Scorchers progressed, but did FAM’s delegation plan?

Malawi’s historic run at the 2026 Women’s Africa Cup of Nations has raised an important question about football administration after some officials who travelled with the team returned home while the tournament is still underway.

Some Football Association of Malawi (FAM) executive members, including National Women’s Football Association chairperson Adelaide Migogo, left Morocco after the group stage, while FAM President Fleetwood Haiya, delegation leader Felistus Dossi and members of the FAM secretariat remained with the team.

According to the explanation being circulated by FAM-aligned platforms, the executive members had agreed before the tournament that they would leave Morocco after the group stage. The arrangement, FAM’s side says, was therefore not a case of Migogo being chased away.

If that is the case, there is nothing inherently unusual about having a pre-tournament delegation plan. Football associations have to consider accommodation, travel, accreditation, finances and the different responsibilities of officials when sending delegations to international competitions.

But football tournaments rarely unfold exactly as planned.

The Scorchers did not leave after the group stage. They progressed into the knockout stages, reached the semi-finals and secured Malawi’s historic qualification for the 2027 FIFA Women’s World Cup. The circumstances therefore became considerably different from those anticipated when the original delegation arrangements were made.

That raises a straightforward question: when the circumstances changed, did FAM reconsider its delegation arrangements?

A delegation does not necessarily have to remain fixed throughout a tournament. As a team progresses, its administrative, logistical and representational needs can change. An association can review who needs to remain, who can return and whether additional personnel should be retained.

In this case, FAM secretariat officials remained in Morocco, alongside the president and the leader of delegation. Their continued presence can reasonably be explained by the administrative demands of a national team still competing in the tournament.

But that explanation creates another question: if FAM could extend the logistical arrangements for some officials to remain in Morocco, was the same possibility considered for Migogo once the Scorchers progressed?

This is not to suggest that FAM had unlimited resources, or that Migogo automatically had a right to remain in Morocco. It is a question about the criteria and flexibility used when the team’s circumstances changed.

If finances were the determining factor, what was the additional cost of retaining another official? If accreditation or tournament regulations were the issue, did those regulations prevent her from staying? If her role was considered unnecessary after the group stage, what criteria were used to reach that conclusion?

These are questions FAM can answer.

They are also important because Migogo was not simply another executive member. As chairperson of the National Women’s Football Association, she occupies a position directly connected to the administration and development of women’s football in Malawi.

There is also a human dimension. The Scorchers’ campaign is not simply an administrative exercise. The players have relationships with the people and institutions involved in women’s football at home. As head of the country’s women’s football association, Migogo would reasonably have had an established relationship with players and other women’s football stakeholders.

Her presence would not have determined whether Malawi beat Algeria, nor is there evidence that her absence affected the team’s performance. But in a historic first WAFCON campaign, it is legitimate to ask whether the presence of the country’s women’s football chief could have provided additional institutional support and representation around the players.

Again, this is not an argument that every FAM executive should have remained in Morocco.

It is an argument that the original decision could have been revisited once the team went further than expected.

If the delegation was reviewed, FAM should explain who made the decision and what criteria were applied.

If it was not reviewed, FAM should explain why the progress of the Scorchers did not warrant a reassessment.

And if Migogo was given the option to remain but did not take it, that too would settle an important part of the debate.

The political history between Migogo and Haiya inevitably adds another layer to the controversy. Migogo supported Walter Nyamilandu during the previous FAM presidential election, and that history has prompted some observers to suspect that the current disagreement may have a political dimension.

But suspicion is not evidence.

There is currently no basis to state as fact that Migogo’s departure from Morocco was punishment for her political choice. That claim would require evidence from either side.

Likewise, the assertion that she was “chased” from Morocco should not be presented as fact without evidence.

What is established from the competing accounts is that she left after the group stage while some FAM officials remained. The unresolved question is why that arrangement was not, or was not apparently, revisited once the Scorchers progressed.

That is a legitimate question about football administration, not necessarily a personal attack on FAM.

The Scorchers’ remarkable progress has demonstrated why flexibility matters. A team entering its first WAFCON has become a semi-finalist and World Cup qualifier. A delegation plan designed around the group stage has therefore effectively been overtaken by events.

The players changed the circumstances by succeeding.

The question is whether FAM changed its plans with them.

Ultimately, this should not become a distraction from what the Scorchers have achieved. The players have made history on the pitch and deserve to remain the focus as Malawi pursues a place in the WAFCON final.

But the questions surrounding their administration should not be dismissed simply because the team is succeeding.

If FAM’s decision was purely logistical, transparent answers should settle the matter.

If there were other considerations, those should also be explained.

The Scorchers have shown that circumstances can change very quickly in football. Good administration should be capable of changing with them.