Last Thursday, at around noon, I received an article from a colleague for publication. Written by Zakariya Mohammed Das, the article was titled “Amid National Team Setbacks: Stakeholders Question Dikko–Olopade Leadership.”
After reading it, my first instinct was not to publish it because I considered the material weak and unconvincing.
However, because it came from a colleague who lives in Jos, the Plateau State capital, and runs a sports website like mine, I decided to give it a chance.
READ ON: Nine days without Dr. Bashir Ahmad Maizare: A tribute
From the headline to the final paragraph, I noticed several weaknesses that raised questions about the writer’s arguments and conclusions.
The writer claimed to speak on behalf of football stakeholders concerned about the declining state of Nigerian football, insisting that the system deserves better leadership and a clear sense of direction.
However, he failed to identify when and where the stakeholders met or whether any such gathering actually took place before their views were presented.
He then linked the disappointing performances of Nigeria’s national teams to the management of sports under the National Sports Commission (NSC), led by Chairman Shehu Dikko and Director-General Bukola Olopade.
This raises a fundamental question: When did Shehu Dikko and Bukola Olopade become the heads of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) to warrant being held directly responsible for the federation’s performance?
To many of us, Shehu Dikko and Bukola Olopade head the National Sports Commission (NSC), not the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).
It is therefore unfair to hold them directly responsible for the NFF’s failures without establishing their specific roles and responsibilities in the matters under criticism.
The writer also cited concerns among football stakeholders, administrators, coaches and supporters over the poor performance of Nigeria’s U-17 team against Niger Republic, arguing that the result raised serious questions about youth football development.
While these concerns deserve attention, the writer appears to have failed to distinguish between the responsibilities of the NSC and those of the NFF.
The NSC should not automatically be blamed for every poor performance by Nigeria’s national teams or disappointing results in CAF and FIFA competitions.
Such failures require a careful examination of the institutions involved, their respective responsibilities and the decisions that contributed to the outcomes.
The present NSC leadership should not be held responsible for every longstanding problem in Nigerian football.
The previous NFF administration must also be scrutinised for its policies, administrative decisions and record in developing the game.
Rather than directing criticism at Dikko and Olopade without clearly establishing their responsibility for these failures, the writer should have examined the role of the NFF and the decisions of those who managed Nigerian football in previous years.
Nigerian football has suffered from administrative shortcomings, misplaced priorities and inadequate long-term planning.
Too often, the struggle for power and the benefits associated with football administration appear to take precedence over the development of the game.
However, the NSC cannot be entirely divorced from the wider challenges facing Nigerian sports.
As the government’s apex sports body, it is responsible for coordinating sports development and providing direction for the country’s sporting sector, including its various federations.
This gives the Commission an important role in promoting accountability and supporting reforms within its mandate.
That broader responsibility, however, does not absolve individual federations, including the NFF, of accountability for their own administrative decisions and performance.
The Dikko–Olopade leadership should not be above criticism. But criticism must be based on facts, clearly defined responsibilities and measurable performance, rather than simply associating the leadership with every disappointing result recorded by our national teams.
Personally, I believe the NSC leadership deserves commendation for its intervention in the crisis surrounding Ibrahim Gusau’s NFF leadership.
Without that intervention, I fear Nigerian football might have sunk even deeper into the crisis confronting it.
The NSC’s reported efforts to engage CAF and FIFA for support in addressing the problems facing Nigerian football also deserve consideration.
Rather than dismissing such efforts, critics should examine the circumstances that prompted them and assess their potential contribution to reform.
A quick look at recent events reminds us that it was one embarrassment after another that brought the call for a Normalisation Committee to the forefront.
The repeated setbacks in Nigerian football have strengthened the case for a serious review of its administrative structure.
A Normalisation Committee, if established with the necessary international support and a clear mandate, could help address past wrongs, tackle administrative shortcomings and lay a stronger foundation for the future of the game.
Its success, however, would depend on its independence, the scope of its mandate and its commitment to implementing meaningful reforms.
Instead of focusing solely on criticising Dikko and Olopade over the poor performances of our national teams, the writer should also have examined the roles they have played in efforts to address the wider problems confronting Nigerian football.
Any intervention by the NSC must equally be assessed on its objectives, implementation and results.
Recognising efforts to address a crisis does not mean abandoning scrutiny of the people responsible for managing it.
You cannot demand accountability while ignoring efforts to address the very problems you are criticising.
Nigerian football needs honest journalism that examines the facts, identifies the real issues and gives credit where it is due.
Criticism should expose genuine failures, encourage reform and hold the right institutions accountable.
The future of Nigerian football depends on accountability, sound administration and a genuine commitment to development, not the misdirection of blame.
