• Thu. Oct 5th, 2023

FAS allowed an ineligible player to be registered for Island Wide League, and then threw out a protest due to its 48-hour rule when it was discovered.

Sep 10, 2023 ,

An administrative cock-up by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) allowed an ineligible player to be registered by Island Wide League club Bedok South Avenue SC (BSASC).


But what is worse is that when it was discovered by Simei United FC (SUFC), who then lodged a protest, the FAS competitions committee led by Razali Saad dismissed the protest all because it was not raised within 48-hours of the match which was played between BSASC and SUFC.

This did not go down well with Faisal Rashid, the chairman of SUFC who felt that the outcome was not fair on his club.

The match, SUFC’s first for the 2023 Island Wide League, was held on 19 August. 

The club filed a complaint on 5 September after it was alerted that BSASC had fielded Maziz Abdul Rahman (photo below, green dot) in the match, a clear violation given that Maziz was registered in the Singapore Football League this season with Project Vault Oxley. 

During the briefing for the IWL held in July, it was made clear that clubs in the IWL should not register players who had already been registered for clubs in the SFL in the same season.


Angry at the response by the FAS, SUFC then posted posted a set of questions to FAS on Facebook and Instagram on 9 September.

This was promptly removed but TMSG received a screen grab of the post via a direct message. 

“We have been robbed of our rights to the quarterfinals of this FAS Islandwide League competition 2023”, the club said. 

The club also posed a series of questions to the FAS.

It asked how the FAS allowed an ineligible player to be registered for the IWL, given that it was a clear violation of their own rules.

Shouldn’t the competitions officer who registered the player have checked his eligibility? 

SUFC also asked why did the ineligible player’s former club approve the transfer given that it was a violation of the FAS rules. 

The final question which SUFC posed struck a chord, and which requires the FAS to respond. 

If the ineligible player had gone on and played in the final and had scored a winner, but his ineligibility was not discovered within 48 hours but after, would the FAS still stick to its 48-hour rule and allow the club to be champions? 

SUFC is also further incensed because in 2019, Simei United FC (SUFC) suffered a three-point deduction and had the results of their match against Changi Village (CVSRC) awarded to their opponents via a walkover after SUFC violated the same rule and fielded an ineligible player. 


If the FAS rules state that players who are registered in the SFL cannot be registered for the IWL, then why does its own transfer MyFAS system not ask these questions during the registration of the transfer?

Shouldn’t the software be upgraded so that these illegal transfers, based on the FAS’ own rules, can be prevented such that clubs who are releasing ineligible players will be prompted that they can’t do so?

This would be the first trigger which would prevent any transfers which flout the eligibility criteria.

Also, the registration of all players for the IWL surely would have been eyeballed by the registration officer assigned to the various IWL clubs. 

In this instance, did the registration officer for BSASC check whether Maziz Abdul Rahman had been registered in the SFL or other leagues prior to approving the registration?

Have all other players been checked for eligibility?

Did BSASC know that the player they were registering had already been registered by an SFL club, and registering him was a violation of the tournament rules?

Why is the FAS competitions committee sticking to its 48-hour protest rule given that the facts have emerged much later? 

The fault of the registration of the ineligible player lies squarely on the FAS as it is quite clear that there were insufficient checks in place.

And not allowing the protest to stand, and to not award the points and goals based on precedent, is grossly unfair and prejudicial to the rule of sportsmanship. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. 


Related Post

%d bloggers like this: