The Dhiraagu Dhivehi Premier League in Maldives is facing controversy after Green Streets avoided relegation by failing to fulfill their fixture against New Radiant in the final round on 5/2.

Under league rules, had Green Streets played and lost to New Radiant by more than 4 goals, they would have been relegated on goal difference. However, the Maldives Football Association (FAM) regulations state that any team forfeiting a match is handed a 0-2 defeat. This specific score was "just enough" for Green Streets to maintain their position and remain in the top division.

The 2025-2026 Dhiraagu Dhivehi season featured 10 teams, with the bottom two facing relegation. Before the final round, Green Streets, a club established in 2010, sat 8th with 12 points, a goal difference of -24, and 17 goals scored. Their direct rival in the relegation battle, Club Valencia, was 9th with 9 points, a goal difference of -30, and 10 goals scored.

Green Streets (in white) during their 1-2 loss to Maziya in round 10 of the Dhiraagu Dhivehi Premier League on 11/12/2025. Photo: Facebook / Maziya

Green Streets (in white) during their 1-2 loss to Maziya in round 10 of the Dhiraagu Dhivehi Premier League on 11/12/2025. Photo: Facebook / Maziya

According to the league's tie-breaking criteria, if two teams are level on points, their head-to-head record is considered first. This season, Green Streets and Club Valencia each won one match against each other. Therefore, goal difference became the deciding factor, followed by the number of goals scored.

A critical flaw in the league's scheduling was that the final round matches were not played simultaneously. Club Valencia played one day before Green Streets and secured a 2-0 victory. Consequently, Green Streets knew before their final match against New Radiant that they held an advantage with a goal difference of -24 compared to Club Valencia's -28, and had scored more goals (17 versus 12).

Instead of risking a defeat by more than 4 goals, which would have resulted in relegation, Green Streets chose to forfeit the match, incurring only a 0-2 loss. Ultimately, with a goal difference of -26 compared to their opponent's -28, they successfully avoided relegation.

The incident escalated as Club Valencia refused to accept the outcome. The club, founded in 1979, immediately released a statement accusing their rivals of match manipulation. They harshly criticized Green Streets' actions as "disgusting" and a serious violation of the rights of both Club Valencia and New Radiant.

Valencia players celebrate their 2-0 victory against Eagles in the final round, but were still relegated due to Green Streets' superior goal difference. Photo: Facebook / Club Valencia

Valencia players celebrate their 2-0 victory against Eagles in the final round, but were still relegated due to Green Streets' superior goal difference. Photo: Facebook / Club Valencia

Amidst the intense controversy, FAM issued a transfer ban and a fine of approximately USD 3,252 to Green Streets. "If Green Streets repeats this behavior, the committee will impose even stricter sanctions," FAM further warned. However, in a crucial decision, the federation allowed the relegation outcome to stand.

Club Valencia, however, affirmed their rejection of the federation's ruling. "We believe this decision is biased," the club stated in a communique on 10/2, announcing their intention to escalate the matter to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and FIFA to seek justice.

Meanwhile, Green Streets denied all allegations of match manipulation. They cited force majeure, specifically an outbreak of diarrhea and flu within the team, as their reason for not playing.

"The management team and players were present at the stadium on time, a clear testament to our intention to play," Green Streets' statement read. "Unfortunately, many registered players experienced health issues, directly impacting their ability to take the field. Green Streets had no intention of forfeiting or manipulating the match outcome."

Compiled by Hoang Thong