Why is the call for Financial Fair Play rules in South Africa and the continent currently the wrong cure for the wrong ailment?

Now and then there is a growing chorus of those who argue that African football should follow European example and put in place a model similar to Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. This is often driven by the need to curtail the growing spending gap between some of the billionaire-owned clubs and the rest, as well as increasing competitive imbalance. While there is a valid argument for financial prudence in Africa, a dangerous narrative is emerging—one that blindly imports European regulatory frameworks without understanding the fundamental differences in our development and economic landscape differences. The call for Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules in African football represents not just a wrong misunderstanding of our ecosystem, but a potential policy catastrophe that could further compromise and marginalise an already struggling sports infrastructure.

Context matters. Financial Fair Play (FFP) was first introduced in 2011 to address the financial instability of European football clubs. Its main goal was to ensure the long-term sustainability of these clubs by improving their economic and financial performance.1 The implementation of FFP led to significant improvements in the financial health of European football. This saw net losses reduce from an aggregate of €1.7 Billion in 2010/11 to an aggregate net profit of €578m in 2016/17 according to UEFA and Football Benchmark analysis. While the COVID-19 pandemic had a detrimental impact on clubs' finances, experts believe that FFP helped mitigate the severity of the financial distress.

Africa stands at a fundamentally different starting point. Our football ecosystem is characterized by scarcity—big billionaires or investors with significant financial, ?stable revenue sustainable models and strong balance sheets. Introducing FFP-like restrictions now would be akin to placing strict driving regulations on a continent with barely any roads. Africa needs to first create a growing, sustainable and investor-friendly football market and consequently attract investors to the game. In the South Africa Premier Soccer League, as an example only 11 of 16 premier division teams have a main sponsor. If we exclude associated party transactions (those bearing names of entities associated with their owners) and the public sector transactions, that number comes down to just 6. That a sign that more needs to be done to make football more investor attractive.

Simply put, Africa does not have enough billionaires competing and throwing billions to warrant such a call Imposing FFP-like rules in the current African context could have several devastating consequences:

1. Investor Deterrence

Complex financial regulations would further discourage potential investors, already cautious about African markets. The message sent would be one of restriction, not opportunity.

2. Devastating adverse impact on the smaller clubs and the pyramid.

Look at how much clubs like Pyramids and Mamelodi Sundowns have paid for players to provide lifesaving income for some of the smaller clubs and the rest of the football pyramid

3. Competitive Stagnation

Billionaire owners in England ensured that City and Chelsea, a perennial underachieving yo-yo club, became title contenders. Today eight clubs are potential title winners when 20 years ago it was perhaps 3 or 4. FFP at this point will simply stagnate the game.

4. Formalization of inequality

Such rules would effectively "freeze" the current competitive landscape, preventing ambitious owners or investors from rapidly transforming club fortunes through significant capital injection.

Many argue that it’s unfair to compete with these big clubs owned by billionaires in transfer markets and ultimately on the field. FFP was never about competitive balance, there will always be big clubs that will dominate the transfer market and competition for titles with or without FFP-type policies. However, the need for financial prudence is a genuine concern that must be addressed. Here are some of the ideas to deal with this. Firstly, developing flexible investment guidelines that protect clubs and the game without strangling potential growth. Secondly, build a strong and transparent financial position and reporting for the clubs and the games. UEFA annually published a report that shows revenues and breakdown thereof, costs to income, indebtedness, and investments. assets etc maybe CAF could start doing the same. Thirdly, invest in overall commercial and financial skills in the African game and finally, strengthen governance in African football.?

Just as European football underwent a gradual transformation, African football requires a patient approach. We must first make the ecosystem attractive, then create smart, contextual guardrails and controls. When I look at private equity money, there are hundreds of billions of dollars going all across the world from Europe, the Americas and Asia. Nothing is coming this way, and how could it? Africa simply does not present itself as an attractive investment industry.??The goal should be creating an environment where multiple owners can see viable, attractive pathways to investment—not implementing restrictive measures that suggest football is a liability rather than an opportunity.

Financial Fair Play, in the European context, was a mature market's refinement mechanism. For African football, it would be a premature and potentially destructive intervention whose cost and impact will not be worth the effort. Our focus must remain clear: Build an attractive, transparent, and dynamic football ecosystem that can organically attract diverse investments. Only then can we have the "luxury" of discussing spending controls and guardrails.

?

?