The sudden moral fervour directed at Confederation of African Football (Caf) president Patrice Motsepe would be more convincing were it not so conspicuous in its absence during the darkest chapter of African football administration.
Many of those who now posture as guardians of governance, transparency and accountability were either silent, complicit or comfortably disengaged during the autocratic and corruption-riddled reign of Issa Hayatou. Hayatou’s three-decade grip on Caf left the organisation institutionally hollowed out and financially imperilled.
The reality is this: at no point in its history has Caf experienced the degree of transparency, democratic practice and ethical leadership that has characterised the organisation under Motsepe’s stewardship.
Lest we forget, Motsepe did not inherit a well-run confederation. He inherited an entity burdened by debt, reputational damage and governance decay so entrenched that dysfunction had become normalised.
That reality is conveniently overlooked by critics who now recoil at the growing pains of reform, while refusing to acknowledge the structural rot that preceded it.
Since assuming office in 2021, Motsepe has overseen a clear financial turnaround. CAF shifted from a reported $41m (R661.6m) deficit to posting a profit in 2023/24, while annual grants to national federations were increased nearly threefold, from $150,000 to $400,000 (R2.4m to R6.4m).
These are not cosmetic gains; they strike at the core of restoring credibility, stability and long-term sustainability in African football.
Yet paradoxically, it is precisely at this moment of relative stabilisation that critics have “found their voice”.
The recent Africa Cup of Nations in Morocco — commercially successful, globally visible and fiercely competitive — should have been recognised as evidence of organisational recovery. Instead, it has been overshadowed by manufactured outrage and opportunistic narratives, including a wilful misreading of Caf’s unanimous decision to extend Afcon’s hosting cycle to four years, a move aligned with global trends in tournament optimisation and commercial growth.
To present it as recklessness is either disingenuous or ignorant of modern sports economics.
Much has also been made of governance controversies surrounding Caf’s secretariat, particularly allegations levelled against the secretary-general. The allegations are serious and warrant scrutiny.
Notably, Motsepe has consistently acted whenever allegations of impropriety have been levelled against officials within his ranks, instituting reviews, commissioning investigations and engaging the relevant governance processes rather than ignoring or suppressing such claims.
Scrutiny is not synonymous with trial by media, nor does it justify the selective absolution of past abuses under Hayatou, when corruption allegations were systemic, accountability mechanisms were non-existent and African football was run as a personal fiefdom.
What is particularly striking is the inconsistency. Where were these voices when African football revenues were opaque, when patronage networks flourished unchecked, and when dissent was punished with exile or silence? Where was this moral urgency when Caf was openly described as ungovernable?
Critics now suggest African football risks “relapsing” into the Hayatou era. This is a false equivalence. Reform is inherently messy, contested and uncomfortable, especially for vested interests accustomed to opacity.
To equate current institutional tension with three decades of autocracy is not analysis, it is historical amnesia.
Regarding unfounded accusations of favouritism, Motsepe was at pains to explain to journalists that all Caf member associations had been afforded the opportunity to bid to host the Women’s Africa Cup of Nations.
Morocco emerged as the sole federation willing to assume that responsibility, and the hosting rights were accordingly assigned on the basis of availability rather than favouritism or exclusion.
As matters stand, media reports suggest Morocco may, in fact, be reconsidering its willingness to host the tournament.
Should this be confirmed, the appropriate and constructive response from Motsepe’s critics would be to actively encourage other Caf member associations to step forward and bid for the hosting rights.
Regrettably, too many of the loudest critics appear less interested in strengthening the financial and institutional foundations of Caf and African football than in extending a perpetual begging bowl — one oriented toward extraction from the game rather than sustainable value creation within it. Hosting major tournaments is neither cost-free nor reputationally neutral; it requires political will, financial commitment and administrative capacity.
Publicly deriding leadership decisions while privately avoiding these responsibilities does little to advance the game.
If critics are genuinely concerned about governance, equity and transparency, they should channel that concern into mobilising capable host nations, expanding commercial partnerships and contributing ideas that grow revenues and reduce dependency.
African football will not be rescued by performative outrage or nostalgic appeals to a dysfunctional past, but by serious engagement with the hard economics of modern sport and a shared commitment to collective responsibility.
Clearly Motsepe was re-elected unopposed last year in recognition of his demonstrable and widely acknowledged record of sterling stewardship at the helm of the Caf.
None of this is to suggest Motsepe is above criticism. Leadership demands accountability, visibility and clarity, particularly in addressing governance concerns and external influence, including the relationship between Caf and Gianni Infantino.
These questions must be confronted honestly and transparently. But they must be confronted in good faith, not weaponised by those whose silence in the past and ill-advised African exceptionalism undermine their credibility in the present.
African football does not need performative outrage. It needs consistency, institutional memory and intellectual honesty. Those who tolerated, excused or benefited from decades of decay should reflect carefully before appointing themselves arbiters of reform.
The real danger to African football is not scrutiny — it is selective scrutiny and misplaced hubris.
Iit is precisely that double standard that now threatens to derail the most credible attempt in decades to place Caf on a sustainable, accountable and forward-looking path.
- Khaas is chairperson of Public Interest SA
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.