Governance begins at home: AFC faces its own transparency test

Thanks to Gianni Infantino’s efforts to sell off part of the World Cup to private investors, governance in football has been thrust back into the global spotlight in recent months.

Chief among Infantino’s critics – at least until recently – was AFC president Shaikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa who initially called for a complete reimagining of how football is governed in Zurich.

“The AFC believes this moment must become a catalyst for strengthening institutional reform,” read the statement from AFC on 31 July, just days after Infantino’s plans were publicly revealed.

“While every FIFA MA must have the opportunity to consider and determine proposals affecting the future of world football, meaningful democracy is not measured solely by the opportunity to vote.

“It begins with transparent governance, timely consultation, informed deliberation and genuine participation throughout the decision-making process.”

The Bahraini royal went a step further ten days later when he co-signed a letter with the presidents of UEFA and CONCACAF, demanding change in Zurich.

“Leadership in football is not a possession. It is not about holding – or demanding – power to be held. It is a duty of service to the football family that entrusts it,” read the open letter.

“Football’s strength has always been its unity. We call for that unity to be honoured now, for leadership that serves football, not seeks to command it.”

Yet, as vociferous as he was in his condemnation of Infantino and his plan, there have been plenty questioning (albeit privately) potential hypocrisy given the AFC has hardly set the global benchmark when it comes to governance under Salman’s presidency.

Governance will be firmly on the agenda this week in Tokyo when Asian football descends on the Japanese capital for a series of meetings, including one between AFC leadership and Infantino himself as the FIFA president looks to shore up support ahead of next year’s presidential election.

While that meeting, and any discussion around the future of January’s Asian Cup, due to be held in Saudi Arabia in January but now in doubt after recent Houthi strikes on the Saudi capital, with postponement to 2028 now acknowledged as a possibility, will capture the headlines, there are other matters to be decided that directly relate to how governance works and operates within AFC.

At this Friday’s Extraordinary Congress in Tokyo, the AFC will quietly usher through a series of amendments to its Statutes. Most are mundane terminology changes that have no material impact, but there is one change that could have significant impact on the term lengths of current – and future – elected executive officials.

It sounds dry, but goes to the very heart of good corporate governance and the issues with which Salman rallied so strongly against just two months ago.

The addition to the Statutes, in a document seen by The Asian Game, states:

Due to the exceptional circumstances created by certain upcoming changes to FIFA’s competitions calendar and the need to align the year of AFC elections with the year in which the AFC Asian Cup takes place, notwithstanding Articles 32.9 and 38.1 of these Statutes: (i) the elections for the positions listed in Articles 32.1(a) to 32.1(e) of these Statutes shall take place at the Ordinary Congress in 2027 and the elected persons shall assume their positions on 1 January 2028 for the term 2028 to 2032; (ii) every candidate nominated shall be under the age of seventy (70) as at 1 January 2028; and (iii) for the avoidance of doubt, the persons who have been elected for the positions listed in Articles 32.1(a) to 32.1(e) of these Statutes for the current term 2023 to 2027 shall continue in their positions for the duration of 2027. The Regional Associations shall be required to align their statutes and elections accordingly.

The key part of that being that those elected at next year’s ordinary Congress, which ordinarily should have been held on the sidelines of the AFC Asian Cup in Saudi Arabia, but will be held in April instead, will not assume their roles until 1 January 2028 – some eight months later.

In effect, that means the current executive, whose term is due to expire in February 2027, will have their term extended by eleven months.

That the next Congress was due to be held in April, rather than January, also potentially left AFC exposed with all existing terms of office due to expire on 31 January 2027. That would have seen a situation in which AFC were legally without a president or executive for a two-month period until the next Congress takes place in April.

Asked why the Congress date was moved, which would have created this situation, the AFC did not respond.

The AFC’s reasoning for making the change to its Statutes is listed in the document as:

These changes are necessary due to the exceptional circumstances created by certain upcoming changes to FIFA’s competitions calendar and the need to align the year of AFC elections with the year in which the AFC Asian Cup takes place. This is a longstanding approach aimed at ensuring effective decision making and stability in the AFC’s executive body around our flagship event.

When contacted by The Asian Game asking for clarification on why it is important “…to align the AFC elections with the year in which the AFC Asian Cup takes place” the AFC did not respond.

The assumption in the wording is that the AFC wants the executive committee of that four-year cycle to see itself through to the conclusion of the AFC Asian Cup before any possible change takes place ahead of a new cycle, in its words, for the sake of stability.

But, herein lies further confusion, pertaining to the end date of the 2028-2032 term. What is clear is what happens at the front end.

Those elected at the 2027 Congress will not assume office until 1 January 2028. In the meantime, officials elected for the existing 2023-27 cycle will remain in office for the entirety of 2027.

In the case of Salman and others elected in February 2023, that effectively adds roughly 11 months to what was meant to be a four-year term.

What is much less clear is what happens at the other end.

The existing AFC Statutes state that the president is elected for four years. A four-year mandate beginning on 1 January 2028 would therefore ordinarily run until 31 December 2031. Yet the amendment describes the new cycle as “the term 2028 to 2032”.

Does the mandate expire at the end of 2031, with elections then taking place in 2032? Or are those elected in 2027 intended to remain in office throughout 2032? If the latter, how is that reconciled with the four-year term prescribed elsewhere in the Statutes?

Further, with the possibility of the Asian Cup taking place in June-July, or even in January 2032, depending on the successful bid for the 2032 tournament, a term limit that ended on 31 December 2031, would render pointless any change to ensure the executive committee oversaw the Asian Cup of that cycle.

The term ending at the end of 2032 would make it a full five years, not four as allowed under the AFC Statutes.

The AFC did not respond when asked directly to specify the end date of the “2028-2032” term.

There’s also the question of how these changes comply with FIFA’s statutes, with seven AFC executive members sitting on the FIFA Council, including Salman who, as AFC president, automatically assumes one of the vice president positions.

The others are Kohzo Tashima (Japan), Mariano Araneta Jr (Philippines), Hamidin Mohd Amin (Malaysia), Sheikh Hamad Khalifa Al Thani (Qatar), Yasser Al-Misehal (Saudi Arabia), and Kanya Keomany (Laos).

All six were elected at the AFC Congress on 1 February 2023 to serve on the FIFA Council for four years, alongside Salman. Under FIFA’s Statutes, Council members are elected at their respective confederation congresses for four-year terms beginning after that congress.

That would ordinarily take the current Asian representatives through to February 2027. Yet the proposed AFC amendment would keep current officeholders in their AFC positions throughout 2027, while those elected at the 2027 Congress would not formally assume their AFC positions until 1 January 2028.

AFC has offered no clarity on what that means for Asia’s seven seats on the FIFA Council during that transition, or how the revised AFC timetable will be reconciled with FIFA’s own four-year mandates.

Having championed for transparency and leaders who serve football, not command power through boardrooms, the question is whether these are the actions of a president and organisation that practices what they preach?

These are far from the only governance issues at AFC that have caused recent concern.

Back in 2024, the AFC removed term limits for elected officials, becoming the only one of FIFA’s six confederations that doesn’t place a limit on its president or elected executive members.

That places it out of step, not just with other confederations, but with FIFA itself.

Only Australia and Jordan voted against the proposal, which previously limited officials to three four-year terms (12 years total).

With the expectation within Asian football being that Salman will run unopposed for re-election next year, a term through until 2032 would make it almost two decades in office since he assumed the presidency in 2013.

Just last year, meanwhile, the AFC came under fire for changes to Round Four of Asian Qualifiers. Despite initially advising that hosting for the crucial round would be assigned based on results in Round 3, as per the image (below) posted on the AFC website (and which is still on their website), a circular sent to MAs on 5 March 2025 advised that “considering the sporting fairness…the hosts shall be selected through a bidding process.”

Only three months later, AFC announced Qatar and Saudi Arabia as hosts. Both subsequently qualified for the FIFA World Cup.

The move, which was done with little to no consultation, infuriated other member associations, most of whom voiced their concerns around transparency and fairness.

“We had sent a letter to International Federation of Association Football‮ ‬(FIFA) and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) calling for the highest levels of transparency and fairness in the process of selecting the host country or countries for the fourth round of the Asian qualifiers,” read a statement from the Iraq Football Association.

They were sentiments echoed by the UAE Football Association.

“The Football Association (UAE) asked FIFA and AFC to be neutral when choosing the host country for Asian play-off matches,” read their statement

“This is stated in an official letter sent by the UAE Football Association to FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation, which emphasises the importance of justice and transparency in the selection process, which must comply with the provisions and regulations that guarantee the rights of all national teams participating in the Asian play-offs.”

Meanwhile, the Oman FA in a statement of their own, said: “The OFA stresses the importance of adopting transparency and fairness in all stages of organising continental and international tournaments.”

Further concerns around a lack of consultation – ironically, what Salman challenged Infantino on in his early statements – were at the heart of a public spat in August between Salman and the Qatar Football Association, with their president Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani accusing Salman of not consulting Asia’s member associations before putting pen to paper on the co-signed letter with UEFA and CONCACAF.

“No advance notice was given, no draft was circulated, and no opportunity was afforded to comment on, or contribute to, its content before it was released publicly in AFC’s name and on behalf of AFC’s members,” read the letter from Sheikh Hamad, also copied to every one of AFC’s 47 member associations, and quickly leaked to the media.

“I must formally place on record that neither the QFA, nor I personally in my capacities as a member of the AFC Executive Committee and as a Fifa Council member, was consulted … prior to the issuance of the statement.

“We are conscious that the statement itself criticises a lack of meaningful consultation and transparency in the conduct of others. Precisely for that reason, it is important that the same standard be applied consistently, including by AFC itself, so as to preserve the credibility of the principles the statement seeks to advance.”

While not made public, The Asian Game has obtained a letter sent from the UAE FA, signed by its president Hamdan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, echoing similar frustrations.

“UAE FA would like to respectfully record that it was not consulted regarding this letter, whether officially or unofficially, prior to its publication,” read the letter, dated 15 August 2026.

“No draft was circulated, nor were we given the opportunity to review its contents, express an opinion, contribute to its drafting, or approve it before its public release on behalf of all AFC member associations.

“We consider that this procedure warrants serious reflection, particularly as the statement addresses matters of profound institutional importance and contains substantial conclusions impacting (FIFA) and its leadership.

“We wish to reaffirm our absolute support for the principles of governance, transparency, accountability, and institutional oversight in football administration.”

Which brings us back to the events of this week in Tokyo, when AFC members will be asked to vote on the proposed changes to the Statutes.

As the AFC themselves made clear only months ago, “…meaningful democracy is not measured solely by the opportunity to vote.”

What Asian football deserves before they do so is the rest – transparent governance, timely consultation, and informed deliberation.

If those principles are worth demanding in Zurich, they should not become optional when the address changes to Kuala Lumpur.