Local football analyst Isack Hamata states that the Confederation of African Football (CAF) is pursuing a policy of quiet diplomacy, contrasting with other continental football confederations.
This week, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF), and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) released a joint open letter accusing FIFA President Gianni Infantino of breaching trust through deception via his cancelled FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative.
FIFA Forward was intended to become a new entity tasked with overseeing the commercial and ticketing rights for all FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, with a 21% stake slated for sale to a private investment firm.
“CAF’s strategy is fundamentally based on quiet diplomacy rather than public confrontation,” Hamata explains. “Several factors account for this position.”
He notes that under President Patrice Motsepe, CAF has focused on cultivating a close partnership with FIFA to secure essential development funding and technical assistance for its member associations.
Hamata explains that African football leadership has traditionally favored internal negotiations over public criticism, viewing open conflict with FIFA as detrimental to the continent’s position in global football politics.
“By endorsing FIFA’s recent communications, CAF chose institutional stability, seeking to prevent perceptions of a fragmented membership and to safeguard the flow of FIFA Forward development grants.”
“It is a valid argument that, as a bloc representing 54 of FIFA’s 211 member associations — the second-largest voting bloc after UEFA — CAF bears responsibility for helping shape the organization’s direction.”
He asserts that when governance issues emerge, the collective voice of African football is strong enough to ensure that reforms are substantive rather than superficial.
He adds that silence can sometimes be interpreted as tacit approval of policies the continent does not fully endorse.
“Conversely, speaking out risks alienating the FIFA administration and could affect the allocation of resources.”
Hamata states that CAF’s leadership faces the challenge of striking a middle ground — being assertive on governance and integrity issues while remaining a cooperative partner in global football development.
CAF’s Influence
“It is a misconception to suggest CAF wields little influence,” Hamata remarks. “In terms of voting power, CAF is arguably the most influential confederation, though its influence varies by region.”
“UEFA, CONCACAF and AFC typically exert influence through commercial leverage, sustained media scrutiny, and the threat of alternative competitions, such as a boycott.”
He observes that Africa’s influence is traditionally political and demographic. While it may lack the financial or commercial leverage of Europe, its support is crucial for any FIFA president to retain a mandate.
“The present situation underscores a strategic divergence: Europe leverages its commercial strength, whereas Africa relies on its political capital to preserve cohesion.”
FIFA President Gianni Infantino
Hamata observes that, from a governance standpoint, the proposal to sell a stake in the FIFA Forward Enterprise was widely regarded as a fundamental error of judgment.
“Football is a social asset, not a private commodity,” he says. “The proposal to introduce private equity created an inherent conflict of interest between the duty to serve the global game and the obligation to generate returns for private investors.”
“The swift collapse of the plan, coupled with the resignation of senior advisers, indicates that the proposal lacked internal consensus and failed to address the values-based objections of stakeholders worldwide.”
Cracks in FIFA Governance
Hamata notes that FIFA is increasingly operating in a world where sport and geopolitics are inseparable. He observes that the 2026 World Cup environment was heavily shaped by the policies and personalities of the host nations.
“Reports of heads of state engaging directly with FIFA officials on specific regulatory matters — such as match officiating or FIFA awards — indicate that powerful political figures recognise the soft‑power value of football.”
He says that when an organization’s leadership is perceived as closely aligned with specific political interests, it risks appearing less like an independent global arbiter and more like an extension of state power.
“This inevitably creates cracks, as member associations from opposing geopolitical camps become uncomfortable with perceived biases.”
“The core criticism of the FIFA administration is the perceived shift from being a custodian of the game to a commander of it.”
He notes that critics cite the reversal of prior governance reforms — such as expanding the number of standing committees — as evidence of a move toward a patron‑driven system.
“By framing major governance failures as mere communication issues, the leadership has struggled to demonstrate the accountability expected by traditional football stakeholders.”
“There is also a growing disconnect between the administration’s focus on rapid commercial expansion — such as private equity schemes — and the membership’s desire for transparency, inclusivity, and traditional democratic processes.”
Hamata says the path forward for FIFA requires a return to collaborative governance, where the president acts as a peer among equals rather than an executive overseeing a commercial enterprise.
