The Football Association of Singapore (FAS) needs to explain why it has disregarded its own set of eligibility rules in relation to the nominations for its Story of the Year competition which is one of the awards to be presented on 23 November at the FAS Awards Night.
On 19 November, the FAS announced the list of stories which have been nominated for the annual awards, and the following three stories made the final cut:
But here’s what’s problematic.
In the email which was sent to media on 16 October, the media outlets were informed of the criteria very clearly.
See image below.
Firstly, the bone of contention is that each media outlet was only allowed to submit one media story.
Secondly, the media outlets were told to submit stories pertaining to the Singapore Premier League (SPL) only as evidenced in paragraph two of the email to the newsrooms.
Here’s another issue.
While not casting any slur on the CNA story which is in the shortlist, the story which is cited was published a day later.
The Straits Times’ Deepanraj Ganesan had broken the news about Danelle Tan’s German exploits with Borussia Dortmund on 9 June while the CNA piece was carried a day later, even though a video story was published on 9 June at about 11.27pm.
And what if Straits Times chose not to submit this story because it was trying to ensure it was compliant of the FAS’ rules?
But again, both stories would not have qualified nonetheless, if the FAS had only followed its own set of criteria.
Another point of contention is that the Lion City Sailors, a football club, has two nominations among the final three, which also clearly goes against the FAS’ own rules which states that each media outlet could only submit one story.
So did the FAS forget it’s own rules during its checks and shortlisting?
And why did Lion City Sailors submit two stories when the rules clearly stated that each media outlet should have only submitted one?
Shouldn’t one of the stories now be disqualified, based on the FAS’ own set of rules?
The various media outlets which submitted nominations should challenge the FAS on the final list of nominations given the discrepancies.
Awards are a good way to celebrate the work of the journalists who put in the effort and time to figure out angles and to publicise the sport.
But when an organisation cannot follow its own rules, or forgets what it has sent out to journalists, or do not brief the judges on what’s the list of criteria which has been set, then it needs to called out.
This latest episode is yet another clear example of the shoddy level of administration within the organisation, which also then explains the state of football in Singapore.
A forensic audit of the FAS which is then made public is clearly a necessity to understand what happens behind the walls of Jalan Besar Stadium.
MAIN PHOTO: TMSG READER