It is becoming increasingly evident that all is not well with the administration of sports in Nigeria, as growing concerns continue to emerge over the leadership structure and overall direction of the National Sports Commission (NSC).
Questions are being raised about the effectiveness of the Commission under the leadership of Chairman Shehu Dikko and Director General Bukola Olapade, both of whom were appointed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu nearly two years ago.
Stakeholders within the sports sector, including administrators, athletes, coaches, sports journalists and observers, have expressed worries over what they describe as a lack of clear direction, transparency, and inclusive decision-making in the management of Nigerian sports.
While expectations were high following their appointments, many believe that the Commission has yet to deliver the level of reform and progress needed to reposition the country’s sports sector for sustainable growth and international competitiveness.
READ ON: Nurse Maymunat Abubakar: A celebration of Excellence on International Nurses Week
The concerns range from issues surrounding governance and policy implementation to the absence of broad stakeholder engagement in critical decisions affecting sports development.
Critics argue that without a more strategic and accountable leadership approach, Nigeria risks falling behind in its quest to revive its sporting glory and effectively nurture the next generation of talent.
Many stakeholders in the Nigerian sports sector have argued that the current arrangement, in which the National Sports Commission is largely being managed by just two principal officials without a properly constituted governing board, is neither sustainable nor healthy for the growth and development of sports in the country.
According to critics, the absence of a fully established governing board has created concerns over accountability, transparency, and inclusive decision-making, leaving critical policies and major administrative decisions concentrated in the hands of only a few individuals.
They contend that such a structure undermines the principles of collective leadership and institutional checks and balances that are essential for effective sports governance.
Many believe that for Nigerian sports to thrive and regain its competitive edge both locally and internationally, there must be a more robust administrative framework that allows for broader stakeholder representation, strategic oversight, and shared responsibility in shaping the future of the sector.
According to stakeholders who spoke at different times and on different occasions, the absence of a properly constituted governing board has eliminated the critical system of checks and balances needed to guide decision-making within such an important national institution.
They argue that without this oversight mechanism, key decisions affecting the administration and development of sports are being made without adequate scrutiny, consultation, or accountability.
According to them, a functioning board is essential not only to provide strategic direction but also to ensure transparency, institutional balance, and collective responsibility in the management of the National Sports Commission.
In their view, restoring this governance structure is necessary to strengthen confidence in the system and safeguard the long-term progress of Nigerian sports.
Stakeholders have further described the situation as both irregular and risky, warning that it creates an environment that could encourage unilateral decision-making, weaken accountability, and increase the potential for abuse of power.
They argue that concentrating significant administrative authority in the hands of a few individuals, without the oversight of a properly constituted governing board, undermines transparency and institutional integrity.
According to them, such an arrangement falls short of the principles of good governance expected of a national sports body, where decisions should be guided by collective responsibility, due process, and effective oversight.
They insist that for the National Sports Commission to function credibly and efficiently, it must operate within a governance framework that promotes accountability, inclusiveness, and adherence to established administrative standards.
Based on these concerns, stakeholders are calling on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to urgently reconstitute the board of the National Sports Commission in order to restore confidence, accountability, and proper governance within the country’s sports administration.
They believe that the immediate establishment of a properly constituted governing board is essential to provide the necessary checks and balances, ensure broader stakeholder representation, and strengthen transparency in decision-making.
According to them, such action would not only align the Commission with established principles of good governance but also create a more stable and effective leadership structure capable of driving meaningful reforms and sustainable development in Nigerian sports.
The stakeholders maintain that timely intervention by the President is critical to safeguarding the future of the nation’s sports sector and repositioning it for renewed growth, credibility, and international success.
It has been noted that comments from key figures such as Philip Shaibu, who currently serves as Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the National Institute for Sports (NIS), are bringing renewed attention to the structural and governance challenges within Nigerian sports administration.
Shaibu has drawn attention to concerns that have reportedly been building since November 2024, a period in which the National Sports Commission (NSC) has, in practice, functioned with only two principal officials at the helm, without a fully constituted governing board to provide oversight and strategic direction. National Institute for Sports National Sports Commission
His remarks have added to a growing public discussion about the implications of operating such a key national institution without a complete governance structure.
Observers argue that the situation raises concerns about institutional balance, accountability, and the effectiveness of long-term planning in the sports sector.
Many within the sports community view the position expressed by Philip Shaibu as a significant intervention in the ongoing debate over governance in Nigerian sports, arguing that it reinforces long-standing concerns about the administrative structure and legal framework of the National Sports Commission (NSC). National Sports Commission
They see Shaibu’s remarks as highlight of what they describe as a critical governance gap that, if left unresolved, could continue to expose Nigerian sports to weak oversight, policy inconsistency, and avoidable administrative setbacks.
They insist that urgent corrective steps, particularly the reconstitution of a properly functioning governing board, are necessary to stabilize the system and strengthen institutional accountability.
Shaibu himself has maintained that the NSC cannot effectively or legally operate without a constituted board, arguing that such a structure is not optional but a statutory requirement.
He explained that the board serves as the central mechanism for oversight, policy direction, and accountability, and that its absence undermines both procedure and governance standards within the institution.
He further argued that operating without a governing board is comparable to a government functioning without a parliament, where there would be no effective checks and balances to regulate decision-making or prevent potential abuse of authority.
According to him, the existence of a properly constituted board is fundamental to ensuring transparency, sound governance, and institutional balance within the National Sports Commission.
He maintained that such a structure is essential for guiding policy direction, strengthening accountability mechanisms, and safeguarding the integrity of decisions taken within the commission.
Shaibu’s comments have reignited a wider debate about the structure and credibility of Nigeria’s sports governance system, a discussion that has long simmered beneath the surface but is now becoming more visible and urgent.
Across the sports community, reactions have been growing steadily, with stakeholders, administrators, and observers expressing differing but strongly held views about how the National Sports Commission should be managed.
For many, the concern goes beyond individual personalities and focuses instead on the institutional framework itself, particularly the absence of a properly constituted governing board.
Also contributing to the discussion, Dr. Steve Olarinoye, a former Deputy Director of the NSC with decades of institutional experience, described the current arrangement as historically unprecedented, noting that it may be the first time in the Commission’s history that it has operated without a properly constituted governing board.
He stated that, “unless we want to deceive ourselves, things have not been working too well in the management of our sports.”
According to him, while the essence of establishing a commission is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and improve efficiency, doing so without a board risks concentrating authority in a way that could drift toward autocratic decision-making, which he argued is not conducive to effective sports administration.
Dr. Olarinoye further explained that in previous administrative structures, board composition was deliberately designed to ensure broad representation, typically reflecting Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones alongside key professional bodies and stakeholders within the sports ecosystem.
This, he noted, helped to promote balance, inclusiveness, and institutional accountability in decision-making processes within the commission.
He noted that the board has traditionally been composed of representatives drawn from all six geopolitical zones, along with key professional bodies, a structure designed to ensure broad representation and diverse input in decision-making within the sports sector.
He further explained that the absence of such a board removes an important layer of institutional oversight, as there would be no effective checks and balances on the executive arm of the Commission.
In his view, this weakens accountability mechanisms and undermines the overall integrity and balance required for sound sports administration.
Also contributing to the debate, Fan Ndubuoke, a former national president of the Sports Writers Association of Nigeria (SWAN), described the current structure of the National Sports Commission as resembling what he termed a “Ponzi-style” system of sports administration.
He argued that the Commission currently functions more like an improvised administrative arrangement rather than a fully established statutory institution with clearly defined mandates, legal authority, and enforceable accountability structures.
In his view, this lack of structural clarity weakens institutional credibility and undermines long-term planning in the sector.
Ndubuoke also accused the Federal Government of frequently changing the names and organizational frameworks of sports bodies without addressing what he described as the deeper issue of legal consistency in sports governance.
According to him, when an institution lacks a strong legal foundation, it becomes more susceptible to manipulation and institutional instability.
He further warned that under such conditions, policy direction tends to shift unpredictably based on political interests, while appointments risk being influenced by sentiment rather than merit, a situation he believes ultimately weakens the effectiveness and professionalism of sports administration in the country.
He added that in such a situation, the risk of weak financial oversight increases significantly, as public funds may not be properly monitored or transparently managed.
He further warned that under such circumstances, key stakeholders such as athletes, coaches, and grassroots development programmes may end up receiving minimal benefit from available funding.
In his view, this undermines the primary purpose of sports investment, which is to strengthen talent development, improve infrastructure, and build a sustainable pipeline for national and international competition.
Other stakeholders who have spoken on the “two-man NSC” arrangement include Mazi Ikeddy Isiguzo, former Chairman of the Vanguard Editorial Board, who raised serious legal and governance concerns about the current structure, describing it as one marked by significant gaps and unresolved questions.
He questioned how such an arrangement could effectively manage national sports, and further asked what the National Sports Commission was originally established to achieve, and whether those objectives are currently being fulfilled.
He also criticized what he termed institutional complicity, noting that even legally trained officials and relevant National Assembly committees appear to have endorsed a structure he views as fundamentally questionable.
Also commenting, the social activist and Chairman of the Advocacy for Nigeria Football Reform Concepts (ANFRC), Harrison Jalla, former President of the Nigeria Wrestling Federation (NWF), Bayelsa State Commissioner for Sports, Daniel Igali, Emeka Obasi, a comparative historian, author, and pioneer board member of the Nigerian National Sports Hall of Fame and Ade Somefun, former Associate Editor (Sports) at the Tribune all strongly criticized the current structure of the NSC, describing it as fundamentally flawed without a governing board.
They all see nothing good coming out of the arrangement and warned that prolonged absence of a board dangerously centralizes decision-making and undermines institutional continuity, a weakness he said has repeatedly affected sports administration in Nigeria.
The current leadership structure in the sports commission is clearly not delivering the kind of progress expected, and there is growing concern that it lacks the capacity to move Nigerian sports in a positive direction.
In practical terms, the situation over the past two years reflects stagnation rather than development, with key indicators across the sector showing signs of decline and mismanagement rather than improvement.
Recent federation elections have further exposed deep structural weaknesses. Instead of transparent and credible processes, what has been observed are irregularities, internal disputes, and widespread protests that undermine confidence in the system.
These recurring controversies weaken trust in governance and raise questions about accountability within the system.
The same concerns extend to the Nigeria Football Federation, where leadership challenges and entrenched interests continue to dominate decision-making.
Many stakeholders feel sidelined, while meaningful reform and technical development appear to be taking a back seat.
Rather than driving football forward, the current structure has been criticized for maintaining closed networks that limit broader participation and innovation.
Similarly, the broader sports administration under the National Sports Commission has not demonstrated the cohesion or strategic direction needed to reposition the sector.
Instead of building a clear development pathway, the system appears fragmented, leaving major gaps in planning, execution, and stakeholder engagement.
Stakeholders have also called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to urgently constitute the governing board of the National Sports Commission as part of his broader sports reform agenda.
According to them, the absence of a properly structured and fully constituted board is contributing significantly to the ongoing governance gaps and instability within the sector.
They argue that without a functional board in place, key decisions are being made in a fragmented and uncoordinated manner, weakening oversight, accountability, and long-term planning for national sports development.
The concern is that the current arrangement is not strong enough to sustain meaningful reform or deliver measurable progress.
It would be recalled that the National Sports Commission Act (2023), signed into law in 2023 by former President Muhammadu Buhari shortly before leaving office, provides for the establishment of a governing board comprising about 17 members.
The law was designed to strengthen structure, improve coordination, and ensure more professional management of sports administration in the country.
However, stakeholders maintain that the delayed implementation of this provision has left a critical gap in leadership.
They insist that until the board is fully constituted and allowed to function effectively, efforts to reform and stabilize the sports sector will continue to face serious limitations, leaving the system exposed to the same cycle of disputes, weak governance, and underperformance.
