NSC Moves To Pacify State FAs As NFF Crisis Deepens

The National Sports Commission (NSC) has reportedly moved to pacify the state Football Associations (FAs) following their hardline position on the unfolding crisis in the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF), with the associations insisting that the federation’s constitutional order must be respected.

According to a report by Vanguard Newspaper, the development followed an emergency online meeting of the state FAs on Wednesday, where the associations reportedly maintained their opposition to any attempt to dissolve the NFF Congress, in which they constitute the bulk of the membership.

The report said that before the conclusion of the meeting, NSC Director General Bukola Olopade reached out to the FAs and requested a meeting to harmonise their differences. The meeting is scheduled for 3:00pm today.

The state FAs have reportedly written to FIFA over the development, insisting that they are not opposed to the proposed Normalisation Committee or genuine reforms of Nigerian football, but object to what they consider the sweeping dissolution of the Electoral Committee and Congress.

A source within the FAs, according to Vanguard, said the associations respected President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s position on the need to reform Nigerian football and were prepared to work with the NSC to reposition the game.

‘We respect the position of the President, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and we’re ready to work with the NSC to reposition football but we will not take a back seat because we’re the grassroots body responsible for the development of the game in the country,’ the source said.

The source also rejected any proposal to reduce the representation of the state FAs in Congress, arguing instead that other stakeholders could be accommodated without weakening the role of the grassroots associations.

‘We’re also not going to concede to the plan to reduce our membership of the Congress, instead the NSC should be ready to accommodate as much as other bodies like the lawyers, the engineers and the marketers who are also important stakeholders in the football ecosystem,’ the source added.

The Vanguard report also suggested that contrary to claims that FIFA had expressly endorsed the restructuring proposal being advanced by the NSC, the world football governing body merely welcomed the proposal and directed the Nigerian authorities to approach the NFF Congress for a final resolution of the impasse.

That development is significant because it puts the NFF Congress, rather than the Secretariat or any government sports agency, back at the centre of the dispute.

The Congress is recognised under the NFF’s constitutional framework as the supreme body of the federation. Any attempt to fundamentally alter its composition therefore raises a basic question of authority: who has the power to dissolve or restructure Congress?

The question becomes even more pertinent given the backgrounds of some of the principal actors.

NSC Chairman Shehu Dikko is a former NFF First Vice President, having served alongside Amaju Pinnick during Pinnick’s two terms as NFF President. Both men therefore have considerable experience of the federation’s constitutional structures and the role of Congress in dealing with disputes involving the government and the NFF.

That experience makes the present development difficult to understand. Would former NFF officials who know the federation’s Statutes not have been expected to advise that the constitutional provisions be followed before extraordinary administrative steps were taken?

And if the Statutes already provide a mechanism for dealing with resignations from the Executive Committee, why was that route not followed in the first instance? What Do The Statutes Say?

The controversy goes beyond the Electoral Committee. Acting General Secretary Dr Emmanuel Ikpeme has faced questions over the directive purporting to dissolve the NFF Electoral Committee, a body established through the federation’s statutory structures.

The key question is whether the NFF Statutes actually confer such authority on the Acting General Secretary. If the Electoral Committee was constituted through the appropriate statutory process, then any decision to dissolve it should equally be traceable to a specific provision of the Statutes. But the more fundamental issue concerns Congress itself.

If Congress is the supreme body of the NFF, neither the General Secretary nor the Secretariat can simply assume powers that belong to Congress. The same principle raises questions about whether the Executive Committee has the power to dissolve Congress and, more broadly, whether the NSC can administratively abolish or fundamentally restructure the Congress of the NFF.

The NFF Statutes were amended by Congress at an Extraordinary General Assembly in Yenagoa on March 23, 2026. That amendment itself demonstrates that Congress has the constitutional mechanism to change the federation’s governing framework.

If the Federal Government believes that the existing Congress is too narrow, too old-fashioned or does not adequately represent the modern football ecosystem, it can propose changes. If the government wants lawyers, engineers, marketers, players, the media, security agencies or other stakeholders represented, those proposals can be presented to Congress.

If the government wants the Statutes amended, Congress can amend them in accordance with the prescribed procedure. What becomes difficult to justify is attempting to achieve the same objective by simply dissolving the body that has the constitutional responsibility to approve the changes.

The NFF controversy also exposes a recurring problem in Nigerian sports administration: the apparent tendency to regard federation constitutions as obstacles rather than binding governance instruments.

This is not the first time the conduct of a sports federation has generated questions over compliance with its own constitution. The controversies surrounding the 2025 Athletics Federation of Nigeria elections similarly raised concerns about adherence to the federation’s governing provisions. The larger lesson should be obvious.

A constitution cannot be respected only when it produces a convenient outcome. It determines who has authority, how elections are conducted, how vacancies are filled, how Congress functions and how fundamental changes are made.

Government has every right to demand reform of Nigerian football. President Tinubu can insist on better governance. The NSC can formulate a new football reform agenda. But government policy and constitutional authority are not necessarily the same thing.

The state FAs have now indicated that they are willing to engage the government. The NSC’s decision to meet them is therefore an opportunity to prevent the dispute from escalating into another prolonged battle between government and the football federation.

But the fundamental principle should remain clear. Nigerian football needs reform, but reform must not become an excuse for abandoning the rules that govern Nigerian football. And with FIFA reportedly directing the Nigerian authorities back to Congress, the supreme body of the NFF has once again become impossible to ignore.