Publicly, CAF is an institution.
Privately, it is a negotiation.
Every AFCON trophy, hosting decision, and disciplinary ruling is shaped less by statutes than by alliances, influence, and timing. AFCON 2025 did not create this reality — it exposed it.
African football is governed not only in boardrooms, but in relationships.
CAF as a Political Ecosystem, Not a Neutral Body
CAF’s formal structures suggest order: executive committees, congresses, statutes. In practice, power flows informally.
Influence is exercised through:
- Regional blocs
- Host nation leverage
- Federation loyalty networks
- Strategic silence
Decisions rarely emerge from confrontation. They emerge from consensus quietly engineered beforehand.
The Role of Regional Power Blocs
CAF politics is continental, but power is regional.
North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa each operate as voting ecosystems. Support is traded, not granted.
AFCON 2025 revealed how hosting, refereeing appointments, and administrative priorities reflect these alignments more than ideology.
No bloc dominates permanently. But some negotiate better than others.
Hosting Power as Political Capital
Hosting AFCON is no longer ceremonial. It is currency.
A host nation gains:
- Logistical influence
- Informal access to CAF leadership
- Narrative control
- Strategic goodwill
As Florsport outlined in its analysis of Morocco’s AFCON hosting strategy, infrastructure now doubles as influence.
FIFA’s Silent Hand
CAF does not operate in isolation.
FIFA funding, governance oversight, and reform frameworks shape the limits of CAF’s autonomy. While FIFA rarely intervenes publicly, its influence is structural.
CAF leadership operates within boundaries defined externally — and navigates them carefully.
This creates a governance paradox: African football sovereignty constrained by global accountability.
Why Reform Conversations Rarely Go Anywhere
Calls for reform surface after every AFCON controversy. Then they disappear.
Why?
Because reform threatens stability. And in CAF politics, stability often outweighs transparency.
Incremental change is tolerated. Structural disruption is not.
As explored earlier in Florsport’s breakdown of AFCON 2025 power dynamics beyond the trophy, governance reform is rarely neutral.
Referees, VAR, and Institutional Protection
Referees are the most visible governance actors — and the most exposed.
VAR controversies during AFCON 2025 highlighted a familiar pattern: institutional silence, delayed explanations, and quiet internal handling.
CAF protects the system first, individuals second, public confidence last.
This is not unique to Africa — but its consequences are amplified here.
Who Benefits from the Status Quo?
Not fans. Not players.
The beneficiaries are:
- Administrators with longevity
- Federations aligned with power centers
- Hosts with strategic leverage
The system rewards navigation, not confrontation.
The Question AFCON 2027 Will Force
AFCON 2027 will test whether CAF can evolve without destabilizing itself.
The key question is not whether CAF changes — but who controls the pace and direction of that change.
African football does not lack leadership.It lacks shared accountability.
Final Thought
CAF is not broken.
It is functioning exactly as designed.
The debate is whether that design still serves African football’s future.
Florsport International
We document African football so the world can never rewrite it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.