V.League's Books: Where 128 Billion VND in Sponsorship Goes Before Ever Reaching the Pitch

On a Monday morning in early November, I sat in a small coffee shop next to Gia Dinh Stadium with 87 pages of documents. These were copies of the 2026 annual financial reports of four First Division clubs that VPF had published on its electronic portal — the only documents journalists could access without needing "connections." On the yellowing A4 paper, the figure of 128.4 billion VND in total sponsorship revenue from three top-tier clubs leapt into my eyes. 128.4 billion for one season — equivalent to the budget of a Thai third-division club. I turned to Annex 7, where expenditure on "youth development and infrastructure" was clearly itemized, and found the figure 0 VND sitting there prominently. Not "no data available." The number zero, signed and stamped by the chief accountant. This was not the first time I had seen this gap. In 2026, when I was 17 and a first-year economics student, I cross-referenced Gia Dinh Club's financial report and discovered that 12.4 billion VND in annual sponsorship never reached the players. Players were owed 4 months of wages, and the social insurance fund was short by 2.8 billion. My first blog post was published that night, accompanied by a scanned copy of the audit document. The result was hundreds of mocking comments "what does a girl know about football." But six months later, the federation inspected, and the club had to pay everything in full. Seven years have passed, and the common denominator remains unchanged: money comes in, it does not come out. V.League currently has 14 First Division clubs, operating as sports joint-stock companies or limited liability companies. According to the AFC Club Licensing criteria — a system that VPF must comply with from the 2026 season — clubs must demonstrate five financial criteria: no overdue debts to players, staff, or tax authorities within 12 months prior to filing; audited independent financial statements; a 12-month budget plan approved by the Board of Directors; and evidence of no overdue transfer debts. In theory, this is a screening system. In practice, a paradox: the licensing criteria took effect from the 2026/2026 season, but VPF only publishes a "compliance overview" without disclosing each criterion for each club. Let me be direct: nothing about the club licensing system is "secret." The entire world does it, from J.League to Thai League. The problem lies in two words: "not yet published." Look at the numbers. Total sponsorship revenue of 14 V.League clubs in 2026, according to public reports, reached approximately 612 billion VND. Of this, the "top 4" group — typically Hanoi FC, Hai Phong, Binh Duong, and Ho Chi Minh City FC — accounted for 71% of total revenue. A mid-tier club like Song Lam Nghe An only earned about 22 billion from sponsorship. The 30-fold gap between top and bottom is not a sports story; it is an ownership structure story. But the more concerning figure lies in expenditure. In the 87 pages of documents I just read, "youth training" expenditure of three top-tier clubs averaged just 0.4% of total spending. The equivalent figure in Indonesia's top flight is 8.2%, in Thailand 6.7%, and in Japan 14.5%. In other words, V.League spends 1 VND on youth training while regional leagues spend 15 VND. The consequence is that we have to import more and more foreign players, while the national team relies on the golden U23 generation of 2026 that has passed its peak. I cross-checked three layers: publicly disclosed financial reports, data on the VPF electronic portal, and business registrations of sponsors. Three anomalies deserve mention. First: the listed total sponsorship revenue of a Southern club suddenly increased 312% from the previous season, while the team finished at the bottom of the table and changed three coaches in one season — no signs of corresponding business performance improvement. Second: four clubs all listed revenue from "main sponsor" at the round figure of 18 billion VND per season, four different clubs, four different seasons — the probability of four independent deals matching the same round figure is very low. Third: two clubs sharing a major sponsor that declared bankruptcy in 2026 still recorded "signed" sponsorship revenue in full in the 2026 fiscal year. This is not "possibly a problem." This is evidence that the "independently audited financial statements" criterion is being bypassed. Either the audit firm did not detect — meaning it is useless. Or they detected and remained silent — meaning there is a problem. Numbers do not lie. But the providers of numbers do. I have not failed to hear the defending side. Some argue that the nature of Vietnamese football is a family business, "if the owner puts up the money to feed the team, the owner has the right to decide the books as he wishes." This has some merit: no one forces a business owner to open their ledger. But — and here is the paradox — these very clubs are applying for AFC competition eligibility certification. Club licensing is not a privilege; it is a transparency obligation when participating in the confederation's competitions. If they do not want to disclose, they can choose not to participate. The second view is "do not make things difficult for businesses in a difficult economic context." I agree — but only when the club licensing criteria are designed to protect the businesses themselves, not to protect the pockets of a group of people. When a club spends 0.4% on youth training while capturing 71% of league revenue, that is not hardship — that is exploitation. The question I pose after 87 pages of documents is not "whether or not there is fraud." The question is: why has VPF — the entity tasked with operating the league — not published each financial criterion of each club as committed to AFC? If we truly want V.League to stand alongside East Asian competitions by 2030, the books must be an open book — not an open book in form only. I flip through every page of sponsorship files, and every page carries a smell. The true value of a league is not found in the standings, but in the forgotten numbers buried in the annexes.