Why was the AFC slow in handling the Malaysia case, yet so quick to punish the Hanoi Police?

Many football fans in the region expressed confusion when the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) decided to sanction Hanoi Police FC within just a few days, but took months to sanction the Malaysian national team.

AFC quickly sanctioned CAHN but is delaying the Malaysia case - Photo: AFC

This question has been raised on regional football forums such as ASEAN Football, Pantip, and even many Southeast Asian news sites, regarding the AFC's handling of the two cases of sanctions against Malaysia and CAHN.

Essentially, the two violations by the Malaysian team and CAHN are similar, both involving the use of ineligible players in a match.

"CAHN's case is more understandable because it was clearly just a mistake. In contrast, Malaysia committed fraud to illegally naturalize the player. The AFC should have handled both cases the same way," commented a fan on ASEAN Football.

CAHN used two ineligible players, Stefan Mauk and Rogerio Alves, in their victory against Tampines Rovers in the first leg of the Champions League Two round of 16 on February 11th.

Both Mauk and Alves received three yellow cards in the group stage, with the third one coming in the final match, meaning they were banned from the first leg of the round of 16. However, a mistake by CAHN resulted in both players being allowed to play.

The AFC discovered the incident a few days ago and issued a penalty decision just six days after the match ended.

This sparked a major controversy among football fans in the region, as the AFC once again delayed imposing a similar penalty on the Malaysian national team.

Malaysia defeated Vietnam 4-0 in the first leg of the 2027 Asian Cup qualifiers on June 10th. At the end of September, FIFA announced sanctions against Malaysia for fraudulently naturalizing players.

Nearly five months have passed since then, but the AFC has yet to make a decision on sanctions against the Malaysian team for their 0-3 loss to Vietnam, which involved the use of seven illegally naturalized players.

Why is there such a bias? To be fair, the two cases, while nearly identical in terms of regulations, differ significantly in the severity of the violations and the timeframes for handling them.

Regarding the violation by CAHN, although the football community generally considers it a "mistake," it is quite clear. In a recent statement, the team's coach, Mano Polking, also did not object to the penalty.

Meanwhile, the Football Association of Malaysia's (FAM) violation, while far more serious, remains unclear to this day. FAM vehemently opposes the decision and is determined to appeal to the very end.

The second important difference is the timeframe for the two cases. The return match between CAHN and Tampines Rovers takes place on February 18th (tomorrow), forcing the AFC to make a quick decision so that both teams can prepare mentally for the crucial match. Furthermore, the quarter-finals will also begin on March 3rd.

Meanwhile, the qualifying phase for the 2027 Asian Cup only concludes at the end of March, with the Vietnam-Malaysia match being the final blow. The AFC still has plenty of time to make a decision.

The only flaw in AFC's handling of the situation lies in their inconsistent statements.

In late October, AFC Secretary General Windsor John (a Malaysian) stated that the AFC might lose the case against Malaysia immediately after FIFA's decision on FAM's appeal.

But then, when FIFA issued its ruling in November, the AFC announced they would wait until after FAM's appeal before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport .

Because of these inconsistent statements, the AFC has faced considerable criticism from the public and regional media.

HUY DANG

Source: https://tuoitre.vn/vi-sao-afc-cham-chap-vu-malaysia-lai-than-toc-xu-phat-cong-an-ha-noi-20260217134001201.htm