Ghana’s football authorities have been urged to invest World Cup and other FIFA funds in long-term infrastructure rather than distributing the money to clubs, after the Ghana Football Association announced a GH¢9.5m support package for the 2026/27 season.
The package, unveiled by the GFA at the Ghanaman Soccer Centre of Excellence in Prampram on 20 August 2026, will give each of the 18 Ghana Premier League clubs GH¢1m. The league champions will receive GH¢3m and a JAC vehicle valued at $33,000.
GFA Vice President Mark Addo described the arrangement as “unheard of”, while Aduana FC chief executive Collins Atta Poku said the funding would cover about a third of a club’s budget.
But three days earlier, the Federation Congolaise de Football Association (FECOFA) in DR Congo had announced a markedly different plan for its $16m World Cup allocation.
It intends to spend $10.72m on the construction of the CTN Kurara Mpova technical centre, a further $2.6m renovating 26 provincial facilities at $100,000 each, and only $480,000 providing direct cash to clubs.
The comparison points to two contrasting approaches to the same source of funding: Ghana is sharing the money, while Congo is using most of it to build facilities.
Implementation, not constitutionality
The argument that Ghana’s football governance problem is constitutional has been rejected by the author, who says the real failure has been the implementation of existing laws and recommendations.
The Dzamefe Commission was established constitutionally under Article 278(1) of the 1992 Constitution, with the President appointing it through C.I. 82, 83 and 84 of 2014. Article 279 gave the commission powers equivalent to those of a High Court, including the authority to subpoena witnesses, take evidence under oath and punish contempt.
Under Article 280(3), the government was required to publish a White Paper within six months. President John Mahama signed the document on 1 June 2015, after which it was gazetted, certified and made enforceable. Article 283 provides for surcharges to become recoveries by the Auditor-General.
The commission’s findings included an $8m FIFA prize from which only $7.1m entered Ghana, leaving a $900,000 difference. It also identified $4m in airlifted cash, of which $122,500 remained outstanding, as well as $75,150 in unused tickets.
The central criticism is that the legal framework existed, but was not properly applied.
“Government cannot be absent when the sports dinner is being cooked and only appear when it is time to eat supper. Government must be present in the kitchen, not just at the table.”
That criticism reflects what the article describes as Ghana’s tournament-driven approach to sports funding. Government resources are mobilised when the Africa Cup of Nations or World Cup is close, with money needed for travel, winning bonuses and air tickets. By contrast, there is little proactive investment in youth development, league infrastructure, refereeing or Colts football.
Ghana waits for the Black Stars to qualify before searching for the $2.5m in FIFA preparation funding. It waits for World Cup money before allocating GH¢1m to clubs, while the Ghana Premier League receives insufficient support from January to May, when many clubs struggle financially.
Rejected recommendations
The Dzamefe Commission made recommendations that, according to the article, could have strengthened both domestic football and national-team development. Two of them were rejected in the government’s White Paper.
The first, on page 139 of the commission’s report, proposed a minimum quota of two locally based players in every national team to encourage support for the Ghana Premier League. The White Paper rejected the proposal on page 20, arguing that it could reduce quality.
In 2026, only one Ghana Premier League player, Hearts goalkeeper Benjamin Asare, was selected for the World Cup squad. Asare played in three of Ghana’s four matches, kept a clean sheet against England, was named Best Domestic Player and received a vehicle valued at $38,000.
The article notes that 11 years after the two-player quota was rejected, Ghana had only one locally based player in the squad.
The second recommendation, on page 95, called for prize money remaining after costs to be invested in sports infrastructure. That proposal was also rejected, in paragraph 3.8 on page 15 of the White Paper.
If it had been adopted, the article argues, the Ghanaman Soccer Centre of Excellence at Prampram, where the GFA Congress was held, might now resemble the CTN Kurara Mpova technical centre. Instead, funding announcements continue to include vehicles worth $33,000 for Ghana Premier League champions and $29,000 for Women’s Premier League champions, rather than new pitches and other facilities.
GFA needs government partnership
The article also argues that the GFA should not be left to make major financial decisions without government involvement.
Football is described as Ghana’s biggest social currency. Markets close in Kumasi when Kotoko play, while national productivity drops when the Black Stars are in action. On that basis, the sport is presented as a national asset rather than the sole responsibility of 18 Premier League club owners and the GFA Executive Council.
At Congress, Minister Kofi Adams said Ghana had the talent, history, clubs and corporate sector needed to progress, but was failing to use those resources effectively. He called for player development to be rebuilt and the Ghana Premier League to become more attractive.
The article agrees with that assessment but says the work requires the government and GFA to operate together.
Under the current arrangement, each club’s GH¢1m could be exhausted in eight months through wages and travel, including journeys to Tamale. The article calculates that paying 30 players GH¢4,000 each would cost GH¢960,000.
At the Bank of Ghana rate of GH¢11.10 to the dollar, GH¢1m is worth $90,090. At the bureau rate of GH¢12.30, it is $81,300. The argument is that such a payment is operating money, not development funding.
By contrast, Congo’s $100,000 allocation per facility is equivalent to GH¢1.11m but creates a long-term asset, potentially including dressing rooms, seating and a borehole. It can also help clubs meet CAF Club Licensing requirements.
In 2024, only Accra and Baba Yara Stadiums passed CAF requirements in Ghana, meaning Kotoko and Hearts have had to play their matches in Accra. The article’s conclusion is that cash alone does not secure a licence; appropriate facilities do.
CAF licensing covers five areas: sporting requirements, including U15, U17 and U20 teams and women’s football affiliation; infrastructure, including an approved stadium; personnel, such as a CAF B-licensed coach, doctor, physiotherapist and safety officer; legal registration as a company; and financial requirements, including audited accounts and no overdue payables.
The article describes the distribution of GH¢1m without enforcing those standards as “fake professionalism”. Former GFA Vice President George Afriyie has also questioned where the money comes from, echoing the questions raised by the Dzamefe Commission in 2014 about friendly-match contracts involving Holland, Japan and South Korea that required a forensic audit.
Five proposals before 2030
The article calls for five measures before the 2030 World Cup.
First, government should issue a new Executive Instrument reactivating the recommendation on page 95 of the Dzamefe report, directing 30% of all FIFA money to Prampram. It compares that with Congo’s decision to commit 67% of its funds to the Kurara Mpova project.
Second, the GH¢1m club allocation should be divided equally between cash and infrastructure. The infrastructure element should be verified by the Club Licensing Board before clubs receive their next tranche.
Third, a quota of three locally based players should be enforced for all Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers, with the stated aim of developing “ten Benjamin Asares”.
Fourth, licensing rules should be tied to sporting sanctions. Clubs without audited accounts should not receive the GH¢1m; teams without youth sides should lose three points; and clubs that owe players should face a transfer ban.
Finally, spending should be made public. FECOFA has published its financial breakdown, and the GFA is urged to release details of the $2.5m preparation budget and the $10m qualification expenditure.
The article’s conclusion is that Ghana does not need a new constitution but must apply the framework already in place. Government should be involved before tournaments are imminent, including in pre-season planning, Colts football, women’s football and referee development.
If Ghana continues distributing GH¢1m every year, it may still be returning to Prampram in 2030 to make another announcement. Investing $10m now, the article argues, could instead leave the country with stadiums capable of hosting the African Nations Championship.
The message is clear: Ghana must stop simply sharing World Cup money and start building with it.
