The Geopolitics of African Football

The recently concluded African Cup of Nations in Morocco will go down in history for the most vivid and vibrant display of geopolitics in the continent’s most eminent sport, and for good reason. Morocco hosted the most technically and logistically impressive tournament, with impressive stadia and structures. The tournament itself rewarded the structure with strong performances, and its best players and teams advanced, making a mockery of the expected underdog story of previous tournaments. Hosts Morocco and eventual champions Senegal were worthy finalists, and the teams put on a well-done performance. 

However, the tournament has reminded us that there is a reason African geopolitics can confuse and confound storied diplomats. Depending on who you talk to, 54, 55 or 56 countries share the same landmass, but the considerations and loyalties are unique and varied across regions and nations. Different and shared colonial histories play a part, as well as languages and artificial boundaries that divide ancient kingdoms and ethnicities across national lines. Football is the new theatre of national warfare, and it has played a major role in determining its outcome.

For starters, we can look at hosting duties. Since 2019, AFCON has expanded to a 24-team tournament, and there have been solo hosts among the continent’s more established powers. Egypt, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, and now Morocco have been able to host all 52 matches and devote significant resources towards ensuring a strong performance. Ahead of the 2027 edition, to be co-hosted by Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, there were questions about the necessary infrastructure investment to match the Moroccan tournament. Confederation of African Football (CAF) President Patrice Motsepe has wisely mentioned that the game has to expand and grow beyond its established powers, but this limitation will no doubt lead to a sense of entitlement by those who do host. Motsepe also tellingly addressed the current fixation of tournaments in Morocco—the last two and next Women’s African Cup of Nations will be hosted by Morocco, the recently concluded Men’s tournament, World Cup playoffs and other cadet level championships, and co-hosting the forthcoming 2030 FIFA Men’s World Cup—as a result of the country stepping in to help when other countries are unable or unwilling to. This level of uneven investment leads to established biases and also helps host nations—Morocco was the third consecutive host nation to finish on the podium at AFCON. 

This bias might also inform the way countries’ own foreign policy and rivalries come to the fore. Morocco booed the Egyptian national anthem ahead of the team’s third-place playoff against Nigeria; conversely, Algerian and Egyptian commentators online celebrated Morocco’s loss in the Final. But while this could be construed as friendly rivalry, the regional rivalries morphed into both a North v South construct and smaller contests, especially when referee appointments were incorporated. 

CAF and African football earned plaudits for the refereeing and application of the Video Assistant Referee at the last AFCON in Cote d’Ivoire, but appear to have regressed at this tournament. Most of the complaints, from Tanzania, Cameroon, Mali and Nigeria, involved officiating that appeared to favour hosts Morocco. Tellingly, the referee at the middle of the Nigeria v Morocco game was criticised for his questionable decisions, despite it not being too far from the general standard at the tournament. The only assumption was that it took on an inflated status because he’s Ghanaian, and Nigerians assumed that their rivalry played a part in his decisions. While CAF can address this by devoting considerable effort to training referees and making such plans continent-wide, these appointments will no doubt be further scrutinised because of how important the game is and how these rivalries are interpreted. 

These issues fall under the ambit of how the game is managed and the perception of neutrality. Unfortunately, CAF set an uphill climb on the eve of the tournament by announcing the tournament would move from a two-year to a four-year tournament after the 2028 edition. The justification was to allow the continent to fully adapt to the global calendar, which is Western-based, and free players from the frequent participation that often risks their professional development since clubs avoid them to avert their absence. This puts it squarely in contest with the European Championships, but also doesn’t address the main concerns that dominate AFCON. 

First, the tournament is often held in January and February because most sub-Saharan countries have drier climates then and the favourable June-July window is often when they have rainy and monsoon seasons that will affect infrastructure, transportation and general hosting. This move doesn’t address that. Second, the incorporation of a proposed African Nations Leagues doesn’t address player fatigue with too many tournaments to take part in and could be another false start like the African Super League for clubs that only had one edition. 

These issues were raised in a press conference on the eve of the Final by veteran journalist Osasu Obayuwana, but Motsepe’s response failed to sufficiently address the question. When the exchange between the two made its way to social media, defenders of the president played on the nationality of the two – Motsepe is South African,  and Obayuwana is Nigerian – and resorted to identitarian insults to back their man. This lost opportunity also highlighted the biggest challenge—the presence of these subtle and underlying cleavages prevents honest and necessary dialogue about the future of the continent, football inclusive. 

The perception of these issues, especially CAF’s handling of referee assignments and perceived bias to certain powers, will affect how the continent responds to the events of Sunday night. CAF will be well within its rights to sanction Senegal for its part in the fiasco during the Final, but few will say it has earned the moral high ground following its seeming inability to address concerns that were mentioned during the tournament. These issues will also affect how the continent interacts across regions, with a lot of negative sentiments about North African football and Sub-Saharan participation repeated in echo chambers and no doubt in offline enclaves. For nearly seven decades, AFCON has been a powerful tool to unite the continent, but now its limitations have been laid bare and key questions about its ability to play this role have been raised. 

CAF alone cannot solve these issues, and neither should it be expected to. But football has increasingly become one of the few avenues for true pan-Africanism and engagement. Military-led nations such as Mali and Burkina Faso might not have strong diplomatic ties across the region and the continent, but they will play with rivals because football says so. There have been many instances of football and national heroes playing key roles in peacebuilding efforts and unifying statements. At its best, especially on a continent as passionate as Africa, football can truly help bridge these geopolitical divides. But this can only happen when we acknowledge it and begin the difficult but necessary steps of addressing it.