Super Eagles of Nigeria
Nigerians strongly believe and agree that NFF and the entire football ecosystem need reforms, especially after missing out from two consecutive World Cup for men, and now the 2027 World Cup for women in Brazil.
On Tuesday, September 1, 2026, the world football governing body FIFA formally accepted the resignation of Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) President Ibrahim Musa Gusau and other principal officers of the federation. FIFA also said it was backing the proposed comprehensive reform roadmap for Nigerian football. The immediate implication of this is that FIFA will not sanction Nigeria on the basis of the induced resignations. But make no mistake about this, Nigeria is still not out of the woods.
For while this may have settled some dust arising from the mass resignations occasioned by executive meddlesomeness, it has opened another vista of challenge and test of character for those shaping football in Nigeria. Football, it must be said, is run on the pedestal of rules, mores and industry-based statutes. Such rules are fashioned to insulate football and its governing bodies at all levels from any form of crude intrusion and impunity.
Nigerians strongly believe and agree that NFF and the entire football ecosystem need reforms, especially after missing out from two consecutive World Cup for men, and now the 2027 World Cup for women in Brazil. But they also warn that such reforms must conform with laid down rules in accordance with NFF statutes and in consonance with both CAF and FIFA legal frameworks. The reforms must be anchored on the due process of the laws governing football in Nigeria, Africa (CAF) and globally (FIFA). One of such cardinal norms is that neither CAF nor FIFA should appoint or cause to be appointed a Normalisation Committee until the exhaustion of the NFF statutory process. Both CAF and FIFA are also barred from recognising or negotiating with Nigerian government or any such external body on the way forward for the NFF in moments of crisis such as the recent mass resignations. The NFF statutes have clearly stated the legitimate procedures towards resolving any leadership succession or vacancy crisis.
It bears reaffirming that Nigeria football administration is not anchored on lawlessness. Articles 38 of the NFF statute in keeping with the independence of the NFF states very clearly the steps to be taken in moments of resignations such as we have now. Where such vacancies exist on account of resignations, the law states categorically that such resignation does not amount to dissolution of the NFF. This also does not in any way extend an invitation to the federal government to meddle into the matter by trying to conjure ways of determining how the NFF should be governed. The lines are not blurred. They are defined. The government of any country under FIFA governance code has no locus to assume administrative duty either vicariously or by any direct manipulative process. On this count, the Nigerian government must back off from any intrusion whatsoever.
The question is: Are there vacancies at the football house? The answer is a valid YES! How then should the vacancies be filled? The answer is found in the law, not in any person’s imagination or conjuration. Here, again, we look to what the rule book says. Article 38 of the NFF statute envisaged diverse scenarios and dimensions of vacancies. Article 38(7), for instance, states: “If more than 50 percent of the positions of the Executive Committee become vacant, the General Secretary shall convene an Extraordinary Congress within the prescribed period of time. In the meantime, the remaining members of the Council shall take care of the daily affairs of the NFF until new elections are held.”
But whether more than 50 percent or all of the whole Council resigned, the NFF statute which is the only legitimate legal framework for football administration in Nigeria duly recognises the place of Congress to ensure stability and seamless succession of leadership within the federation.
Since the resignation tsunami that shook the NFF, the National Sports Commission (NSC) has appointed an interim administrative body to oversee the affairs of the federation. Under the circumstance, there should be no rush to set up a Normalisation Committee when immediate and extant procedures for filling vacancies have not been fully exhausted. The NSC must avoid being teleguided by the federal government. It must at this time recognise the legitimate powers vested in the Congress to drive the process of succession. Any procedure outside the Congress runs contrary to the grains of the NFF statutes.
This is even made easy as Congress has not only welcomed the reforms, but has indicated its willingness to work with both CAF, FIFA, and NSC to ensure a seamless transition to stronger and efficient leadership for Nigeria football. What is paramount at the moment is that every reform roadmap, strategy and prescription must have institutional legitimacy. Constituting a Normalisation Committee is not the next chapter in this regard. The most compelling and critical step is to consider the role and place of Congress as enshrined in the NFF statute and equally as is the lawful practice under CAF and FIFA jurisdictions which includes Nigeria.
Yes, there is crisis in Nigeria football. But due process of the law must be followed in the course of resolving the crisis. FIFA and CAF, both of which have bought into the reforms agenda for Nigeria football, should ensure they guide the Nigeria football stakeholders to abide by the statutes and not bow to extraneous influence.
The Congress of the NFF consists of 108 delegates representing various key sectors of Nigeria football. Its composition includes 36 states football associations’ chairmen and secretaries and the Federal Capital Territory; representatives and board members from domestic leagues, including the Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL), Nigeria National League (NNL), Nigeria Nationwide League One (NLO), and Nigeria Women Football League (NWFL). It also includes members of specialist bodies namely: delegates from the coaches’ association, referees’ association, and the players’ union. This broad-spectrum membership of Congress makes it a veritable stakeholders’ representative body.
It is therefore both absurd and inappropriate to bypass Congress or diminish its legitimate essence in the guise of resolving the crisis. Doing so amounts to a descent into illegality and conscious transgression. It does not enforce the independence of NFF; it impairs it.
Not following the due process of the law exposes Nigeria to sanction by CAF and FIFA, even when they both agree to the reforms. And who knows, resolving the leadership crisis through any illegal means may trigger a trove of litigations. Some aggrieved stakeholders who felt that illegality was introduced in the making of the next Council may drag Nigeria to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in Switzerland. That is not the kind of optics that Nigeria football needs at this time.
To avoid such showdown that could further dim whatever is left of Nigeria’s international image, Nigerian authorities, CAF and FIFA, must listen to Congress. A word is enough for the wise!
- Ekwueme, sports aficionado, writes from Abuja.
