Công An Hà Nội playing against Tampines Rovers in the Round of 16 return leg in Singapore on February 18. The club had a 4-0 win in the first leg in Hà Nội but the result was annulled due to a player registration mistake. Photo courtesy of the AFC.

Anh Đức

HÀ NỘI — Fans of Công An Hà Nội FC began the new year not with a bang but with a disappointing exit from continental competition.

The elimination itself was damaging enough, yet the manner of it proved even more troubling. The team opened the 2025-26 AFC Champions League Two Round of 16 with a commanding 4-0 victory over Tampines Rovers. However, two players, Stefan Mauk and Rogerio Alves, known as China, were later deemed ineligible as they were required to serve suspensions in the home leg against Tampines. The result was annulled and a 3-0 default win awarded to the Singaporean side in accordance with competition regulations.

This marks the second such incident in the AFC Champions League Two in successive seasons, with the previous case also benefiting a Singaporean club. In the 2024/25 campaign, Japan’s Sanfrecce Hiroshima secured a 6-1 home win against Lion City Sailors, but Valere Germain, who was due to serve a suspension, came off the bench. The Sailors were subsequently granted a 3-0 victory, returned home to draw 1-1 and progressed all the way to the final.

That a similar case occurred only a season earlier and that Công An Hà Nội FC repeated the error, has raised serious questions.

In modern football, disciplinary records and suspension data are widely accessible and regularly updated. Information relating to yellow cards, red cards and bans is not difficult to obtain.

Some supporters and commentators criticised the AFC for failing to provide clear information before the match. Mauk stated on a podcast that at a pre-match meeting, the AFC supplied a list of eligible players, which included both him and China. He also said head coach Alexandre Polking asked the match commissioner about suspensions and was told there were none. 

However, as later noted, the AFC’s match eligibility report presented to the club included a disclaimer stating that the AFC accepted no liability for “any errors and omissions in the contents of this report” and that clubs bore sole responsibility for verifying player eligibility.

It is understandable that criticism has been directed at the organisers. As Asia’s governing body for football, the AFC oversees competition administration and disciplinary matters. Official communications, particularly those concerning player eligibility, must be handled with utmost care. Any inaccuracy in such information can have significant sporting consequences.

Nevertheless, having regard to the regulations, Công An Hà Nội FC retained ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance. In his pre-match press conference, Polking acknowledged the error as the club’s own. Even so, clearer communication between organisers and clubs might have helped prevent what he described as a mistake that “could have changed a season”.

With the same squad eligible for the return leg in Singapore, Công An Hà Nội FC faced the daunting task of overturning a three-goal deficit to reach the quarter-finals. Chasing the tie from 3-0 down presented a vastly different challenge from defending a four-goal advantage. For a side struggling away from home this season, the task proved beyond reach. The Police Team were unable to stage a comeback and fell 3-1 despite committing fully in pursuit of a four-goal swing.

The result leaves both Vietnamese clubs eliminated from AFC men’s competitions this season. If Vietnamese football aims to regain a place in the continent’s premier tournament, the AFC Champions League Elite, clear lessons must be drawn from this episode. — VNS