马来西亚足球协会

passed on 3 November 2025 DECISION BY: Neil EGGLESTON (USA), ChairpersonDan KAKARAYA (Papua New Guinea), MemberSamuel RAM (Fiji), Member ON THE CASE OF: Facundo Tomas Garces RattaroRodrigo Julian HolgadoImanol Javier Machuca(Decision FDD-25550) Hector Alejandro Hevel SerranoJoao Vitor Brandao FigueiredoJon Irazabal IraurguiGabriel Felipe Arrocha Football Association of Malaysia(Decision FDD-25574) AGAINST: Decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee passed on 25 September 2025 (Ref.FDD- FIFA Appeal CommitteeDecision FDD-25550 & FDD-25566& FDD-25574 Index I.FACTS............................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.Disciplinary proceedings and the Appealed Decision............................................................. 10 1.Factual background......................................................................................................................... 152.Lack of Jurisdiction of the single judge of the Disciplinary Committee.............................. 193.No Breach of Article 22 FDC........................................................................................................... 194.Disproportionality of Sanctions.................................................................................................... 205.Request for Relief............................................................................................................................. 21 1.As to the facts – naturalization and documentation process............................................... 232.Procedural Invalidity of the Appealed Decision....................................................................... 24 III.CONSIDERATIONS OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE............................................................................. 28 A.Jurisdiction of the FIFA Appeal Committee and applicable law............................................... 28B.Standard of proof and burden of proof.......................................................................................... 29 1.Jurisdiction of the single judge to render the Appealed Decision........................................ 292.Proper notification of the Players during the first instance proceedings......................... 31D.Merits....................................................................................................................................................... 321.Where were the Players’ grandparents born?........................................................................... 322.General observation of player eligibility criteria under the FIFA regulations.................. 45 IV.DECISION................................................................................................................................................. 63 I.FACTS 1.Thefollowing summary of the facts does not purport to include every single contention put forthby the parties at these proceedings. However, the FIFA Appeal Committee (the Committee) hasthoroughly considered any and all evidence and arguments submitted, even if no specific or A. 2.The parties to these appeal proceedings arethe Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) and thefollowing players (hereinafter all together, thePlayers). It is to be noted that all the Players were 3.The Players and the FAM are hereinafter jointly referred to as “Appellants”. 4.In accordance with publicly available information and the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), aswell as the evidence given by the Players at the hearing, Players 1, 2, 3, and 4 never played for anyMalaysian clubs before they debuted for the Malaysian national senior representative team. In 5.In respect of the Players’ respective careers at club level, the below can be inferred based on B.What is this case about? 6.This case concerns an infringement of article 22 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, ed. 2025 (FDC)regarding forgery and falsification by the FAM and the Players, who, despite having no connectionwhatsoever with Malaysia, decided to start a naturalization and eligibility process with falsified C.Facts relevant to the case 1.The naturalization process performed by the Appellants before reaching out to 7.All the Players underwent a naturalization process before the Malaysian relevant authorities andwere ultimately granted the Malaysian nationality. The process was supervised by the FAM. TheCommittee wished to note however that based on the evidence on file, it could not reconstruct the 8.The Committee is however satisfied that the naturalization process generally comprised of the a.A first application was made to the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in respect ofeach of the Players (theFirst Application). The First Application concerned a special processfor granting each Player with the Malaysian nationality based on art. 19 of the Malaysian b.The First Application was “considered for