Ghana Sports News: Football, Basketball, Boxing & More

A few months ago, the release of the annual FIFA Forward Money generated a heated debate between the GFA and its prominent members (the clubs) over who should benefit from those funds.

While the GFA's top hierarchy, the Executive Council, insisted that the FIFA Forward was to cater for operational costs, the clubs maintained that the money be shared among them to alleviate their plight in the wake of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, since football was in abeyance then.

In the midst of that storm, GFA officials stirred yet another controversy by saying that the association was saddled with what they described as 'legacy debts' which needed to be serviced, as well.

Although the clubs still wanted to have their way, the GFA prevailed at the end of day, after President Kurt Okraku had assured the clubs of their share of a FIFA Emergency Relief Fund earlier promised by the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino.

It was with such high expectation for the FIFA Emergency Relief Fund that the clubs stepped up the chase for the FIFA Forward money, hoping to be compensated adequately by the FA when the relief fund arrives. But that was not to be.

Only last week, another controversy was stirred when the GFA disbursed $500,000, being the first tranche of the much-anticipated FIFA Emergency Relief Fund, as well as the $300,000 CAF annual support, to its members. This time, the contention of some of the clubs was that the GFA wasn't fair in the sharing of the money, as the long list of beneficiaries included the various national teams, the Sports Writers Association of Ghana (SWAG) and others.

The clubs argued that since the FIFA Emergency Relief Fund was meant to assuage the effects of the COVID-19 on all member associations (MAs), they should have been the sole beneficiaries of the money.

We totally agree with the clubs, especially when they had earlier been promised by the GFA to wait for their fair share of that money as compensation for the FIFA Forward, of which they were denied even a pesewa.

For us, the GFA could have avoided this unnecessary agitation by disbursing the money to only its 12 main members or constituents, leaving out such peripheral bodies such as the national teams and SWAG.

To help solve this problem, we advise the executive of SWAG to turn down the $7,000 offered the association for the sake of peace.
On the other hand, we urge the GFA leadership to do a quick U-turn and withdraw every pesewa that was allocated to the various national teams and spread it over the share for its respective members.

Although the GFA might have good intentions in disbursing the funds to cover a wide range of its stakeholders, perhaps in fulfilment of its manifesto, we deem it inappropriate for the association to use funds solely meant for its members.

It is not too late for the GFA ExCo to eat humble pie by correcting this serious blunder to let peace prevail. It must note that the misappropriation of funds and embezzlement are both unacceptable on the scale of corruption.

We admonish the GFA to concentrate on its 12 members when it comes to the disbursement of funds of this nature in future and leave the burden of the national teams on the State, which owns them. That way, it will save itself from unnecessary controversy!