7 things about the Fifa verdict that rocked Malaysian football

FMT:

7 things about the Fifa verdict that rocked Malaysian football

6 hours ago
Frankie D'Cruz

Fifa’s ruling on forged ancestry documents reveals a story of ambition, oversight, and a stunning collapse of diligence

Spanning over 6,000 words, the Fifa ruling details how seven foreign-born players were made to appear Malaysian through doctored ancestral birth certificates. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA: When Fifa released its full written grounds yesterday in the disciplinary case against the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM), it read less like routine bureaucracy and more like a courtroom drama.

Spanning over 6,000 words, the ruling details how seven foreign-born players were made to appear Malaysian through doctored ancestral birth certificates.

The forgeries quietly turned foreign grandparents into “Malaysians”, changing birthplaces from Spain, Argentina, Brazil, and the Netherlands to Penang, Melaka, Johor, and Sarawak.


The deception was not subtle. Fifa found that the certificates submitted to its eligibility proceedings had been forged.

It concluded that FAM and the players “illegally and successfully enjoyed the consequences” of those forgeries by fielding the men in an official match where five started, and two found the net.


The committee, chaired by Jorge Palacio of Colombia, called it “pure and simple, a form of cheating.”

It imposed a fine of 350,000 Swiss francs (RM1.9 million) on FAM and year-long bans on all seven players who were each fined 2,000 Swiss francs (RM11,000) as well.

Beyond the punishment, the judgment exposes the structural weakness of Malaysian football governance, and the peril of chasing quick results at the cost of integrity.

Here are seven insights from Fifa’s 6,000-word verdict that reveal how Malaysia’s football dream collapsed into a worldwide embarrassment.


1. The origins of a scandal

Malaysia’s naturalisation drive aimed to lift the national team’s fortunes by recruiting players with Malaysian ancestry.

But as eligibility reviews piled up, scrutiny from rival associations and Fifa’s legal department grew.

Questions arose over the authenticity of several players’ ancestral documents submitted by FAM.


What began as a routine eligibility check turned into a formal Fifa investigation.

The players involved are Gabriel Felipe Arrocha, Facundo Tomás Garcés, Rodrigo Julián Holgado, Imanol Javier Machuca, João Vitor Brandão Figueiredo, Jon Irazábal Iraurgui, and Hector Alejandro Hevel Serrano.

“The spark came from within the eligibility process itself,” the committee noted – what was meant to prove Malaysian heritage exposed how fragile the paper trail truly was.

2. What the probe uncovered

Fifa’s secretariat obtained the original birth certificates of the players’ grandparents directly from foreign registries and compared them with those FAM had filed.

The results were stark.

Every single ancestral birth certificate showed altered details – foreign birthplaces replaced with Malaysian towns to fabricate family links.

• María Belen Martín: changed from Santa Cruz de la Palma, Spain to Melaka, Malaysia
• Carlos Fernandez: Santa Fe, Argentina to Penang
• Omar Holgado Gardon: Buenos Aires, Argentina to George Town

… and so on, across seven players.

Fifa said it was “comfortably satisfied” that the documents were forged, finding “sharp contrasts” between the originals and those used in the eligibility cases.

3. The JPN admission that changed everything

A key twist came from Malaysia’s own national registration department (JPN).

In a statement submitted by FAM itself, JPN admitted it never received the players’ original foreign certificates.

Instead, it issued Malaysian copies using “secondary information” – and confessed it could not retrieve the original handwritten records.

Fifa called this revelation “an indication that the Malaysian government’s validation process may not have been based on original documents”, adding that it “calls into question the thoroughness of FAM’s verification process”.

That single paragraph shifted the case from potential clerical error to systemic failure.

4. The failure of diligence

FAM argued that it had exercised due diligence and acted in good faith, even claiming there was “no substantive effect” to the falsifications.

Fifa dismissed that defence outright.

If Fifa could easily obtain the originals from abroad, the committee reasoned, then FAM’s claim of having checked the documents was hollow.

Worse, FAM admitted it had been alerted by “external agencies” but failed to conduct independent verification.

Fifa did not, however, single out any specific FAM official for personal wrongdoing.

Its finding of liability was collective, rooted in the principle that an association bears responsibility for the actions of its members, even in the absence of personal intent.

It is a harsh but long-standing doctrine in football’s disciplinary system: accountability cannot be delegated.

The committee wrote: “FAM and the players did not exercise the necessary level of scrutiny or care.”

And the “substantive effect”? Two of the forged-document players scored in the 4–0 win over Vietnam.

Fifa said that fact alone proved the offence’s direct impact on competition integrity.

5. When forgery crosses into cheating

Beyond technical violations, Fifa framed its ruling in moral terms.

The act, it said, “strikes at the very core of the fundamental principles of football”.

Presenting fraudulent documentation to gain national team eligibility, the committee declared, was “pure and simple, a form of cheating”.

Such behaviour, it warned, “erodes trust in the fairness of competitions and jeopardises the very essence of football as an activity founded on honesty and transparency”.

This was not a paperwork lapse. It was a breach of fair play, a betrayal of football’s covenant of honesty.

6. The precedents and the punishments

To calibrate its sanctions, Fifa looked at earlier forgery cases:

Equatorial Guinea (Camila Nobre, 2015): Player fined 2,000 Swiss francs and banned 10 months; federation fined 40,000 and barred from the Olympics.

Club Chabab Mrirt (Morocco): Fined 50,000 Swiss francs and handed a two-window transfer ban.

Given seven forged cases, Fifa multiplied the baseline fine by seven – 50,000 Swiss francs per player – ordering FAM to pay 350,000 Swiss francs.

Each player was fined 2,000 Swiss francs and banned 12 months from all football activities.

“The sanctions are severe but necessary to protect the integrity of football,” Fifa concluded.

FAM and the affected players may still appeal to the Fifa Appeals Committee or, ultimately, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Yet such appeals seldom overturn the factual findings of forgery, only the degree of sanction.

In effect, the verdict stands firm in principle, if not in final form.

7. The fallout and the future

FAM has three days from notification to lodge an appeal, with five more to file its brief – an option it may yet take.

But whatever the legal outcome, the reputational damage is already immense.

The verdict has called into question Malaysia’s vetting process, its relationship with JPN, and its broader appetite for shortcuts in sports governance.

Beyond penalties, the case is likely to force a deeper internal reckoning.

Fifa’s findings have exposed structural gaps between FAM’s verification processes and the checks conducted by national agencies such as JPN and immigration department.

Strengthening that chain of custody – from paperwork to player registration – may now become an urgent governance priority.

Malaysia’s football establishment could also find itself under sharper international scrutiny.

Future player naturalisations and tournament registrations are now expected to face tighter audits – a direct consequence of this high-profile breach.

For a nation that prides itself on football passion, the scandal is a sobering reminder that glory built on falsehood cannot endure.

Fifa’s judgment is more than a sanction – it is a mirror. It reflects what happens when ambition outruns integrity.

Final whistle

Fifa’s ruling ends with a cold administrative note: fines due within 30 days, bans effective immediately.

But between those lines lies a deeper message — that in football, as in life, credibility is earned not by goals scored, but by the honesty of the process that puts players on the field.

***

I heard the President of the FAM has a salary of RM90,000 per month, which I'm sure exceeds that of the Sports Minister