Nigeria Football Federation Election — September 27, 2026: How Division Has Left Nigeria Without A Full FIFPRO Member Players’ Union

By Paul Lucky Okoku

For more than two decades, Nigerian players’ organisations have gone through division, reconciliation, reorganisation and renewed disagreement. Today, Nigeria remains outside the full membership structure of FIFPRO Africa.

This article is based on publicly available reports, statements and institutional records concerning the history and current state of players’ representation in Nigerian football.

Where competing positions have been reported, they are presented as such. Names are included only where they are relevant to understanding the documented history and the efforts made over the years toward reconciliation and representation.

Part of the reason for documenting this history now is timing. With another Nigeria Football Federation election approaching, the continuing differences within the players’ constituency raise an important institutional question: can Nigerian footballers effectively present their common concerns when efforts to establish one fully unified and internationally recognised players’ structure remain unfinished?

That question becomes particularly relevant during an election period, when organised constituencies have an opportunity to identify their priorities and place them before those seeking leadership.

The purpose here is not to determine who was right or wrong in earlier disputes. It is to place the available record together, examine where matters stand today and consider what may be lost when efforts toward unity remain unresolved — particularly for the players whose interests these organisations seek to represent.

I have made every reasonable effort to present the information accurately and fairly, and I remain open to documented corrections or additional historical context.

There is a line from Bob Marley’s

Zimbabwe that has stayed with me:

“No more internal power struggle.”

He was singing about a much greater historical struggle, and those words should be respected in that context.

But the principle behind them can also raise an important question wherever people pursuing common interests find themselves divided.

I thought about those words while examining the history of Nigerian footballers’ representation.

According to FIFPRO’s official account, representatives of a Nigerian players’ association were among those from seven non-member unions invited to observe the FIFPRO Africa General Assembly in Cairo on August 13 and 14, 2025. FIFPRO’s published account did not identify the Nigerian representatives by name.

The seven countries were Benin, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda. FIFPRO described their associations as aspiring to join the organisation.

FIFPRO did not state in that report why Nigeria had not attained full membership. However, publicly available records show that the country’s route toward recognition has unfolded against a long history of competing players’ bodies, reconciliation efforts and renewed disagreements over representation.

That history goes back years. In 2014, during an earlier attempt by a Nigerian players’ body to advance its FIFPRO affiliation, FIFPRO Africa established a process to examine the situation in Nigeria, including the union’s recognition within Nigerian football, its relationship with players and football institutions, player participation, governance and financial matters.

The available record therefore supports a connection between the unresolved question of unified representation and Nigeria’s long-running pursuit of international players-union recognition. But it would go beyond the evidence to say that FIFPRO has formally identified one particular faction or dispute as the sole reason Nigeria remains a non-member.

That distinction is important.

Nigeria was represented in Cairo, but not through a full FIFPRO member union.

For a country with Nigeria’s football history, that is significant.

Nigeria is a three-time African champion and won Olympic football gold in 1996. The country has produced African Footballers of the Year, European champions and generations of players who have competed at the highest levels of the game.

Yet, according to FIFPRO’s current structure, Nigeria remains outside the full member-union framework of FIFPRO Africa, which presently consists of 12 member unions.

How did we arrive at this point?

THE DIVISIONS DID NOT BEGIN YESTERDAY

The history is documented in publicly available reports.

According to reports published at the time, two players’ organisations attempted reconciliation in July 2020 after what The Nation described as more than twenty years of conflict.

One was the National Association of Nigerian Professional Footballers, NANPF, then led by former Super Eagles international Tijani Babangida.

The other was the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF, represented at the meeting by Harrison Jalla.

The report recorded the participation of several former internationals and football stakeholders and said a normalisation committee was established to work through outstanding issues and facilitate the coming together of the organisations.

At the time, there appeared to be genuine reason for optimism.

Later that year, a unified players’ body under Babangida’s leadership was publicly announced. Then-Sports Minister Sunday Dare welcomed the development and emphasised the importance of unity in protecting players’ welfare and rights. Harrison Jalla was among those listed on the new body’s Board of Trustees.

But the disagreements were not fully resolved.

By December 2022, the Nigeria Football Federation was again publicly addressing divisions involving players’ organisations.

The NFF established a reconciliation committee chaired by then-Edo State Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu. According to reports at the time, NFF President Ibrahim Gusau referred to discord among players’ bodies and said the Federation wanted reconciliation.

PFAN’s Task Force rejected the intervention. Harrison Jalla argued on its behalf that the issues were internal matters of an independent players’ union and should not be subject to external influence.

The public record therefore shows that differences remained not only over representation, but also over how those differences should be resolved.

THE FIFPRO PATHWAY WAS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED

There had been movement toward FIFPRO years earlier.

In December 2019, Tijani Babangida, then President of NANPF, visited FIFPRO officials in Amsterdam.

According to a report published at the time, FIFPRO Africa encouraged the Nigerian body to strengthen player representation and work with the football federation toward structures including a Players’ Status Committee and a National Dispute Resolution Chamber.

The same report said NANPF was expected to participate in a subsequent FIFPRO Africa congress as part of the process toward admission to the global players’ organisation.

That was in 2019.

In August 2025, FIFPRO’s own official account of its Africa General Assembly still identified Nigeria among countries represented by non-member unions aspiring to join.

The comparison between those two dates provides an important part of the documented history.

WHY REPRESENTATION MATTERS

This discussion is larger than organisational titles.

It concerns what effective representation means to footballers during their playing careers and, in some cases, after those careers have ended.

Who speaks when salaries are unpaid?

Who assists players facing contractual disputes?

What mechanism protects a player challenging an improper termination?

How effectively are current players themselves represented?

And when players eventually leave the game, what structures exist to help them prepare for life after football?

These are not abstract questions.

In August 2025, NANPF publicly called on the NFF Players’ Status and Arbitration Committee to address more than 100 outstanding contractual disputes involving clubs and players.

According to the union, those matters included unpaid salaries, contract terminations, outstanding transfer fees and withheld player clearances.

Those issues affect careers and livelihoods.

A credible representative structure therefore matters not merely because of international recognition, but because of the everyday problems professional footballers encounter.

FIFPRO membership is not merely symbolic. The organisation works with national player unions on legal protection, collective bargaining, contract guidance, dispute resolution, education, career transition and representation in international football decision-making.

That support does not necessarily end when the final whistle sounds on a player’s career.

FIFPRO states that only a minority of professional footballers achieve lifetime financial security from playing the game. Through national unions and partner programmes, it promotes education, career planning and skills development to help players prepare for life after football. Some programmes are also open specifically to retired players.

There is a health dimension as well.

FIFPRO and FIFA have previously operated an After Career Consultation Programme for recently retired professional footballers, providing medical examinations and guidance on issues including physical detraining, joint pain, diet and mental health. FIFPRO has also supported long-term research examining the physical and psychological health of players as they move from active football into retirement.

That is significant because retirement from football can bring challenges that are rarely visible when the crowds have gone home.

Some former players face difficulty establishing a second career. Others live with the long-term physical effects of injuries sustained while playing. Research cited by FIFPRO has also identified unemployment and post-career physical pain among factors associated with mental-health difficulties in retired professional footballers.

There is also a direct financial dimension to player protection. Under a new FIFA–FIFPRO agreement announced in June 2026, the FIFA Fund for Professional Players was allocated US$20 million for the 2026–2029 period to assist qualifying players who are unable to recover outstanding salaries from insolvent or bankrupt clubs.

FIFPRO says the previous version of the fund provided financial assistance to more than 1,000 players worldwide.

That does not mean every FIFPRO member union receives a fixed annual cash payment, nor does it mean every retired player automatically qualifies for financial assistance.

The broader value lies in being connected to an organised international network concerned with players’ employment rights, education, health, career transition and collective representation.

For Nigeria, therefore, the question of full membership is not simply about having a seat at an international meeting.

It raises a broader practical question:

Do Nigerian footballers — active and retired — have the strongest possible representative structure through which their collective interests can be protected during their careers and their transition beyond the game?

And do retired players have a strong enough representative structure to support career transition, health, welfare and life after football?

That question becomes particularly important when active players are dealing with unpaid salaries and unresolved contracts while many former players are also navigating life after football, sometimes with financial, professional or health challenges.

It would go beyond the available evidence to say that Nigeria’s internal disagreements alone caused those difficulties.

But it is reasonable to ask whether a more unified, internationally connected players’ structure could give Nigerian footballers a stronger platform from which to address them.

THE WIDER LABOUR QUESTION

Players are not the only football professionals who have experienced contractual disputes.

Nigerian coaches have also publicly raised concerns over unpaid or delayed contractual entitlements over the years.

There is an important distinction here.

FIFPRO is an organisation representing professional footballers and players’ unions. It is not a coaches’ union.

However, the wider football dispute-resolution framework covers both constituencies in different ways.

FIFA’s Football Tribunal states that its Players’ Status Chamber has jurisdiction over qualifying employment-related disputes between a club and a coach of an international dimension, as well as between a football association and a coach of an international dimension.

FIFPRO also explains that a properly constituted National Dispute Resolution Chamber can address employment disputes between employees — described as players and/or coaches — and clubs.

So a unified players’ organisation would not, by itself, solve every problem involving coaches.

But effective representation and credible dispute-resolution institutions belong to the same broader question: does football provide dependable mechanisms for people to enforce their contractual rights?

That question continues to matter in Nigeria.

In November 2025, for example, Super Eagles players boycotted training ahead of a World Cup qualifying playoff amid a dispute over unpaid bonuses reportedly dating back to 2019. The players subsequently announced that the matter had been resolved sufficiently for them to return to training.

Whatever the individual circumstances of different cases, the recurrence of payment and contractual disputes demonstrates why functioning institutions matter.

EDEMA FULUDU RAISED THE ISSUE FROM WITHIN

Concerns about internal division have also come from former players themselves.

In April 2022, former Super Eagles international Edema Fuludu (MON), gave a wide-ranging assessment of Nigerian football in which he discussed government, administrators, players, coaches, referees and the media.

When discussing the players’ union, Fuludu attributed part of its difficulties to what he described as internal greed, ego and selfishness and argued that division had weakened the ability to confront common problems.

He also criticised weaknesses within the organisation of coaches and other constituencies in Nigerian football.

Those were Fuludu’s views, expressed publicly at the time.

They are relevant here not because they settle the argument, but because they show that concerns about division have also been raised from within the football community itself.

THE RECORD CONTAINS DIFFERENT POSITIONS

This article does not attempt to decide whether NANPF, NANF, PFAN or any individual was correct in every disagreement.

The available reports reflect competing positions.

There may also be history, private discussions and legitimate grievances that cannot be fully reconstructed from published material.

What the public record does establish is that there have been repeated attempts at reconciliation, subsequent disagreements and continuing questions over representation.

That distinction matters.

Disagreement by itself is not unusual.

Healthy organisations can disagree.

People pursuing similar objectives can differ over leadership, structure, strategy and method.

The institutional question is what happens when those differences remain unresolved over an extended period.

SEPTEMBER 27 ADDS URGENCY

There is a reason this history deserves attention now.

The Nigeria Football Federation has officially scheduled its Elective Congress for Sunday, September 27, 2026, in Lafia, Nasarawa State.

This article is not about which candidate Nigerian footballers should support.

Nor is it an argument that every player or former international must hold the same opinion about the election.

The narrower question is whether a constituency can make its common priorities heard most effectively when questions remain over who speaks for it.

Player welfare.

Contract enforcement.

Effective dispute resolution.

International recognition.

Meaningful representation.

Those issues exist regardless of which candidate anyone supports.

A major election therefore provides another moment in which the state of players’ representation becomes relevant.

FROM THE MIDFIELDER’S EYE

A midfielder often sees the game from a different angle.

The role is not only to watch the ball, but to understand what is happening around it — where the pressure is coming from, where the spaces are opening, and how different parts of the team connect.

Viewed from that perspective, disagreements that have lasted many years are unlikely to exist without reasons. The public record also shows that genuine efforts at reconciliation have been made, and those efforts deserve to be acknowledged.

The larger concern is the opportunity cost when reconciliation remains unfinished.

An NFF election is approaching. Ordinarily, an election period provides an opportunity for a constituency to identify what it has in common and make those concerns known.

That does not require everybody to support one candidate.

A united institutional voice is not the same thing as a unanimous political choice.

People can disagree about personalities and still recognise common interests.

And while disagreements continue, there are players dealing with unpaid salaries, unresolved contracts and career uncertainty.

There are former players trying to make the transition from professional football into a second career.

Some are living with the physical consequences of injuries sustained during their playing years.

Others may also face the mental and emotional strain that can accompany career-ending injuries, unemployment, financial insecurity or the sudden loss of the structure and identity that professional football once provided.

Coaches too have pursued unpaid contractual entitlements and dealt with the uncertainty that comes with delayed salaries and unresolved disputes.

There is also another generation coming behind them.

Seen from the middle of the field, that is where the larger question lies.

Not simply who leads which organisation, but who ultimately benefits from the organisations being there.

Representation should matter while a player is active. It should also matter when the boots come off and the next phase of life begins.

That is why career transition, health, mental health, welfare, legal protection and contractual enforcement belong in the broader conversation about what effective representation can mean.

The reconciliation efforts already made over the years provide evidence that common ground has been sought before.

If further common ground can eventually be found, the greatest beneficiaries should be the people whose welfare and representation are at the centre of the discussion.

FINAL REFLECTION: THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE DISPUTE

This brings me back to Bob Marley.

After the disagreements, attempted reconciliations, organisational changes and unresolved questions, another brief line from his music seems appropriate:

“Unite for the benefit of your people.”

Because behind every institutional argument are people.

The current player seeking protection.

The former player trying to build a life after football.

The player carrying the physical or mental consequences of an injury.

The coach seeking enforcement of a contract.

The young footballer who will inherit whatever system today’s generation leaves behind.

When salaries remain unpaid, contracts remain unresolved, welfare concerns continue, career transitions are difficult and representation remains fragmented, the consequences are not abstract.

They are carried by people.

That is why the history matters.

Not to reopen yesterday’s quarrels.

Not to pronounce winners and losers.

But to understand where things stand and what remains unresolved.

FIFPRO’s August 2025 record gives us one measurable fact: Nigeria was still represented at its African General Assembly by a non-member union, alongside six other African countries whose associations were aspiring to join.

The NFF election on September 27 provides another moment to reflect on what Nigerian footballers collectively want their representation to become.

Perhaps that is enough reason to keep the conversation going.

“No more internal power struggle”.

“Unite for the benefit of your people”.

The player should be the beneficiary.

Nigerian football should be the winner.

SHARE NOTE

If you believe Nigerian footballers deserve stronger representation, effective protection and a credible collective voice, please consider sharing this article with current players, former internationals, coaches, administrators and others who care about the future of Nigerian football.

This is not about choosing sides in an old dispute.

It is about examining the documented history, recognising the efforts already made toward reconciliation, and considering whether further common ground can strengthen the people the system is intended to serve.

The player should be the beneficiary. Nigerian football should be the winner.