Opinion: Sulom’s apology falls flat as arrogance overshadows accountability

The Super League of Malawi ’s failure is not an “unfortunate incident”, it is a glaring indictment of incompetence, insubordination, poor leadership, arrogance, and a culture of avoiding accountability that is actively damaging Malawian football.

What happened at Super League of Malawi (SULOM) is not bad luck.

It is the predictable outcome of an organisation that ignored clear warnings, failed to coordinate with authorities, and pushed ahead without ensuring the most basic requirements were met.

The collapse of the FDH Premiership launch at Kamuzu Stadium should never have happened, and the fact that it did lies squarely at Sulom’s feet.

Their apology reads like damage control, not accountability.

It is filled with soft language and hollow phrases about “regret” and “the best interests of the game,” yet completely avoids the one thing that matters: responsibility.

This was not in the best interest of the game, because the game didn’t even take place.

Worse still, Sulom appears to have sidelined the authority of the Football Association of Malawi (FAM).

When concerns were raised about the stadium, those warnings should have halted everything until resolved.

Instead, they were either ignored or grossly mishandled. If confirmed, this is not just mismanagement, it is outright defiance of football governance structures.

The consequences have been immediate and severe. FDH Bank plc did not suspend its sponsorship out of impatience; it did so because Sulom demonstrated unreliability and disorder.

Sponsors demand professionalism and structure. What they saw was chaos.

No serious corporate partner will attach its name to that.Then there is the treatment of fans, arguably the most indefensible part of this debacle.

Supporters paid a collective K16.4 million for an event that never happened, and yet there is silence. No refund plan. No explanation. No urgency.

When Sulom president Gilbert Mittawa responds with “no comment,” it sends a clear message: the fans do not matter.

This is not just failure, it is negligence.The most damning truth is that none of this was complicated.

Stadium clearance, stakeholder coordination, and event planning are standard responsibilities in professional football.

SULOM did not fail because the task was difficult; it failed because it did not execute, did not listen, and did not lead.

Until SULOM confronts this reality head-on, without spin, without excuses, and with real consequences, Malawian football will remain trapped in a cycle of embarrassment and decline.

Apologies are meaningless without accountability. And right now, accountability is exactly what SULOM is refusing to provide.

To FAM, credit is due for standing firm and upholding the laws of the game. In the face of pressure and confusion, you chose principle over convenience.

Your directive to move the match from Kamuzu Stadium was not obstruction, it was responsibility.

What this episode exposed is a troubling attitude within the Super League of Malawi (Sulom): a belief that it could operate above its mandate. That assumption is fundamentally flawed.

Sulom’s authority to administer the elite league is not absolute, it is delegated, conditional, and can be withdrawn. This moment served as a necessary reminder that no body in football exists beyond the structures that govern it.

And to Fleetwood Haiya, your stance reinforced a critical message: rules are not optional.

They are there to protect the integrity of the game and, more importantly, the safety of those who participate in it. Respecting them is not negotiable.

As for the sponsors, particularly FDH Bank plc, your contribution to Malawian sport is appreciated, but it must come with restraint and respect for established structures. Sponsorship does not grant authority over how the game is run.

Football operates within its own governance framework, led by the Football Association of Malawi (FAM) and the Super League of Malawi (SULOM).

When FAM declared that Kamuzu Stadium was unfit to host matches, the appropriate response from any sponsor should have been patience, not pressure.

The logical step was to allow SULOM to identify an alternative venue within the rules of the game.Instead, what followed was deeply concerning.

A sponsor stepping beyond its role to write to the Malawi Government, effectively calling for intervention, raises serious questions.

Why bypass the Malawi National Council of Sports? Since when do sponsors attempt to influence match venues or administrative decisions?

That is not partnership, that is overreach. Even more troubling is the decision to suspend sponsorship across other sporting disciplines.

That move risks being interpreted not as principled action, but as pressure tactics, if not outright coercion. Sport thrives on collaboration and mutual respect, not leverage and ultimatums.

Sponsors are vital to the growth of the game, but their role is to support, not to steer, dictate, or disrupt. Football administrators must be allowed to do their job, just as sponsors are trusted to do theirs.

If Malawian football is to maintain order and integrity, every stakeholder must respect boundaries.

Because when those lines are crossed, what follows is not progress, it is confusion, conflict, and ultimately, damage to the very game we are all trying to build.