I recently came across a write-up by Sunday Agunbiade, popularly known as Mr VAR, titled “President Tinubu: Stakeholders Challenge NSC to Publish Two-Year Budget Releases, Expenditure and Performance Scorecard.”
The article, with the subheading “Dikko, Olopade Urged to Provide Evidence of Impact Across Nigeria’s Sporting Federations,” was forwarded to me via WhatsApp by a former colleague at the Triumph Publishing Company.
After carefully reading the piece, I was left with several questions. Who are the stakeholders making these demands? What interests do they represent, and what exactly are they seeking to achieve?
These questions matter because accountability, though essential, should not become a tool for undermining genuine progress.
Demanding transparency is legitimate, but it must go hand in hand with a fair assessment of performance, achievements and the challenges facing Nigerian sports.
In my view, the leadership of the National Sports Commission (NSC), under Chairman Shehu Dikko and Director-General Bukola Olopade, deserves recognition for its efforts to address long-standing problems in Nigerian sports.
Rather than focusing solely on demanding explanations from the duo, stakeholders should also examine their interventions, recognise measurable progress and encourage further reforms.
Sports stakeholders should be partners in progress, not merely critics. Where shortcomings exist, constructive criticism and accountability are necessary. Equally, where progress is evident, commendation should not be withheld.
One issue that deserves particular attention is the longstanding crisis surrounding the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) and the influence of State Football Association chairmen in the NFF.
For years, the numerical strength of state FA chairmen within the federation’s decision-making and elective congress structure has raised concerns about the balance of power and the representation of other stakeholders. Critics have argued that this arrangement gave state FA chairmen disproportionate influence over the federation’s affairs.
In my assessment, this concentration of influence did little to inspire confidence in the administration of Nigerian football.
The country has continued to experience disappointing results, administrative disputes and persistent challenges in developing the game.
There have also been concerns about whether the interests of some football administrators have been placed above the broader development of the sport, including allegations surrounding the benefits associated with foreign trips.
The consequences of poor football administration are felt across the game. Our national teams have suffered disappointing defeats, sometimes against opponents from countries with less established football traditions.
Although results depend on several factors, including coaching, preparation, funding and player development, the decline in consistency has raised questions about the direction of Nigerian football.
The domestic league presents another major challenge. Persistent concerns about its administration, competitiveness and attractiveness have contributed to doubts about its ability to command the interest and loyalty of local fans.
The problem extends to continental competitions. Nigerian clubs that win the league or the Federation Cup and qualify for Confederation of African Football (CAF) competitions have often struggled to progress beyond the early rounds.
The recent exit of Enugu Rangers FC and El-Kanemi Warrious FC from CAF competitions are good example
These performances raise questions about club preparation, investment, league standards and the effectiveness of football administration.
Against this background, I believe Dikko and Olopade deserve recognition for their efforts to address the crisis surrounding the NFF.
Their decision to seek FIFA’s intervention, and the subsequent approval of a Normalisation Committee, represent an important development in the search for a resolution.
I am sure these interventions will help address governance problems, improve accountability and restore confidence in Nigerian football. That alone will make them to deserve commendation. And the process and its eventual results, however, must be assessed on their merits.
Dikko and Olopade’s responsibilities extend beyond football to other sports federations under the NSC’s supervisory mandate.
Following the recently concluded federation elections, various disputes and administrative challenges emerged across the sporting sector.
The duo have been involved in efforts to address some of these issues through their administrative experience and engagement with stakeholders.
Such interventions are important because disputes left unresolved can disrupt preparations, undermine confidence and hinder the development of athletes.
Efforts to promote dialogue, resolve disagreements and restore stability therefore deserve attention in any assessment of the Commission’s performance.
This does not mean that every action taken by the NSC leadership should escape scrutiny. Rather, its interventions should be judged fairly, with due consideration given to their responsibilities, the circumstances in which they operate and the outcomes they achieve.
Nigeria is blessed with abundant sporting talent and a population eager to see sports contribute more significantly to youth employment, national prestige and economic development. These aspirations are legitimate, and the sports sector must be held accountable for delivering results.
However, concerns about the performance of individual sports federations should have been raised more forcefully before the last federation elections.
That would have helped stakeholders assess the records of incumbent administrators and determine which leaderships deserved another mandate.
Nevertheless, the demand for transparency remains valid. Nigerians have every right to seek information about public expenditure, budget releases, achievements and performance targets.
The NSC should be prepared to explain how public resources are used and what results its programmes have delivered.
But stakeholders must also recognise the distinction between the NSC’s supervisory responsibilities and the day-to-day administration of individual sports federations.
Dikko and Olopade are not the elected heads of these federations. They are responsible for supervising and supporting the sports sector within the Commission’s mandate, while respecting the autonomy of the federations and the international governing bodies’ rules against undue government interference.
Consequently, it would be unfair to hold the NSC leadership solely responsible for every shortcoming within the federations without examining the responsibilities of the administrators who run them.
A credible performance assessment must distinguish between what the Commission controls, what it supervises and what individual federations are expected to deliver.
It should also consider measurable achievements, unresolved challenges and the extent to which stated objectives have been met.
Therefore, asking what tangible improvements Nigerians have witnessed under Dikko and Olopade while overlooking their efforts to address the crisis surrounding the NFF presents an incomplete picture of their leadership.
In my view, their intervention in the dispute involving the NFF leadership under Ibrahim Musa Gusau deserves recognition, particularly if it helps establish a more accountable and effective governance structure.
However, such recognition should not replace scrutiny. The Commission must remain open to questions about its expenditure, policies and results, just as federation administrators must account for their own records.
The objective should be to strengthen Nigerian sports, not to turn accountability into a contest between supporters and opponents of particular administrators.
Sports stakeholders should therefore approach the debate with fairness and a clear understanding of institutional responsibilities. They should acknowledge genuine achievements, identify shortcomings and propose practical solutions.
Dikko and Olopade deserve a fair assessment of their leadership, just as they should be expected to account for their responsibilities.
Where their interventions have produced positive results, sports stakeholders should applaud them. Where gaps remain, constructive criticism should guide the way forward.
Nigerian sports needs both accountability and recognition of genuine progress.
