Caf's Afcon U-turn shows process matters more than the calendar

Key takeaways

• The Guardian reports that Caf is expected to restore a two-year Africa Cup of Nations cycle, about ten months after it agreed to hold the tournament every four years.
• Officials around the continent have reportedly told the Guardian they no longer trust Patrice Motsepe, and possible successors, including Samuel Eto'o, are said to be positioning themselves.
• The choice between two-year and four-year cycles involves real trade-offs between national associations' income, clubs' demands and the wider international calendar.
• A governing body that reverses a major structural decision within a year makes it harder for broadcasters, sponsors and host nations to plan.
• The executive committee meeting in Abidjan next month will show whether the reversal is backed by a clear process or only formalises a presidential announcement.

What is happening at Caf?

The Guardian reports that the president of the Confederation of African Football is facing growing pressure. Officials from several parts of the continent say they have lost trust in Patrice Motsepe. Rivals, including the former Cameroon international Samuel Eto'o, are reportedly preparing themselves in case the presidency becomes open.

The immediate cause is the Africa Cup of Nations. Last week Motsepe announced that the tournament would go back to being held every two years. This came about ten months after Caf decided to move it to a four-year cycle. According to the Guardian, the reversal has broad support and is expected to be confirmed when the executive committee meets in Abidjan next month.

My argument is simple. Whether Afcon is held every two years or every four is a legitimate question, and either answer can be defended. A confederation that settles that question twice in under a year, with the second decision apparently driven by the president rather than by a visible process, has a more serious problem than the calendar.

Why has this become a story now?

Both pieces of news arrived together. The U-turn on its own could be read as a leadership that listened and changed course. The reported loss of trust, alongside rivals preparing to step in, turns a scheduling decision into a question about Motsepe's authority.

There is an awkward paradox here. The reversal is reportedly popular. Yet the way it was announced appears to have added to doubts about the president. That suggests the complaint is less about where Caf has ended up and more about how it got there. Members who supported the four-year model ten months ago, or who planned around it, can fairly ask why they built plans on a decision that did not last.

The Guardian's report does not say whether a formal challenge to Motsepe is coming, or when one could be mounted. It is not known whether any rival has declared a candidacy.

What does a newcomer need to know about the Afcon cycle?

The Africa Cup of Nations is the continent's main international tournament and Caf's most important commercial asset. Traditionally it has been held every two years, unlike the European Championship and the Copa América, which have generally followed a longer cycle.

The case for four years rests on several arguments. A less frequent tournament can be presented as a bigger event, which may make it easier to sell to broadcasters and sponsors. It removes a recurring clash with European club football, which employs many of Africa's best players and has long objected to losing them mid-season. It also gives host nations more time to prepare stadiums and infrastructure, and it fits more neatly into a global calendar that FIFA has been filling with expanded competitions.

The case for two years is mostly about money and opportunity. For many national associations, Afcon and its qualifying campaign are a major source of income and of competitive fixtures. A tournament every two years means more prize money distributed, more broadcast revenue and more chances for smaller nations to qualify. For supporters, it means the continent's showpiece comes round more often.

Neither model is plainly correct. Each favours different interests.

Who is affected, and how?

National associations are the first group affected. Each one depends on Caf distributions to a different degree. For those that depend on them heavily, the two-year cycle restores a revenue stream they may have feared losing. That probably explains much of the reported support for the U-turn.

Clubs, especially in Europe, are also affected. A two-year tournament brings back the regular release of African players during the season. Clubs were not part of Caf's decision, but they feel its effects in every squad they assemble.

Commercial partners and broadcasters negotiate rights over defined periods. If the number of tournaments in a rights cycle changes, so does the value of the contract. It is not known how existing agreements will be handled, and the Guardian's report does not address it.

Potential hosts plan years ahead. A change in frequency affects how many nations get to host, and when.

Finally, the players face a crowded schedule. Every format decision changes how many high-intensity tournaments they play over a career.

Where do informed observers disagree?

One view says the U-turn shows responsive leadership. The four-year decision may have underestimated how much federations rely on the tournament, and correcting a mistake quickly is better than sticking with it. On this reading, the wide support the Guardian describes vindicates the change.

The opposing view says the speed of the reversal is the problem. A confederation's credibility depends on members, partners and outside bodies believing that a major decision, once made, will stand long enough to plan around. If a decision can be overturned within a year, every future decision carries a discount: people will wait to see whether it survives before they commit.

There is also disagreement about whether this is about the cycle at all. Some will see the Afcon question as a convenient battleground for broader dissatisfaction with Caf's leadership. Others will say the format is substantive enough to justify concern on its own. The available reporting does not settle which explanation carries more weight.

My view is close to the second position, with one qualification. The two-year model is defensible, and reverting to it may well serve most members. But in a governing body the route to a decision matters as much as the decision itself. A president announcing a reversal before the executive committee has formally considered it reverses the proper order of collective governance.

What are the practical implications?

If Abidjan confirms the change, the most immediate task is rebuilding the calendar. Qualifying campaigns, international windows and host allocations would all need to fit the two-year rhythm again. Any competition or commercial plan designed around the four-year model would need revisiting. Which plans those are, and how far they had progressed, is not set out in the source.

Caf also has to reassure people. Members who have lost trust will want to know how future structural decisions will be made, and whether the executive committee is the forum where they are actually decided or simply ratified.

For Motsepe, the practical risk is political. A president whose authority is questioned finds it harder to push through unrelated reforms, because every proposal is read through the lens of the leadership contest. That can slow Caf down regardless of who wins.

For outside parties, especially clubs and FIFA, the episode offers a lesson about Caf's predictability. Negotiations over player release and calendar slots depend on each side trusting the other's commitments.

What should we watch next?

The Abidjan executive committee meeting is the first marker. Several things are worth watching:

• whether the return to a two-year cycle is confirmed without dissent, or whether objections are recorded;
• whether Caf explains why the four-year decision was abandoned;
• whether procedural changes are proposed for future decisions on competition formats.

Beyond that, the question is whether rivals such as Eto'o move from positioning to open candidacy. That depends on Caf's electoral rules and timetable, which the source does not detail. Until a challenger declares, the pressure on Motsepe stays a matter of reported sentiment rather than formal process.

Finally, watch how commercial partners respond. Their reaction will show whether the reversal has cost Caf credibility in the market as well as in the boardroom.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Africa Cup of Nations going back to every two years?

According to the Guardian, a return to a two-year Africa Cup of Nations cycle is expected to be confirmed at Caf's executive committee meeting in Abidjan next month. Patrice Motsepe announced the reversal last week, about ten months after Caf decided to hold the tournament every four years. The change is reported to have wide support among members, but it does not become official until the executive committee confirms it.

Why did Caf originally move Afcon to every four years?

The arguments usually made for a four-year cycle are that a rarer tournament carries more commercial value, clashes less often with European club seasons, gives host nations longer to prepare and fits a crowded global calendar more easily. The source does not give Caf's detailed reasoning for its original decision, so the exact weight given to each factor when the four-year model was adopted is not publicly established here.

Why do many African federations prefer a two-year Afcon?

For many national associations, the Africa Cup of Nations and its qualifiers bring significant income and competitive fixtures. A tournament every two years means more frequent prize money and broadcast revenue, and more chances for smaller nations to qualify. That matters most for associations that rely heavily on confederation distributions, which may explain why the reversal reportedly has broad backing.

Is Patrice Motsepe at risk of losing the Caf presidency?

The Guardian reports that officials from across the continent say they have lost trust in Motsepe and that rivals are positioning themselves as possible replacements. However, the report does not describe any formal challenge, motion or declared candidacy. Whether that pressure becomes a real contest depends on Caf's electoral process and on whether any rival commits to standing.

What role is Samuel Eto'o playing?

The Guardian names Samuel Eto'o, the former Cameroon international, among rivals said to be positioning themselves to potentially replace Motsepe. The report describes positioning rather than a declared candidacy. Whether he or anyone else formally stands, and under what timetable, is not known from the available reporting. Any challenge would have to follow Caf's own electoral rules for its presidency.

How does the Afcon cycle affect European clubs?

The Africa Cup of Nations has traditionally been played during the European club season, so clubs must release African players in the middle of their domestic and continental campaigns. A two-year cycle means that happens more often than under a four-year model. Clubs have no vote in Caf's decision, but they feel its consequences directly when they plan squads and assess the risk of losing key players.

Sources and further reading

• The Guardian: football reporting on pressure on Caf's leadership and the reversal of the Afcon cycle decision.
• Confederation of African Football: official statutes and executive committee communications on competition formats and governance.
• FIFA: published material on the international match calendar and the rules on releasing players to national teams.
• Academic and policy writing on sports governance: analysis of decision-making and accountability in continental football bodies.