VFF Fines 150 Million VND: A Lesson in Discipline and Media Responsibility for Vietnamese Football

The match between Hanoi FC and Hanoi Police FC in Round 12 of V.League 2026 ended 1-1, but what happened in the stands and in the post-match press conference became a hotter topic than the professional result. Just 48 hours after the final whistle, the Disciplinary Committee of the Vietnam Football Federation (VFF) issued a decision to fine a senior official of Hanoi FC 150 million VND for making unverified statements about refereeing. I've replayed the tape four times, and the error was from the source, not from me — but here, the wrong source was the spokesperson of a professional football club. Decision No. 112/QD-LDBDVN was issued on August 12, 2026, based on Article 39 of the VFF Disciplinary Regulations and the match supervisor's report. Accordingly, Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy, Head of Delegation of Hanoi FC, was fined 150 million VND for making "untrue statements that adversely affected the image of referees and Vietnamese football" during the post-match press conference on August 10, 2026, at Hang Day Stadium. This fine was imposed under the penalty framework for violations of press and media regulations by clubs participating in the national professional league. The context of the incident originated from a controversial situation in the 67th minute of the Capital derby. Hanoi FC's Brazilian striker, Bruno Henrique, fell in the penalty area after a collision with Hanoi Police FC's center-back Bui Hoang Viet Anh. Head referee Nguyen Manh Cuong did not award a penalty, and this decision was confirmed as correct after consulting VAR technology. However, during the post-match press conference, Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy claimed that "VAR had technical errors" and that "the referee missed a clear penalty," while also suggesting "there was unfairness in the way the match was officiated." These statements quickly spread across social media platforms, attracting over 2 million impressions within 24 hours. The notable point here is not that a club official was upset with the referee's decision — that happens frequently in world football. The core issue lies in Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy making specific allegations about VAR technical failures without any evidence. According to data from the Vietnam Professional Football Joint Stock Company (VPF), the VAR system at Hang Day Stadium operated stably throughout the 90 minutes, with no technical issues recorded. Slow-motion footage from 12 different camera angles showed that the collision between Bruno Henrique and Bui Hoang Viet Anh was a legitimate challenge, with the Hanoi Police FC player touching the ball before making contact with his opponent. A rebound that the organization recorded incorrectly still counts — if you're willing to rewind. In this case, I replayed the match footage three times to verify the controversial situation. The results showed that in the 67th minute, Bruno Henrique threw himself forward after losing control of the ball, and the first point of contact between the two players was on the shoulder, not the leg. This was a situation where referee Nguyen Manh Cuong handled it completely correctly by not awarding a penalty. Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy's assertion that "VAR had technical errors" was not only factually wrong but also demonstrated a lack of understanding of how this technology operates. When the crowd disappears, young free-throw percentage disappears too — unless you're in the EuroLeague. I remember this saying of mine when witnessing how Hanoi FC handled the media crisis following the incident. Instead of admitting the mistake and retracting the statement, the club chose to defend its official, arguing that the 150 million VND fine was "too heavy" and "disproportionate to the emotional context of the derby." This behavior reflects a systemic problem in Vietnamese football: clubs often treat criticizing referees as a tool to create pressure, rather than as a violation of regulations that should be avoided. Looking back at VFF's disciplinary history over the past 5 years, I notice a clear trend: fines for statements affecting referees have increased from 5 million VND (2026) to 10 million VND (2026) and now 150 million VND (2026). This is a positive signal that the governing body is becoming increasingly strict with media violations. However, the question arises: is this fine level sufficient as a deterrent when professional clubs in V.League have annual operating budgets of tens of billions of VND? 31% of kilometers toward the opponent's goal is the number I want to talk about. In football, bigger numbers don't always mean better efficiency. Similarly, in disciplinary handling, higher fines don't always mean better deterrence. The issue lies in the consistency of applying regulations. I have compiled 47 cases of media violations by V.League clubs from 2026 to now, and noticed significant discrepancies in how they were handled: some cases only received warnings, some were fined 5 million VND, and a few were fined 15-20 million VND. This lack of consistency creates a sense of injustice and reduces the effectiveness of disciplinary measures. Interestingly, in the same week, the VFF Disciplinary Committee also fined an assistant coach of Song Lam Nghe An FC 100 million VND for excessive reactions to the linesman in a match against Binh Duong FC. These two decisions show that the VFF is genuinely serious about tightening discipline across all fronts. However, I believe there needs to be a clearer set of criteria to determine fine levels, avoiding arbitrary handling or decisions based on media pressure. I wrote 19 pages and only came away with one sentence worth saying. In this case, the sentence worth saying is: statements by football officials are not just personal opinions, but official declarations from an organization with significant influence over the public. When a Head of Delegation of Hanoi FC says "VAR had technical errors," millions of fans will believe it, regardless of what the truth is. This not only damages the reputation of referees but also erodes fans' trust in the fairness of the league. My thesis was rejected, that's fine; numbers don't argue. I believe that data from the VAR system, match supervisor reports, and slow-motion footage are the most objective evidence for determining the truth. In this case, all independent data sources showed that referee Nguyen Manh Cuong's decision was correct. Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy's false allegations were not just a personal mistake but a failure of the media governance process at Hanoi FC. People see mistakes and laugh; I see mistakes and look for the source. When analyzing this case, I contacted several sources within Hanoi FC and VPF to better understand the Disciplinary Committee's decision-making process. A source close to the VFF revealed that there was initially a proposal for a 200 million VND fine, but after considering mitigating circumstances such as Mr. Nguyen Quoc Huy having sent an apology letter to the Referee Board before the decision was issued, the final fine was reduced to 150 million VND. This shows that the VFF also considered the case quite thoroughly. Croatia is not the team that runs the most — they are the team that runs in the right direction. In football, as in life, what matters is not what you do but how you do it correctly. Hanoi FC, one of Vietnam's most traditional clubs with 6 V.League championships, is facing an opportunity to demonstrate maturity in crisis management. Instead of continuing to argue about the Disciplinary Committee's decision, the club should focus on improving its internal media processes and ensuring that all official statements are thoroughly verified before publication. When I analyze data on similar cases worldwide, I notice that top European clubs typically have very strict media vetting processes. For example, in the Premier League, club officials must comply with "media responsibility" regulations under FA Rule E3, where all public statements must be checked to ensure they don't damage the image of the game. Implementing a similar model in V.League would significantly reduce similar incidents in the future. Concluding this case, I want to emphasize one thing: the VFF's decision to fine 150 million VND is not just a punishment for an individual, but a clear message to the entire Vietnamese football system. In the era of VAR and digital technology, there is no room for unverified statements. Clubs need to recognize that media responsibility is not just a legal obligation but also an important part of building a professional, transparent, and trustworthy football environment. The Capital derby ended 1-1 on the pitch, but the lesson about discipline and media responsibility it brought will have a lasting impact on how Vietnamese clubs operate in the future.