Playing football does not automatically qualify anyone to run the NFF. Agreed. But neither does being a journalist, businessman, politician—or even a football administrator. Leadership must be earned through competence, integrity, performance and accountability.
By Paul Lucky Okoku
Whenever the possibility of former footballers playing a greater role in the administration of Nigerian football is raised, one response seems to arrive almost automatically:
Playing football does not qualify someone to administer football. Admittedly, that is true.
A distinguished playing career should never be an automatic ticket to the presidency of the Nigeria Football Federation or any other leadership position in football.
But why do we sometimes speak as though this principle applies uniquely to footballers? Being a journalist does not automatically make someone capable of leading a media organisation.
Being a lawyer does not automatically qualify someone to manage a law firm. Being a doctor does not automatically make someone an effective hospital administrator.
Being a successful businessman does not automatically make someone capable of running a national institution.
And spending years inside an organisation does not mean everyone there is capable of leading it. Every profession contains competent people who are not necessarily leaders. Leadership requires something more.
So instead of beginning with whether someone once played football, perhaps Nigerian football should begin with a more important question: What exactly qualifies anyone to lead?
LEADERSHIP IS A DIFFERENT SKILL
Technical knowledge and leadership are related, but they are not identical.
A footballer can understand the game brilliantly and still be a poor administrator. A journalist can understand journalism and still be a poor executive. A businessman can be commercially successful and still struggle with institutional governance.
Likewise, someone can spend decades in football administration without demonstrating effective leadership.
Leadership requires competence, judgement, responsibility, financial stewardship, communication, integrity, accountability and the ability to build institutions that function beyond the person occupying the office.
That standard should apply to everybody. Not one standard for footballers and another for those already inside football administration.
PERFORMANCE, NOT TITLE, SHOULD BE THE EVIDENCE
Leadership is not merely occupying office. It is not winning an election. It is not attending FIFA and CAF meetings. It is not mastering the alliances required to survive football politics.
The real evidence of leadership is performance.
Are commitments honoured?
Are finances managed properly?
Are players and coaches treated professionally?
Are institutions strengthened?
Are development structures improving?
Are problems corrected when they emerge?
And when something goes seriously wrong, is responsibility accepted?
That does not mean leaders should resign after every defeat, controversy or mistake. Sometimes leadership requires remaining in office, correcting the problem and rebuilding confidence.
But when failures become systemic, objectives repeatedly collapse or institutional confidence is fundamentally lost, stepping aside can also be an honourable expression of responsibility.
Nigeria witnessed that principle on August 27, 2026, when Ibrahim Gusau resigned as NFF President alongside General Secretary Mohammed Sanusi and members of the Executive Committee.
Whatever assessment history ultimately makes of that administration, Gusau said his resignation was intended to allow a comprehensive and orderly reform process.
That decision deserves to be acknowledged.
If we demand accountability, we should also recognise it when a leader accepts that an institution may need a new direction.
HOW MANY GENERATIONS SHOULD WAIT TO BE PAID?
Another measure of administration is whether commitments to the people performing on the field are honoured.
Arguments over bonuses, allowances, salaries and player welfare in Nigerian football did not begin with the most recent NFF administration.
They did not begin in 2016.
They did not begin in 2025.
They have crossed generations.
Senior Nigerian internationals who played in the 1970s have spoken about experiencing many of the same frustrations during their own era — camp allowances, bonuses and other entitlements that were not always paid when promised.
The generation of the 1980s encountered similar problems.
Players waited for bonuses and allowances.
Coaches experienced salary delays.
Promises were made, and those performing on behalf of the country were left wondering when those commitments would actually be honoured.
Then came the generation of the 1990s.
Sunday Oliseh has spoken publicly about how players of his era sometimes had to fight for match bonuses and take collective action before payments were made.
At the 1998 World Cup in France, a bonus dispute disrupted the Super Eagles’ preparations before the second-round match against Denmark. Oliseh later reflected that the team spent too much energy arguing over bonuses before that match.
Then came another generation.
And another.
In 2016, the Super Falcons returned from Cameroon as African champions and remained at an Abuja hotel while demanding unpaid bonuses and allowances before government intervention helped resolve the dispute.
Then, in November 2025, Super Eagles players again boycotted training before a crucial World Cup playoff against Gabon over outstanding payments.
Think about the chronology.
The 1970s.
The 1980s.
The 1990s.
The 2000s.
The 2010s.
The 2020s.
Different players.
Different coaches.
Different administrators.
Different governments.
Yet some of the same welfare and payment problems have survived.
At what point do we stop describing this as an occasional financial difficulty and begin asking whether it represents a persistent management failure?
Payment of bonuses is management.
Payment of coaches’ salaries is management.
Player welfare is management.
Honouring commitments is management.
Planning is management.
Financial control is management.
Accountability is management.
And when the same management failures survive administration after administration, generation after generation, they eventually become part of the evidence by which leadership itself should be judged.
That matters enormously when former footballers are casually told that playing football does not qualify them to administer the game.
Perhaps some former footballers would fail.
Perhaps some would succeed.
But for decades, Nigerian football has largely been administered by people who were not former international footballers.
They have been given the opportunity.
They have been tested.
Their historical performance is available for examination.
And yet some of the same fundamental management problems have continued from one generation of footballers to another.
So the comparison must be fair.
You cannot use a former footballer’s lack of opportunity as evidence of incompetence while ignoring the historical performance of non-players who have repeatedly been given the opportunity to administer the game.
Being a non-player never automatically disqualified those administrators from leadership.
Being a former player should not automatically disqualify anyone either.
The test should be the same for both:
What are your qualifications? What have you managed? What have you achieved? And what evidence suggests that you can lead?
If non-players are assessed individually rather than collectively condemned whenever one administrator fails, former footballers deserve exactly the same standard.
One unsuccessful former player should not prove that footballers cannot lead.
Just as failures by individual non-players do not prove that every non-player is incapable of administration.
Judge the individual.
Judge the competence.
Judge the record.
But do not deny one group the opportunity and then use the absence of that opportunity as evidence that they were never capable of succeeding.
How many generations of Nigerian footballers should still be discussing unpaid bonuses, allowances, salaries and player welfare?
That is not merely a player-welfare problem.
It is a management problem.
And after several generations, it is legitimate to call it what it ultimately becomes:
a leadership problem.
FINANCIAL PRESSURE DOES NOT REMOVE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
The NFF operates under genuine financial pressure.
International travel is expensive. Camps, hotels, transportation, equipment, medical services and match logistics require enormous resources. Government funding may not always arrive when expected.
Those realities should be acknowledged.
But managing difficult realities is precisely part of leadership.
An institution must budget realistically, prioritise obligations, develop sustainable revenue, negotiate commitments it can honour and communicate transparently when circumstances prevent it from meeting those commitments.
Being short of money may explain why a payment was delayed.
It cannot become a permanent management model.
THE $236,000 QUESTION WAS ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Financial leadership also means safeguarding institutional assets.
In 2009, approximately $236,000 was reported missing from a safe inside the NFF headquarters in Abuja.
The incident triggered police investigation and government scrutiny.
I have not found reliable evidence establishing that any particular NFF official personally stole the money or that anyone was ultimately convicted specifically for taking it.
Therefore, nobody should be accused without evidence.
But protecting individuals from unsupported accusations does not remove the institutional question:
How could such an amount reportedly disappear from a safe inside the headquarters of Nigeria’s football federation?
What controls failed?
Was the money recovered?
What procedures were strengthened afterward?
Accountability is not merely about finding somebody to punish.
Good governance also means identifying weaknesses and ensuring that the same failure cannot easily happen again.
ACCOUNTABILITY ALSO REQUIRES FAIRNESS
After the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, Nigerian football again entered a period of intense financial scrutiny.
Former NFF President Sani Lulu and former officials Amanze Uchegbulam, Bolaji Ojo-Oba and Taiwo Ogunjobi faced prosecution involving allegations of financial misconduct and mismanagement.
There were also allegations surrounding property in South Africa.
But fairness requires the complete story.
The former officials were ultimately cleared through the judicial process.
Those allegations therefore cannot responsibly be presented today as proof that they stole Nigerian football money or acquired property with stolen funds.
Accountability must never mean presuming guilt.
If we demand evidence when questioning administrators, we must equally respect the outcome when allegations are not established.
That too is integrity.
FIFA AUTONOMY IS REAL
Whenever Nigerian football administration becomes entangled with government action or court proceedings, one warning quickly follows:
FIFA will ban Nigeria.
History tells us that warning cannot simply be dismissed.
FIFA suspended Nigeria in 2010 over what it regarded as government interference.
Nigeria was suspended again in 2014 after government and court actions affected the recognised NFF leadership.
And in 2018, FIFA threatened another suspension unless effective control of the federation was restored to the Amaju Pinnick-led executive committee. Nigeria complied, and the sanction did not take effect.
So the principle is real.
FIFA requires member associations to conduct their affairs independently and without undue third-party influence.
Nigeria must respect that obligation.
BUT AUTONOMY CANNOT BECOME IMMUNITY
Protecting football from political takeover is necessary.
Imagine if every new government could dismiss the NFF president and appoint a political ally.
Football administration would simply become an extension of partisan government.
That would be dangerous.
But the opposite extreme is equally problematic: treating football autonomy as though administrators are beyond legitimate national accountability.
Government should not control football.
But football cannot be above the law.
When Nigerian public funds enter football, Nigerians have a legitimate interest in knowing how those resources are managed.
When credible questions arise concerning auditing, financial controls or possible criminal wrongdoing, football statutes should not become an automatic shield against legitimate investigation.
The challenge is establishing the correct boundary between interference and accountability.
They are not the same thing.
NIGERIA NEEDS CREDIBLE DISPUTE-RESOLUTION MECHANISMS
Taking football governance disputes into ordinary courts can create consequences far beyond the individuals involved.
Nigeria has experienced this before.
Court battles involving the NFF have contributed to confrontations with FIFA in which national teams, clubs and players who had nothing to do with the original dispute were placed at risk.
That creates a legitimate deterrent.
But the solution cannot be institutional helplessness.
Nigerian football needs strong, credible and independent mechanisms capable of resolving governance disputes fairly without every major disagreement becoming either political intervention or a confrontation with FIFA.
Football autonomy works best when football institutions themselves are trustworthy enough to resolve disputes.
PUBLIC SCRUTINY IS NOT THE PROBLEM
There is sometimes a temptation to accuse those who discuss Nigerian football’s problems publicly of exposing the country’s dirty laundry.
But reporting a problem does not create the problem.
If players boycott training because bonuses have not been paid, the media will report it.
If African champions remain in a hotel demanding their entitlements, people will notice.
The solution is not attacking those who report institutional failures.
The solution is reducing the failures available to be reported.
Transparency may be uncomfortable.
Credible institutions survive scrutiny.
WHAT DOES THE FORMER FOOTBALLER ACTUALLY BRING?
Now return to the footballer.
Playing the game does not automatically qualify anyone to administer it.
Agreed.
But playing experience should not be casually dismissed either.
Former internationals understand dressing rooms, training camps, selection pressures, travel conditions, player psychology and what administrative decisions look like from the other side of the desk.
Those who played professionally abroad may also have experienced different league structures, club cultures and administrative systems.
And their lives did not necessarily end when they removed their boots.
Some earned university degrees.
Some built businesses.
Some became coaches.
Some entered corporate management.
Some acquired financial, legal, technical, academic or administrative experience.
Some did none of those things.
That is precisely why former footballers should be assessed individually rather than stereotyped collectively.
Football experience does not replace professional preparation.
It can complement it.
ONE STANDARD FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
This is where Nigerian football must become intellectually consistent.
Do not ask the former footballer:
What have you ever managed?
without asking the administrator:
What have you successfully managed?
Do not ask the footballer:
What do you know about finance?
without examining the financial competence of those already administering football.
Do not ask:
What leadership experience does this former player possess?
without asking exactly the same question of state FA chairmen, club executives, businessmen, politicians, journalists and anyone else seeking football office.
Nobody deserves leadership because of the boots he once wore.
Nobody deserves leadership because of the profession printed on a business card.
And nobody deserves leadership merely because he has already occupied football office.
Candidates should be measured by preparation, competence, integrity, vision, experience, performance and accountability.
THE REAL QUESTION IS WHO CAN LEAD
So perhaps Nigerian football has been asking the wrong question.
The question should not be:
Can footballers lead?
Some can.
Some cannot.
Just as some journalists can lead and others cannot.
Some lawyers can lead and others cannot.
Some businessmen can lead and others cannot.
Some career football administrators can lead and others cannot.
Every profession contains excellent leaders, average leaders and people who should never be placed in charge of an institution.
Footballers are not an exception.
So when someone says:
“Playing football doesn’t mean you can lead football,”
the answer should be:
Agreed.
But neither does being a journalist.
Neither does being a businessman.
Neither does being a politician.
Neither does being a lawyer.
And neither does already being a football administrator.
Let us stop using profession as a substitute for evidence.
Let us define leadership.
Let us measure competence.
Let us examine preparation.
Let us demand integrity.
Let us evaluate performance.
And let us insist upon accountability.
Then apply exactly the same standard to everybody seeking responsibility for Nigerian football.
Because football experience is not an automatic qualification for leadership.
But neither is football administration.
The qualification should be competence.
The evidence should be performance.
The foundation should be integrity.
And the final test should be accountability.
That is how Nigerian football should decide who is capable of leading it.
Paul Lucky Okoku
FIFA Legend | Former Nigeria Flying Eagles Vice-Captain | Former Super Eagles International | AFCON Silver Medalist | Football Historian | Football Analyst | Journalist-at-Large | Founder & CEO, Greater Tomorrow Children’s Foundation (GTCF)
