AFCON

By Muhammad Abubakar

The Confederation of African Football has imposed heavy sanctions on Senegal following the dramatic Africa Cup of Nations final against Morocco, including a five-match suspension and $100,000 fine for coach Pape Thiaw.

Thiaw was penalised for “unsporting conduct” after instructing his players to walk off the pitch during the final. The incident marred Senegal’s championship victory.

Senegalese players Ismaila Sarr and Iliman Cheikh Baroy Ndiaye have each been banned for two CAF matches for similar misconduct. The Senegalese Football Federation faces a substantial $615,000 fine despite lifting the trophy.

Morocco has also been penalised. CAF handed the runners-up a $315,000 fine for improper conduct, whilst defender Achraf Hakimi received a two-match suspension for unsporting actions.

Neither federation has yet announced whether they will appeal the decisions.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

President Bassirou Diomaye Faye has awarded Senegal’s AFCON 2025–winning squad a total of $6.2 million in cashand 68,000 square meters of land, marking one of the most generous state rewards in African football history.

Each player will receive $135,000 and a 1,500-square-meter plot on the Petite Côte, while members of the technical and backroom staff will be awarded $90,000 and 1,000-square-meter plots, according to the presidency.

Senegal clinched the continental title with a disciplined 1–0 victory over the Morocco national football team in the final, a tightly contested match that underscored the Lions’ defensive organisation and tactical maturity.

Led by head coach Pape Thiaw, the Lions’ triumph has been celebrated as a symbol of national pride and sporting excellence, with officials saying the rewards reflect the country’s gratitude for a team that once again placed Senegal at the summit of African football.

By Abubakar Muhammad

AFCON has just concluded. Senegal won the trophy, but many football enthusiasts know that the actual play of the game is only half of the big spectacle. There are many things going on backstage that take time to materialise. When you look at the countries, roll the camera, and see them doing well, you will see patterns lock into place. There might be visible investment and development of physical infrastructure, but there is also something more to it. 

As a sideline to every soccer tournament, one of the things I pay attention to is the grassroots, street-level infrastructure that feeds talent to the national team. In these tournaments, you would not only pay attention to the official game or what happens in the big arenas, but also to the images that come out from foreign visitors depicting themselves playing outside the formal venues. The soccer crowd, wherever they are, tend to find where to play.  To host a tournament, you really need a solid infrastructure for both formal and informal arenas. But more so, this tells us stories about the status of the game, leisure and where citizens play. 

As usual, it seems Nigeria is left behind when it comes to grassroots soccer infrastructure. Senegal, Algeria, Angola, etc, have a thriving street soccer infrastructure. This infrastructure is not formal, but it seems to enjoy greater consensus that cuts across the formal-informal divide between citizens and governments. 

In Latin America, there are spaces in favelas and barrios where local kids can play the game. The spaces may not be the same, may use different nomenclature, may straddle the line between the formal and the informal, but they retain the same purpose and spirit.

In Senegal, they are in the form of navétanes, a semi-formal regional tournament played in local spaces. These spaces are not owned by the government or private individuals, unlike, say, primary school premises or other government buildings. They are simply communal spaces where the navétanes games are played. These spaces are respected by everyone; no encroachment or erection of structures, public or privately owned. Kids start their careers in their neighbourhoods and progress to regional teams, then to the professional league, the national team, and onward to international careers. You find similar spaces in Brazil as developing ground for talents that would later go on to dazzle a global audience. 

In North Africa, they have a thriving culture of street football played in what we can call in Nigeria a 7-aside stadium. The difference is that these spaces in North Africa are free and open to everyone. They sit in open spaces in the middle of neighbourhoods. The key idea here is access and openness. The use of open space for soccer must not require any payment and must remove any other impediments that can exclude people. A truly public space is one that lets you in without charging a fee or asking for proof of innocence.

In Nigeria, empty lots and vacant spaces are constantly being developed. There is no respect for spaces where kids can play. The idea is that in places where formal sporting infrastructure is not in place, small-scale community members use these spaces for leisure and sporting activities. Kids will have a chance to play the game from a very young age until they dribble their way to the national team. The grassroots in many parts of the world are where players are developed and imbued with the spirit of the nation before they enter the academy for the refinement of their talents. 

African soccer, like its South American counterpart, is largely dependent on informal infrastructure, with local people coming together to build their own. People-as-infrastructure is a concept in which citizens enter into a series of temporary, makeshift arrangements with one another to provide services that authorities are unable to deliver.

By killing these spaces, Nigeria is killing her young talents. It makes it difficult for the local kids to develop an interest, let alone play the game and nurture their talents. Angola, not really a footballing nation, has a thriving street football culture. I noticed from the videos I watched that street lots exist, and they are everywhere. They don’t seem to be developed or encroached so rampant as we see in Nigeria. It seems these spaces are protected by consensus, just like they are protected in Brazilian favelas and Argentina’s barrios. 

Football is the game of the poor. Commercialise football, and you create a barrier where only the rich can afford to play. Commercial football delivers more money to the pockets of a few individuals without bringing much-needed collective glory to the national team. The English Premier League is the wealthiest league in the world, but the country has fallen far behind other footballing nations.  Germany has an academy system in place, but their overall sporting culture is anchored around a process that resembles socialist democratic football more than an individualistic, capitalist model that Nigeria tends to lean towards. 

One of the biggest problems that Nigeria’s football faces as an institution is the seeming, increasing reliance on the academy for its national talents. Academies are simply there for money. Another thing is the seeming sole reliance on foreign-based players. This is understandable for the refined talents abroad, but there seems to be a problem with that in Nigeria. 

There is nothing wrong with foreign-based players populating the national team. Countries tap into their talents abroad, sharpened by cutting-edge training models and infrastructure. One of the biggest problems with this, in the case of Nigeria, is that players know exactly why they’re called up to the national team. They understand why, and there is no confusion about the nature of the transaction. There is nothing that dilutes or softens the nature of the transaction. The country only sees them when it needs them. The country is not there when they need her, and so, in their bloom and glory, they may not give their all. They will not play with their blood and heart. 

Secondly, tapping into foreign players in Nigeria is not grounded in any philosophical sporting policy. For instance, what does it mean for a player to play for the national team? What does the national team mean to them? What is that one thing that all players can understand as a common language and shared values? Something like a unique national culture common among the youth? You can only find this in street football played across the country. Pick that ideology and craft it into the national sports policy. What we see instead is total indifference at best, if not outright obstacles thrown in the way of the nation’s youth by the government and private interest groups. 

By eliminating informal spaces, we have destroyed the conviviality and socio-spatial relations that emerge from street games. Street soccer gives the manager of the national team a foundation, something to start with. The street is where every player understands what it means to play for the national team. From the ground up, the Nigerian player can develop a sense of Nigerianness, just as French players are instilled with French values and what it means to play for the national team. But since we don’t have the formal structures and arrangements of the French, Germans, or English, where players are developed through various academies under the guidelines of the national football federations, the street is where our players should build their character. The Senegalese have taken the navétanes and use it as a national sports policy. It is an informal, grassroots football that develops independently of the government. The coach and players speak the same football language that came from the streets. 

By erecting structures on every available space in Nigeria, you tighten the rope for the children in local communities and make it hard for ordinary folks to make their way to the national team. So many talents would slip through the cracks before rising to the top and reaching their full potential. We are already importing a dangerous trend from abroad, where only kids from wealthy backgrounds can play the game and reach the professional level.

And since we don’t have meaningful ways in which citizens feel indebted to their governments and their countries beyond familial ties, the very few that already found their way to the highest level of the game know why they’re playing. They’re simply playing commercial football. They have already paid the price on the way to Europe without the aid of any national structure. When you call them up to the national team after this, they will not play with their heart and their blood. 

Abubakar Muhammad is from Kano, Nigeria. 

By Muhammad Sulaiman

Nigerian businessman and philanthropist Abdul Samad Rabiu has announced substantial financial incentives for the Super Eagles following their impressive victory over Algeria, a win that has lifted national morale and secured Nigeria a place in the semi-finals.

In a congratulatory message released on Friday, Rabiu praised the team for making the nation proud and pledged USD $500,000 to the players should they win the semi-final, with an additional USD $50,000 for every goal scored in that match.

He further stated that if the Super Eagles go on to win the final, he would reward the team with USD $1,000,000, alongside a bonus of USD $100,000 per goal scored in the final.

Rabiu described the players as symbols of national pride and unity, expressing confidence in their ability to carry Nigeria forward in the tournament.

He ended his message with a call for continued excellence, reaffirming his pride in the team and the country.

The announcement has been widely welcomed by fans, adding extra motivation as the Super Eagles prepare for the decisive stages of the competition.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

Mozambique President Daniel Francisco Chapo has pledged a special bonus of 500,000 meticais (approximately ₦11.3 million) to each player and staff member if the team defeats Nigeria in the Africa Cup of Nations Round of 16.

The announcement was made in a presidential message on Thursday, where Chapo praised the Mambas for their historic qualification to the knockout stage. He commended the team’s courage, discipline, and determination, calling their group-stage performance a source of national pride.

Mozambique advanced to third place in Group F despite a final-match loss to Cameroon. They now face a formidable Super Eagles side, one of the tournament’s standout teams, in Monday’s clash at the Complexe Sportif de Fès in Morocco.

President Chapo’s financial incentive underscores the high stakes as Mozambique seeks an unprecedented quarter-final berth. The match is scheduled for 8 p.m. local time on January 5.

By Ibrahim Yunusa

Confederation of African Football (CAF) President, Dr. Patrice Motsepe has announced an increment of $3m to the winner of the African Cup of Nationa that is currently being hosted by Morocco.

The winner’s prize of the 2025 African Cup of Nations (AFCON) has been raised to $10 million from $7 million that was initially given to the winner of 2023 edition, following an increase approved by the Confederation of African Football.

This marks a significant boost aimed at rewarding excellence and further elevating the prestige of the tournament.

The 2025 tournament kicked off yesterday with a thrilling opening match between the host, Morocco, versus Comoros, in which the Moroccan team defeated Comoros with two goals to nil.

By Muhammad Abubakar

Cameroon’s upcoming Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) campaign is in turmoil due to a major power struggle between FECAFOOT President Samuel Eto’o and head coach Marc Brys, who remains under contract until 2026. Eto’o unilaterally declared Brys’s role was over.

The dispute has resulted in two rival 28-man AFCON squads.

Eto’o’s faction released a list naming David Pagou as coach and controversially omitted stars Andre Onana, Eric Choupo-Moting, and captain Vincent Aboubakar. Reports suggest Aboubakar was dropped to protect Eto’o’s national scoring record.

Coach Brys responded with his own squad announcement, restoring the high-profile players and questioning the team’s ability to compete in Morocco without them. This internal conflict severely undermines the Indomitable Lions’ preparations.

By Amir Abdulazeez

I am writing on this not because I have any significant concern for the award or its credibility, or because it has any correlation with the well-being of anybody in need (which I am often more concerned about). I am doing so instead due to the massive perennial debate it generates, especially among youths in Nigeria, as well as the misinformed opinions surrounding it. 

Again, the Ballon d’Or, like football itself, has transcended sport to become part of international politics and history. I became shocked when I saw a globally renowned Muslim scholar congratulating Ousmane Dembele for winning the 2025 version and hailing its award to a ‘practising Muslim’. Obviously, the crown now carries political significance that stretches well beyond the pitch. 

Since its inception in 1956, the Ballon d’Or has been regarded as football’s most prestigious individual award. Founded by France Football (conceived by sports writers Gabriel Hanot and Jacques Ferran), the award was initially designed to honour the best European player annually, with Stanley Matthews of Blackpool becoming the pioneer winner. Later, it evolved into a global prize, celebrating many other icons. Many have rightly questioned the credibility of the award, but mostly on myopic grounds centred around player and club sentiments. However, as a long-time football observer, I believe there are much broader issues regarding the credibility of the award that are worth discussing. 

Let us start with the politics. During the Cold War (1947-1991), Eastern European players (more aligned to the Soviet Union) often struggled to receive equal recognition despite dazzling performances, while Western European stars (more aligned to the United States and friends) enjoyed more favourable media attention. Although Russian goalkeeper Lev Yashin won the award in 1963, many argue that his case was only the exception that proved the unwritten rule of ‘politics, geography, and media exposure consistently play decisive roles’. Today, the award continues to reflect broader inequalities in the sport of football. European clubs dominate global coverage, which inflates the recognition of their stars. Players performing in less visible leagues, whether in South America, Africa, or Asia, rarely receive consideration, even if their contributions are extraordinary. 

Another concern is the award’s inconsistent eligibility rules over time. Until 1995, only European players competing in European clubs were considered, excluding legendary figures such as Pelé and Diego Maradona from even receiving a nomination. It was only after a rule change that non-Europeans in European leagues became eligible, allowing George Weah to win in 1995. Yet, by then, the award had already excluded decades of worthy non-European and non-European-based winners. Mild allegations of racism also cast a dark shadow over the award. Many believe players like Didier Drogba, Samuel Eto’o, Yaya Touré, Sadio Mané and Mohammed Salah were routinely ranked below their pedigree. In 2021, French pundit Emmanuel Petit openly questioned whether African players were judged by double standards. 

The selection of voters itself raises concerns. Initially restricted to journalists, it later expanded between 2010 and 2015 after a merger with FIFA’s “World Player of the Year,” adding coaches and captains to the electorate whose votes often reflected tribal, national or club loyalties rather than merit. The 2016 reversion to journalist-only voting may be a tacit admission of voting flaws, thereby creating difficulties in making comparisons across eras. For example, Lionel Messi’s consecutive wins (2009-2013) under a global, mixed electorate cannot be objectively compared to Michel Platini’s (1983-1985) under a European-only jury. The current co-organisation with UEFA, which began in 2024, signifies another attempt to lend the award more institutional weight. However, the constant changes in its format and governing alliances suggest an award in search of a stable identity, struggling to balance its commercial ambitions with its original purpose.

Bias towards attacking players has been an emerging hallmark of Ballon d’Or selections. Legendary defenders like Paolo Maldini, Alessandro Nesta, Sergio Ramos and Roberto Carlos, who defined an era of defensive excellence, always fell short. The exception of Fabio Cannavaro in 2006, along with a few others in the past, after a World Cup-winning campaign with Italy, serves as a testament to the rarity of a defender being recognised. 

More recently, Virgil van Dijk’s 2019 narrow runner-up finish sparked debate about whether non-attacking players could ever realistically win in a sport increasingly obsessed with goals and flair. The award relies heavily on football journalists who often prioritise goal highlight reels, statistics and global recognition over tactical nuance and defensive brilliance. Strikers and playmakers dominate the headlines that directly feed into voting behaviour. 

To combat positional bias, a more revolutionary approach could be implemented: nomination by quota. Why not have separate shortlists and voting panels for goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and forwards? The top three or five of these categories could then be considered for the overall voting and eventual award. This would ensure that the unique skills of each position are evaluated by those who best understand them, guaranteeing that players are judged on their specialisations rather than against others with contrasting roles. 

The criteria for judgment also lack clarity and consistency. Officially, the award considers individual performance, team achievements, talent, fair play and career consistency. In practice, however, voters often seem swayed by a single outstanding tournament or by sentimental narratives. Luka Modrić’s 2018 victory after Croatia’s World Cup run exemplified this. While Modrić was superb, critics argued that other players had stronger year-round performances, but the emotional weight of Croatia’s fairy tale run tilted the scales. But how come this same emotion did not sway voters to select any player from Leicester City’s 2016 Premier League incredible winning team? A pervasive, though often unstated, criterion for many voters is team success. 

To win the Champions League or a major international tournament has become almost a prerequisite for contention. This creates an inherent unfairness, elevating players in dominant teams while punishing extraordinary individuals in less successful sides. This inconsistency reveals a fundamental confusion: is the award for the “best player,” “most popular player,” or the “most successful player”?

The timing and calendar controversies are another issue. International tournaments occur every two years, creating periods where national team success heavily influences voting. World Cup years traditionally favour tournament winners, regardless of club form. The recent calendar change, from July to August, aimed to address this imbalance but created new problems, with voters now contending with assessing performances from overlapping seasons and tournaments. This temporal confusion affects not just voting patterns but also the public’s understanding of what the award represents: is it recognition for calendar year performance, season achievement, or tournament success? The 2013 Ballon d’Or win by Cristiano Ronaldo was criticised following timing inconsistencies due to odd deadline extensions. The current system, which allows a player to win a major tournament in the summer and have their performance rewarded a year later, creates a disjointed narrative. 

The question of authority is another big one. FIFA represents 211 national associations, UEFA oversees European football’s institutional framework, yet it is a private French publication that bestows football’s most prestigious individual honour. The comparison with FIFA’s The Best awards and UEFA’s Player of the Year exposes this imbalance. This raises the paradox: why should a magazine possess such outsized influence in determining football’s most prestigious individual accolade, overshadowing awards backed by governing institutions? While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, it only emphasises the need for France Football to show more responsibility by sanitising and standardising its award.

I am not in a position to coach France Football on how to reform its awards to minimise the credibility dilemma; they have much better experts who can do that. My concern is to see young football followers and analysts become more informed and equipped for deeper debates that are beyond sentiments. My other concern, which has little to do with the Ballon d’Or, is to see football giving a little back to its estimated 3.5 billion fans that have made it powerful. While fans give it a lot, the sport appears to be offering almost nothing significant in return. 

It is sad to see football remaining silent, biased and indifferent in the face of global oppression and injustice. While it took FIFA and UEFA just four days to suspend Russia after it invaded Ukraine in 2022, both bodies have remained criminally silent for over two years since Israel launched its genocide on the football supporting people of Palestine.

Amir Abdulazeez, PhD, can be reached via abdulazeezamir@hotmail.com.

By Muhammad Abubakar

Nigeria’s U20 national team, the Flying Eagles, secured third place at the AFCON U20 tournament after a tense victory in a penalty shootout against host nation Egypt.

The third-place playoff ended in a deadlock after regulation time, with both teams creating but failing to convert keychances. 

In the ensuing shootout, Nigeria maintained their composure and emerged victorious, silencing the home crowd and concluding their campaign on a high note.

Head coach Aliyu Zubairu praised his players for their determination and mental toughness throughout the match. “Beating the hosts in front of their fans, and doing so under the pressure of a shootout, speaks volumes about the character of this team,” he said.

South Africa went on to win the tournament, claiming the championship after an impressive performance in the finalagainst Morocco.

The AFCONU20 tournament showcased elite youth teams from across the continent, providing a platform for emerging talent and fierce competition.

By Sabiu Abdullahi  

The Super Eagles of Nigeria soared to the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final, edging out the resilient Bafana Bafana of South Africa in a tense penalty shootout.

The match, which culminated in a one-all draw through regular play and extra time, showcased the grit and determination of both sides. 

The encounter marked the Super Eagles’ record 15th appearance in the AFCON semi-finals, a testament to their enduring legacy in African football.

However, it was far from an easy feat, as the match pushed them to their limits. 

Nigeria’s journey to the final was fraught with challenges, including last-minute fitness concerns.

Star striker Victor Osimhen overcame abdominal discomfort to lead the line, while a late injury forced coach Jose Peseiro to shuffle his starting lineup, with Bright Osayi-Samuel stepping in for the injured Zaidu Sanusi. 

The tactical battle unfolded with Nigeria opting for a 3-4-3 formation, mirrored by Hugo Broos’ Bafana Bafana. However, the Eagles initially struggled to contain the pace and positional awareness of South Africa’s attacking duo, Percy Tau and Evidence Makgopa. 

Despite the early setbacks, Nigeria showcased resilience and determination, gradually asserting control as the match progressed.

The defensive trio of William Troost-Ekong, Semi Ajayi, and Calvin Bassey weathered the storm, thwarting numerous attempts from the South African side.

As the tension mounted, neither team could find the breakthrough, leading to a nail-biting penalty shootout. In a display of nerves of steel, the Super Eagles held their composure, clinching a thrilling 4-2 victory from the spot, much to the delight of their passionate supporters. 

With this hard-fought triumph, Nigeria secures a spot in the AFCON final, poised to vie for continental glory against a formidable opposition.