FAM’s award nomination and the AFC’s curious yardstick

There is something curious about the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) being shortlisted for the Asian Football Confederation’s (AFC) Member Association of the Year (Gold) award.

Malaysian football has spent months grappling with questions about governance, eligibility and accountability. Now its governing body is in the running for one of the region’s top administrative honours.

The winner will be announced at the AFC’s awards ceremony in Bangkok on Nov 19. FAM shares the shortlist with the FA of Hong Kong, China Limited, and the All India Football Federation.

Perhaps FAM has done enough in certain areas to merit consideration. But what exactly does the AFC reward when it names a member association of the year?

A trophy can recognise activity. It should not substitute for scrutiny of the institution behind it.

AFC general secretary Windsor John says associations submit reports on their activities and programmes. A selection panel awards points for areas such as grassroots development, youth competitions and hosting, with three associations shortlisted in each category.

Asked how the assessment treats governance and accountability, and whether strong programme delivery can offset institutional weaknesses, Windsor said:

“The assessment takes into account a wide range of areas of football in an association. You score high in some, medium in some and probably no score in other areas.”

His answer suggests that the panel assesses associations across several areas, with varying scores. But it does not explain how much weight governance carries, or whether strong results in some categories can compensate for serious weaknesses in others.

That is a fair question about an award meant to recognise an association as a whole. It does not mean the AFC ignored governance when assessing FAM.

The criteria and their weightings should make clear how institutional accountability is judged.

For FAM, the timing makes that scrutiny unavoidable.

The naturalisation scandal has damaged confidence in Malaysian football. Fifa’s sanctions over the eligibility case exposed serious failures that the national association could not brush aside with promises to move on.

The affair raised questions not only about player eligibility, but also about the controls and oversight expected of the body responsible for the national game.

September’s extraordinary congress brought another test. The Football Association of Selangor (FAS) had objected to the eligibility of the electoral committee chairman, a concern also raised by Windsor.

FAM’s electoral code, endorsed at its June 4 congress, states that the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the electoral committee must be qualified to practise law. Yet the congress proceeded amid questions over whether the committee met that requirement.

Electoral rules protect the legitimacy of the process and the people it puts in office. An association that revises its rules must follow them, even when compliance creates an inconvenient problem.

FAM cannot demand respect for its authority while treating its own rules as obstacles to negotiate away.

Governance as part of the scorecard

There is also the AFC’s audit of FAM, which many have urged the association to release in full.

Only part of the report had been presented at the extraordinary congress in June and critics argued that the public deserved to know the full findings, warning that withholding them could fuel speculation.

Prepared by AFC deputy secretary-general Vahid Kardany, the report highlighted weaknesses in governance, accountability and organisational management.

It found that FAM’s administrative structure had not received formal executive committee approval.

It also pointed to decision-making concentrated around certain individuals and critical functions heavily dependent on them.

Weak systems for retaining institutional knowledge threatened continuity and could discourage staff from raising concerns.

These are not cosmetic flaws. A sports association needs clear lines of responsibility, systems that survive leadership changes and an environment where staff can report problems without fear.

Otherwise, the institution risks becoming dependent on a handful of people rather than sound processes.

Football development raises another pressing question.

Malaysia’s U-23, U-19 and U-16 teams have struggled to remain competitive in Asean and reach the Asian stage. Their results demand scrutiny of the system meant to prepare young Malaysians for international football.

The National Football Development Programme (NFDP) was designed to produce a technically superior generation by 2025.

Yet questions persist about its outcomes, coaching standards, talent identification and the number of players progressing to senior international football.

Malaysia has repeatedly reworked its structures while regional rivals continue to develop their talent pools. Academies, coaches and thousands of trainees are not proof of success by themselves.

How many players become professionals? How many earn senior international caps? How many fulfil the promise that justified the investment?

FAM has taken on a greater role in NFDP’s technical implementation. It now has an opportunity to show what a more focused system can deliver.

Another revamp, however, is not an achievement in itself. Results must follow.

The Malaysian Football League’s problems add to the wider unease. Salary arrears and Fifa sanctions involving clubs expose persistent weaknesses in the domestic game.

FAM and the MFL are separate bodies, so responsibility for individual cases must be established rather than casually assigned to the national association. Still, activity reports alone cannot capture the health of Malaysian football.

The AFC may have sound reasons for shortlisting FAM. The nomination does not prove the panel got it wrong, nor does it mean FAM has achieved nothing worthy of recognition.

But an award bearing the title Member Association of the Year suggests more than a tally of activities. If the AFC wants the honour to command respect, it should explain how its criteria assess both an association’s output and the way it governs itself.

FAM, too, should welcome scrutiny rather than hide behind the nomination. Recognition will mean little while questions about its elections, audit findings and development record remain unanswered.

A trophy can decorate a cabinet, but it cannot repair a governing system, develop a generation of footballers or restore public confidence.

Before anyone celebrates the award, the more important question is whether the association has done the work to earn the trust that the honour is supposed to represent.

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