Is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) making an example out of Malaysia? That is the burning question being asked by sports law consultant Zhafri Aminurashid following the controversial 12-month match ban upheld against seven Harimau Malaya heritage stars.
In a detailed breakdown, Zhafri argues that the 7 players have been hit with a hammer when a slap on the wrist was the historical norm.
Zhafri points to three landmark cases where players in similar “invalid document” scandals walked away with far lighter sentences:
The 10-Game Precedent: In a 2016 case (CAS 2016/A/4831), players found with faulty papers were only banned from 10 international games. Crucially, they were allowed to keep playing for their clubs.
The Administrative Pass: In the cases of Javier Eduardo Portillo and Qatar’s Pedro Miguel, CAS and FIFA viewed the issues as “administrative lapses” rather than “sporting crimes,” resulting in little to no suspension.
The most baffling part of the Lausanne ruling? FAM actually admitted they messed up. The national body took full responsibility for the “supervisory weaknesses” during the recruitment of the seven players.
“It is strange that CAS still handed down a heavy sentence to the players despite FAM admitting the mistake was on their side,” Zhafri noted.
Usually, when a federation admits an administrative error, the players’ culpability—and their punishment—is significantly reduced. In this case, however, the players remain exiled from the pitch for a full year.
While the operative decision is out, the “Full Grounds of Judgment” (the detailed reasoning) is still under wraps. Zhafri, along with the rest of the Malaysian legal community, is waiting to see how CAS justifies ignoring these past precedents.
Credit Photo : Simon Yap/SNE-Photo
