African football stands at a crossroads. It can either continue to operate within a framework of contested legitimacy or undertake the difficult but necessary reforms required to build credibility, attract investment, and retain its talent… Ultimately, the future of African football will not be decided by what happens on the pitch — but by the strength of the institutions that govern it.
The recent controversy surrounding the Africa Cup of Nations (AfCON), involving Senegal’s on-pitch protest during the final match against Morocco, and the subsequent decision by the Confederation of African Football to strip the team of its title months after victory, raises questions that go far beyond football in Africa.
At face value, this may appear to be a disciplinary matter, an issue of rule enforcement and competition integrity. However, when situated within broader concerns about governance, political influence, and institutional credibility, the episode reveals deeper structural challenges that mirror wider political-economic realities across the continent.
|
|
Football as Political Economy, Not Just Sport
Football has evolved beyond a mere recreational activity; it is a global industry with far-reaching political-economic relevance. In Africa, the sport functions as both a soft power asset and a platform for continental integration. Many former players have transitioned into political leadership, most notably George Weah, a former World Footballer of the Year who became president of Liberia.
|
|
|
|---|
Competitions such as the AfCON, the UEFA European Championship, and Copa América are therefore expected not only to promote sporting excellence but also to advance the continental commercial value, brand equity, institutional legitimacy, governance integrity, and cultural integration.
Yet, unlike its global peers, African football continues to struggle with a persistent credibility deficit.
Governance, Perception, and the Crisis of Credibility
The Senegal incident, especially when juxtaposed with widespread perceptions of political favouritism, including alleged preferential treatment toward Morocco during the tournament and reinforced by CAF’s subsequent ruling, strengthens a troubling narrative: that outcomes in African football may not be determined solely on the pitch.
While such suspicions are not unique to the African game, their persistence and relative normalisation within competitions organised by the CAF point to deeper institutional weaknesses. In political economy terms, it is not merely the existence of controversy, but its frequency and weak resolution mechanisms that erode trust, undermine legitimacy, and ultimately diminish the value of institutional systems as credible global products.
Whether these perceptions are fully accurate is almost secondary. In political economy terms, perception is itself an institutional variable. Once stakeholders – players, investors, fans, and global partners – begin to question the neutrality and consistency of governance, the value of the entire system declines.
Allowing the match to proceed to completion, despite knowledge of a potential regulatory breach, and only invoking the relevant provisions months after the outcome had been determined, suggests a fragile governance framework. Retrospective enforcement of this nature undermines procedural certainty and raises fundamental questions about regulatory consistency. In effect, it is akin to declaring after the fact that a penalty already taken should have been treated as a throw-in, an outcome that not only defies procedural logic but also erodes confidence in the integrity of the game.
It is therefore unsurprising that the status of the AfCON as a credible contributory benchmark in the evaluation of global football has increasingly been questioned. In 2025, Jamie Carragher controversially argued that Mohamed Salah’s failure to win the Ballon d’Or was partly attributable to the competition’s limited global weighting. While the comment was widely criticised, it nonetheless reflects an underlying problem of perception.
It is therefore unsurprising that the status of the AfCON as a credible contributory benchmark in the evaluation of global football has increasingly been questioned. In 2025, Jamie Carragher controversially argued that Mohamed Salah’s failure to win the Ballon d’Or was partly attributable to the competition’s limited global weighting. While the comment was widely criticised, it nonetheless reflects an underlying problem of perception. Episodes of inconsistent governance, such as this recent CAF decision, risk validating such claims, not necessarily because they are inherently accurate, but because institutional weaknesses make them increasingly plausible.
Institutional Credibility, Talent Flight, and Industrial Development
One of the clearest consequences of weak governance is its effect on player allegiance and talent retention.
African players operating at the highest levels of global football often face dual-nationality choices. Increasingly, many opt to represent European national teams, even if only marginally, rather than commit to African countries over the long term. This is not simply about financial incentives or exposure; it is also about institutional trust. When players perceive African football governance as unpredictable, politicised, or administratively weak, the rational choice shifts. The symbolic comparison becomes stark: ‘A single cap for England may carry more long-term value than a hundred caps for an African nation’.
This is not a reflection of the disparity of talent, but of institutional asymmetry. Episodic governance controversies reinforce these perceptions, ultimately reducing both the quality of participation and the global value of African football. The implications extend beyond national teams and tournaments. Football is an entry point into a broader sports industrial ecosystem – broadcasting rights, sponsorship markets, infrastructure development, talent academies, merchandising, and tourism. These sectors depend heavily on credible and predictable governance frameworks.
Where governance is weak, investors demand higher risk premiums or withdraw; sponsorship value declines; broadcasting contracts weaken; domestic leagues fail to scale; and youth development systems stagnate. These challenges are evident across the continent and continue to constrain the growth of the game. More concerning is the gradual erosion of Africa’s historical strength in youth tournaments, an area where the continent once excelled, reflecting the cumulative effects of governance weaknesses.
In contrast, regions with stronger institutional credibility, such as Europe, have transformed football into a multi-billion-dollar industry with deep linkages to their wider economies. Africa, despite its vast talent pool and passionate market, continues to underperform; not due to lack of potential, but due to institutional constraints.
The Deeper Development Lesson
What is playing out in African football mirrors a broader developmental pattern across many sectors on the continent. Just as in trade and investment, outcomes are not determined solely by participation, but by the quality of institutional mediation.
In football:
- The “external regime” is global football integration
- The “domestic mediation” is CAF and national football governance
Where mediation is weak, integration reproduces dependency – African talent fuels global leagues, while domestic systems remain underdeveloped.
The Senegal episode is not just about a title lost or a rule enforced. It is a signal — one that highlights the cost of institutional fragility in a highly visible and globally connected sector.
Where mediation is strong, integration can support domestic capability building and industrial upgrading. In such contexts, the quality of the game improves, commercial value increases, and investment flows into both core sports infrastructure and complementary sectors such as hospitality and logistics. Investment in these complementary sectors not only strengthens the footballing ecosystem but also enhances the broader competitiveness of the economy, positioning the continent to attract capital into non-sport sectors and ultimately improve quality of life.
This suggests that continental institutions such as the African Union Commission and the African Continental Free Trade Area Secretariat can strategically leverage sport, particularly football, not merely as entertainment, but as a platform for mobilising industrial capital and catalysing structural transformation across the continent.
Restoring Credibility: A Policy Imperative
If African football is to realise its full economic and symbolic potential, governance reform must move from rhetoric to reality.
Key priorities include:
- Transparent and consistent rule enforcement;
- Institutional independence from political influence;
- Strengthening dispute resolution mechanisms;
- Professionalisation of football administration;
- Clear alignment between continental and national governance frameworks.
Without these, the Africa Cup of Nations risks remaining a competition rich in talent but limited in global standing.
Conclusion
The Senegal episode is not just about a title lost or a rule enforced. It is a signal — one that highlights the cost of institutional fragility in a highly visible and globally connected sector.
African football stands at a crossroads. It can either continue to operate within a framework of contested legitimacy or undertake the difficult but necessary reforms required to build credibility, attract investment, and retain its talent.
Ultimately, the future of African football will not be decided by what happens on the pitch — but by the strength of the institutions that govern it.
Dipo Baruwa is a business climate development analyst.
