for CAS isn’t “who pitched players” but who verified and who filed the eligibility proofs. FIFA says FAM’s submission relied on documents it considers inconsistent; that’s what must be tested. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

4) “Who lodged the complaint is irrelevant.”

Mostly true: source doesn’t decide the case, evidence does. Still, tracing the trigger matters for process and to understand how FIFA obtained comparator documents. But the heart of CAS will be document provenance, custody, translations, and certifications, not geopolitics. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

5) “You called it a revolution… until it failed.”

Media narratives aside, the legal question is binary: did filings satisfy FIFA Statutes and the Disciplinary Code? PR won’t move CAS; paper trails will. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}

6) “Only the SG is suspended—scapegoat?”

Reuters confirms the SG’s suspension and an independent probe. If multiple officers touched the file, CAS disclosure will show signatures, timestamps, and internal approvals. That’s where real accountability lives. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}

7) “If you’re responsible, publish the grandparents’ chains.”

Eligibility evidence intersects with personal data and (for pre-1955 cases) reconstructed records. Government says the citizenship path is lawful; FIFA says the eligibility proof packs don’t match originals. Both can be true—that’s why CAS must inspect the exhibits. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

8) “Hiding behind ‘Akta’ proves bad faith.”

Government-issued records may be protected from public release. That doesn’t block confidential filing to CAS. The correct forum to unseal (under protective order) and test authenticity is Lausanne, not a press conference. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}

9) “FIFA vs Malaysia’s sovereignty?”

Sovereignty governs citizenship; FIFA governs eligibility for its competitions. If CAS finds FIFA misapplied Article 22 (e.g., no proof anyone forged or knowingly used forged documents), sanctions can be modified. But CAS outcomes vary—sometimes reduced, sometimes confirmed. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}

What We Know Today

• FIFA appeal dismissed; fines and bans upheld. CAS window is open. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
• Government/NRD stance: citizenship grants used proper domestic pathways; NRD denies involvement in any “forgery.” This addresses nationality, not FIFA’s eligibility filings. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
• Govt caution: heavy-handed interference risks a blanket FIFA suspension that halts leagues and programs nationwide. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}

Important: Arguing “we are citizens” will not win an eligibility case. The CAS brief must dissect document pathways, translations, source-of-truth repositories, and who certified what at each step. :contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17}

CAS Isn’t a Magic Wand—But It’s the Right Forum

CAS has, in different cases, upheld FIFA (Atlético Madrid transfer-ban) and also adjusted outcomes (Ecuador/Byron Castillo kept their World Cup spot but accepted a future points deduction; in Paolo Guerrero, CAS increased the sanction). The lesson: outcomes depend on evidence and proportionality, not rhetoric. :contentReference[oaicite:18]{index=18}

What the Rebuttal Stands On

Two systems, two tests. Malaysia’s Article 19 path can be valid and FIFA can still reject eligibility proofs if the filed ancestry documents don’t meet FIFA’s evidentiary standards. The only way to reconcile the clash is full documentary review under CAS procedure. :contentReference[oaicite:19]{index=19}

What FAM Must Do Now (No Excuses)

• File to CAS with a tight brief on: document provenance, chain-of-custody, certified translations, and sign-off trail (who verified what, when). :contentReference[oaicite:20]{index=20}
• Commission independence in fact, not name: external counsel with FIFA/CAS experience; forensic doc experts; bilingual statutory translators.
• Player welfare: clubs to maintain wages/benefits; centralised legal/comms shield so good-faith players are not trialled in public.
• Comms discipline: one spokesperson, weekly written updates; zero political grandstanding to avoid FIFA “interference” triggers. :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}

Bottom line: Argue law at CAS, fix governance at home. That’s how we defend players, restore credibility, and keep football moving.

Sources & Key Documents

• FIFA Disciplinary Code, Art. 22 (Forgery & Falsification). :contentReference[oaicite:22]{index=22}
• Appeals dismissed; sanctions upheld (The Star / Malay Mail / CNA / Bernama). :contentReference[oaicite:23]{index=23}
• Govt/NRD positions on citizenship & NRD’s non-involvement. :contentReference[oaicite:24]{index=24}
• Govt warns on interference risk (FMT). :contentReference[oaicite:25]{index=25}
• CAS context: Atlético ban confirmed; Byron Castillo outcome; Guerrero sanction increased. :contentReference[oaicite:26]{index=26}