By Dr. Wole Olaleye

President Bola Tinubu’s directive for a comprehensive reform of Nigerian football could not have come at a more consequential moment. The resignation of Ibrahim Gusau as President of the Nigeria Football Federation, alongside the General Secretary and other Executive Committee members, has created an opportunity to confront the structural weaknesses that have held Nigerian football back for decades.

However, changing the NFF leadership is not, by itself, reform. Nigeria has replaced football administrators and national-team coaches many times, usually after disappointing tournament results. New promises are made, public anger subsides and attention returns to the next qualifying campaign. Yet the underlying system remains largely unchanged.

The President was therefore right to identify governance, administration, stakeholder representation, development pathways, domestic competitions and accountability as the areas requiring reform. Nigeria does not principally have a football-talent problem. It has a football-system problem.
Football is more than entertainment in Nigeria. It is one of the country’s strongest sources of shared national identity. It also provides livelihoods for players, coaches, referees, medical personnel, journalists, broadcasters, vendors and numerous other service providers. Its reform should therefore be treated as a national development undertaking, not merely as a response to the latest failure of the national teams.
The government
The first requirement is a credible, time-bound transition agreed with FIFA and the Confederation of African Football. Government has a legitimate responsibility to account for public expenditure, investigate possible wrongdoing, provide infrastructure and demand results. But it must avoid directly appointing NFF officers, determining electoral outcomes or interfering in team selection.

The solution is neither government control nor an NFF that invokes autonomy to escape accountability. Nigeria needs a football federation that is operationally independent, financially transparent and publicly accountable.
Second, the composition and function of the NFF Executive Committee should be reformed. The existing statutory model provides for 15 elected members. Although the reduction may appear modest, it should be replaced by a more focused 13-member board combining representation with professional competence.

The proposed board should comprise the President, a Vice-President, six members reflecting Nigeria’s geopolitical zones, one representative of women’s football, one representative of professional clubs and leagues, one representative drawn from players, coaches and referees, and two independent members with expertise in finance, audit, law, governance or commercial development.
At least four of the 13 members should be women, with a pathway towards 40 per cent representation. The General Secretary should not be a voting board member. He or she should be a professionally recruited chief executive responsible for implementing board decisions under a published performance contract.

A smaller board will not automatically guarantee good governance. Its value will come from clearly defined responsibilities, competency requirements, term limits, declarations of interest and enforceable ethical standards. The Executive Committee must become a strategic and oversight board rather than a representative cabinet or an operational management team.
State football associations remain important, but they should not exercise disproportionate control over NFF elections. Professional clubs, players, coaches, referees, women’s football and other stakeholders deserve meaningful representation in the NFF Congress. Independent audit, ethics, electoral, disciplinary and safeguarding bodies must also be protected from the political leadership of the federation.

Third, Nigeria should separate football regulation from professional league management. The NFF should govern the game, manage national teams, regulate competitions and lead technical development. A club-owned and professionally managed league company should operate and commercialise professional competitions.
South Africa offers a relevant example. Its Premier Soccer League administers professional football as an affiliate of the South African Football Association. It concentrates on fixtures, broadcasting, sponsorship, commercial rights and competition management, while the national association performs the broader governing role. Nigeria should adapt this functional separation without necessarily copying every aspect of the South African system.

The domestic league must become the foundation of Nigerian football. Clubs should not participate in the top division merely because state governments finance them. Licensing should require audited accounts, evidence that salaries can be paid, suitable pitches, qualified administrators, youth teams, safeguarding arrangements and appropriate medical facilities. Clubs unable to meet the requirements should not receive political waivers.

Fourth, Nigeria needs a unified national football-development philosophy. Japan’s “Japan’s Way” connects national teams, grassroots participation, youth development and coach education under a long-term vision. Germany requires professional clubs to maintain licensed academies and operates a nationwide talent-development network. France combines its national centre at Clairefontaine with regional academies, education, medicine and qualified coaching.
Morocco provides perhaps the most relevant African example. Its recent achievements emerged from years of investment in facilities, regional talent identification, qualified personnel and a connected academy system. The Mohammed VI Football Academy is not an isolated prestige project but the centre of a wider development network.
Nigeria should establish its own long-term philosophy—perhaps “Nigeria’s Way”—defining how players are identified, what they should learn at different ages, how coaches are trained and how young people progress from schools and communities to academies, professional clubs and national teams.

This requires regular competitions for girls and boys at under-13, under-15, under-17, under-20 and under-21 levels. It also requires a national digital registration system for players, coaches, referees, clubs and academies. Age-grade national teams should emerge from continuous development, not hurried selection camps shortly before tournaments.
Women’s football must be central to the reform. Nigeria’s historical success with the Super Falcons has concealed weaknesses in the domestic women’s game. Women need representation in football governance, properly funded leagues, qualified coaches, safe facilities, regular broadcasting and enforceable club-licensing standards.

Financial transparency is equally indispensable. The NFF should publish annual audited accounts, budget performance, sources of income, procurement awards, major contracts, and the use of FIFA, CAF and government grants. Public funding should be tied to defined deliverables and independently verified results.
Finally, the reform should have a public scorecard covering registered players, licensed coaches, accredited academies, youth competitions, financially compliant clubs, women’s teams, broadcast matches and completed infrastructure projects.

The true test of President Tinubu’s directive is not simply whether Nigeria qualifies for the next tournament. It is whether the country builds institutions capable of producing competitive teams consistently. Nigeria must create a football system that is independent but accountable, commercially ambitious but socially grounded, and rich in talent but successful by design.

Dr. Wole Olaleye is a public governance and development specialist who writes on state capability, institutional reform, public-sector performance and democratic accountability. He writes in from Johannesburg, South Africa. Email: [email protected]