A well-informed Asian source has expressed astonishment at the response of Asian Football Confederation (AFC) President Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa to Qatar Football Association (QFA) President Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Ahmad Al Shiakh (Al Thani), asserting that the reply “strayed far from the core of the Qatari message, turning an institutional debate on consultation and governance into a display of authority.”
The source stated that the QFA did not contest the AFC President’s right to defend continental football interests; rather, it raised a clear and fundamental question: Why were member associations not consulted before the issuance of a statement speaking on behalf of the entire continent?
“The irony is that the response dwelled at length on the president’s powers, yet failed to provide a convincing answer regarding the absence of consultation,” the source added. “Powers do not mean unilateral decision-making, and election does not grant anyone an open-ended mandate to adopt stances in everyone’s name without consulting them.”
The source continued: “The AFC President derives his powers from the member associations that gave him their votes, not the other way around. These associations have the right to know and to be consulted. If governance means anything, it means that the institution is greater than any individual, and that decisions cannot be reduced to the will of a single person, regardless of their position.”
Furthermore, the source emphasized that the Qatari message was clear in its demands: consultation, transparency, respect, and institutional governance—not entering into a confrontation with the FIFA President.
“The problem is not Shaikh Salman’s disagreement with Infantino, nor is it the AFC taking a strong stance,” the source said. “The problem lies in the assumption that this stance represents dozens of national associations without them knowing about it in advance or participating in its formulation.”
The source also criticized attempts to use the AFC’s past support for Qatar during the 2022 World Cup as a leverage tool in the current debate. “Anyone familiar with the details of that phase knows very well who stood with whom and who supported whom. Qatar never needed to remind anyone that it supported the AFC and Asian football through the most difficult circumstances, hosting continental tournaments and events, and providing the confederation with far more than mere statements.”
With a sharper tone, the source added: “If Qatar’s support in 2022 is brought up today as proof of the AFC’s stance toward it, it is only fair to remind everyone that Qatar was among the most prominent supporters of the AFC and its projects—most recently saving the 2023 AFC Asian Cup after China withdrew. Relationships are not measured by a statement issued when convenient and recalled years later to score political points.”
According to the source, the crisis extends far beyond the recent statement to touch upon the very management of Asian football. “The continent does not need a president who reiterates the limits of his powers every time a question is raised about the decision-making mechanism,” the source noted. “Instead, it needs an institution where every association knows when, how, and why decisions are made.”
The source concluded: “The AFC does not belong to its president, and powers are not a blank check. Those who give a president their vote can also hold him accountable. What is needed is an institution that listens to its members and respects their diversity, because defending Asia cannot be achieved by bypassing Asia, and whoever wishes to speak for the continent must first listen to its voice.”
