The controversy over Scorchers players seen waiting for public transport after returning to Malawi has raised a difficult question for football authorities: is providing transport enough, or does the responsibility extend to ensuring players can safely complete their journeys home?
Pictures circulating on social media prompted criticism of the Football Association of Malawi (FAM), with some supporters questioning why the players were not taken directly to their homes instead of being left to find their own way.
But the images alone do not explain the full circumstances of the journey. To understand the dispute, it is necessary to distinguish between the provision of team transport, players’ freedom to choose where they are dropped off and the responsibility to consider their safety.
In a statement issued on October 15, 2026, FAM said transport had been arranged for all players arriving at Bakili Muluzi International Airport and Kamuzu International Airport. The association said some players opted to be dropped at designated stages, where they preferred to arrange their own transport to their respective homes.
FAM rejected suggestions that the players had been abandoned, maintaining that arrangements had been made for their movement from the airports. However, the statement did not independently establish the circumstances surrounding each player’s journey after being dropped off.
This is where the debate becomes more complicated than the pictures suggest. If players knowingly choose to be dropped at particular locations, their decisions should be considered. Yet the fact that transport was provided to a designated point does not automatically answer whether the arrangements were adequate for every player.
Experience working with a club in Malawi’s top-flight league shows that team transport can involve dropping players at agreed destinations or stages, rather than taking each individual to their home. Such arrangements can be practical when players live in different locations and need to travel together.
However, club practices cannot automatically determine the standard expected of a national association. National-team assignments involve players representing the country, and the circumstances of their return, including arrival times, luggage and onward travel options, should inform the arrangements made for them.
A report published by The Sun on September 19, 2025, offers an example of how transport arrangements can work differently at a professional club. In an article titled “How Mikel Arteta’s strict rule is costing his Arsenal stars thousands of pounds in taxi fares,” the newspaper reported that Arsenal players were required to meet at the club’s London Colney training ground before home and away matches, then travel together to the stadium by team bus.
According to the report, the arrangement led many players to hire private drivers for the day. The drivers would take players to the training ground, return to collect their families and later take the players home after matches. For away fixtures, players were reportedly taken back to the training ground before private drivers transported them home.
The report highlighted how team travel policies can shape players’ individual transport arrangements, even at a leading English club. However, it concerned Arsenal’s matchday logistics, not the transport of national-team players after international assignments. It therefore cannot be used as proof that FAM’s arrangements were appropriate, but it illustrates why team transport and individual travel should not automatically be treated as the same service.
The disagreement among supporters reflects these competing considerations. George Manjolo argued that the players should have been taken directly to their homes to protect their safety, particularly because they were carrying luggage and might have difficulty finding public transport.
Amidu AbuThurayya Chazolo offered a different view, arguing that national-team players are adults who can decide where they want to be dropped off, adding that FAM cannot dictate their personal movements.
Neither position, on its own, settles the question. Taking players directly home may provide additional reassurance, but it does not follow that every player must receive door-to-door transport regardless of their preferences or circumstances. Similarly, respecting players’ choices does not remove the need to ensure that the available arrangements are reasonable and safe.
A photograph of a player waiting for a minibus cannot establish that FAM provided no transport. Equally, an assurance that transport was arranged cannot, by itself, establish that every player completed the journey safely.
The distinction matters because accountability should be based on what actually happened, rather than assumptions drawn from either the images or the association’s response. The players’ own accounts could clarify whether the drop-off arrangements were agreed in advance, whether anyone requested further assistance and whether the transport provided met their needs.
FAM could also help address the concerns by explaining its policy for transporting national-team players after away assignments. Clarity on whether players are normally taken to their homes or agreed drop-off points, and what support is available when onward travel becomes difficult, would help establish what players can expect.
Ultimately, the issue is not simply whether the Scorchers used public transport after returning home. It is whether the arrangements struck a reasonable balance between logistical practicality, players’ choices and their welfare.
The controversy offers an opportunity to examine how football authorities define their responsibilities beyond the pitch. Providing transport may fulfil one part of that responsibility, but clear arrangements and attention to players’ safety are equally important in determining whether the journey home has been adequately managed.