From Argentina to Spain: 23 Malaysian citizenship recipients since 2018

(MALAYSIA) Malaysia has granted Malaysian citizenship to 23 footballers since 2018 to deepen its national team roster, but a 2025 eligibility scandal has paused that momentum and raised hard questions about vetting. FIFA announced that documents tied to seven naturalised players were forged, triggering a one-year FIFA ban on those individuals and a fine against the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM). Malaysia’s Home Minister, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, responded that the citizenship grants were lawful under the Federal Constitution and that ministerial discretion—allowed by law—was used in some cases to relax residency rules. The government says the seven players remain citizens while probes into document verification continue.

Who is at the center of the controversy

At the center of the case are Argentine-born and Spanish-born footballers who received Malaysian citizenship and then appeared in FIFA submissions based on ancestral records.

• Argentine group: Facundo Tomás Garcés, Rodrigo Julián Holgado, Imanol Javier Machuca.
• Spanish group: Gabriel Felipe Arrocha, Jon Irazabal Iraurgui.
• Two other naturalised players (names listed below) were also implicated.

Their names became linked to allegations that birth records sent to FIFA were not genuine, bringing their FIFA eligibility into direct question. Analysis by VisaVerge.com highlights how document integrity standards in sport can collide with domestic nationality decisions when the same records support both citizenship narratives and match eligibility files.

Government position and verification steps

The Home Minister emphasized that all 23 footballers obtained nationality through recognized routes and passed government-run checks, including:

• Personal applications
• Biometric verification
• Interviews
• Language testing

He also noted that, for some players, residency requirements were eased under powers available to the minister. This explains how professionals moving across clubs and countries could qualify for Malaysian citizenship more quickly than typical applicants.

However, this does not resolve the separate sporting issue: FIFA’s finding that certain birth certificates submitted for eligibility were forged. Those rulings led to sanctions even though Malaysia has kept the players’ nationality status intact.

FAM’s role and the sporting administrative tangle

FAM sits in the middle of this administrative tangle. As the national football authority, FAM:

• Submitted player FIFA eligibility applications.
• Often backed those applications with ancestral documents intended to satisfy FIFA’s rules.

The allegations of forgery have drawn public criticism of both the submission pipeline and the checks around it. Consequences so far:

• Seven players received one-year suspensions, sidelining them from global competition in 2025.
• FAM was fined by FIFA.

This has prompted debate over how national vetting and sports-governing rules interact—and where due diligence must begin and end—when a player’s passport, origin story, and eligibility all converge.

Official sources and where to read more about citizenship rules

Government officials say the citizenship decisions were legal, pointing to constitutional discretion and procedures followed by the National Registration Department. For official references on citizenship categories, procedures, and legal frameworks, see the National Registration Department citizenship guidance at the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) website: https://www.jpn.gov.my/en/citizenship/.

• The JPN page offers baseline policy context across different routes to citizenship.
• It does not address individual football cases, but it outlines how nationality can be granted and the role of ministerial judgment.

Distinction: citizenship vs. FIFA eligibility

Public discussion since the 2025 announcements has centered on two distinct tracks:

1. The validity of Malaysian citizenship grants — officials insist this track stands; all 23 remain citizens.
2. The separate question of FIFA eligibility — derailed by FIFA’s finding that some birth documents were forged.

That distinction explains how a player can keep a Malaysian passport yet still be barred from playing international football for a fixed period. In sporting terms, country of citizenship and FIFA eligibility overlap but are not always identical—especially when alleged forgeries are involved.

Key takeaway: domestic nationality law and FIFA’s eligibility rules are enforced by different bodies and can reach different conclusions based on the same documents.

The confirmed roster of naturalised footballers (2018–2025)

Below is the confirmed roster of the 23 naturalised footballers (2018–2025), as reported by multiple sources and acknowledged by officials. Seven of these names—three from Argentina, two from Spain, and two others—were tied to the 2025 eligibility case and are serving FIFA suspensions.

• Mohamadou Sumareh
• La’Vere Corbin-Ong
• David Rowley
• Quentin Cheng Jiun Ho
• Liridon Krasniqi
• Guilherme de Paula
• Sergio Aguero
• Lee Tuck
• Stuart Wilkin
• Nooa Laine
• Endrick dos Santos Parafita
• Paulo Josué
• Romel Morales
• Fergus Tierney
• Richard Chin
• Facundo Tomás Garcés (Argentina)
• Gabriel Palmero
• Rodrigo Julián Holgado (Argentina)
• Gabriel Felipe Arrocha (Spain)
• Jon Irazabal Iraurgui (Spain)
• Imanol Javier Machuca (Argentina)
• Hector Alejandro Hevel Serrano
• Joao Vitor Brandao Figueiredo

Rules perspective: how the dispute arose

The heart of the dispute is this:

• FIFA’s eligibility checks rely on the integrity of documents that may also appear in nationality files.
• The bodies verifying those documents are different: civil registration agencies handle citizenship, while FIFA and national associations handle international eligibility.
• Even if a citizenship authority accepts certain papers under domestic law—especially when a minister may lawfully relax residency conditions—FIFA can still reject or sanction a file if it deems the documents unreliable for international football.

That explains the paradox: the seven players’ FIFA eligibility collapsed even as their passports remain valid under Malaysian law.

Timeline and immediate consequences

• 2018–2025: FAM pursued naturalisation to deepen the player pool and submitted eligibility packets to FIFA with ancestral records where needed.
• 2025: FIFA concluded that birth certificates for seven naturalised footballers were forged.
• Result: one-year bans for the seven players and a financial penalty for FAM.
• Government response: Home Minister defended nationality process and reiterated all 23 remain citizens.

Calls for audits and tighter verification standards have followed.

Practical effects and implications

For players:
– A one-year suspension means missing international windows and lost opportunities to cement national-team positions.
– The seven players face a year of uncertainty in their international careers.

For FAM and clubs:
– The case likely forces tighter document checks and closer cooperation with civil registries before sending files to FIFA.
– Clubs must consider contract planning when key contributors may be ineligible for international duty.

For fans and families:
– The majority of the 23 have not been accused of wrongdoing; broader debate may unfairly affect players who acquired citizenship in good faith.

Current status and likely next steps

• Officials have not withdrawn any citizenships linked to the case.
• There is no public indication the government plans to revoke naturalisations.
• Authorities signal ongoing reviews of how identity, ancestry, and residency evidence are verified.

Expected administrative responses may include:
– Stronger document sourcing and independent record checks.
– Clearer chains of custody for submission packages to FIFA.
– Tighter cooperation between FAM and civil registration authorities.

Final summary and policy question

Facts to separate from rumor:
– 23 footballers hold Malaysian citizenship granted since 2018.
– Seven are serving one-year FIFA bans tied to forged birth certificates submitted for eligibility.
– FAM was fined by FIFA.
– Government officials maintain the nationality decisions were lawful.
– Investigations into verification continue.

The broader policy question remains: how far should a football association go to verify ancestral documents before filing with FIFA? Aligning domestic nationality processes and international sporting eligibility checks—and closing gaps between them—is the challenge now facing sports officials and civil authorities alike.