Nigeria's women's football team rises above poor management to clinch continental trophy
The Super Falcons' comeback 3-2 victory over host Morocco in Saturday's thrilling final was applauded by Tinubu and many in Nigeria, a football-loving nation where passion and hard work often triumphs over institutional challenges.
The continental success, analysts say, papers over the mismanagement of the women's team by the country's authorities. The success of the country had come in spite of the country.
'They have been able to dominate even though the Nigerian football authorities do not put as much funding, care, attention, and planning into the way the women's national team is run,' Solace Chukwu, a Lagos-based football analyst, told The Associated Press.
Underfunding, corruption
The team had been owed match bonuses for years, once resulting in a training boycott in 2022. Even as they triumphed on the way to the finals in Morocco, the backlog of payments was only approved by the president days before Saturday's final. They also could not hold competitive friendly matches and their training kits were said to not have been available.
It is a common problem in Nigeria where sporting competitions are often dogged by issues of underfunding, corruption and mismanagement that have led to high-profile scandals resulting in athletes choosing to represent other countries in protest.
Women's teams are affected the most, partly because of how women have always been viewed in the Nigerian society, according to Oluwashina Okeleji, a sport analyst with focus on Africa.
'The argument from the (Nigerian) federation is that the men bring more money than the women, but the truth is the women bring most prestige, honours and titles to Nigeria,' Okeleji said.
A spokesperson for the Nigeria Football Federation, the country's governing football body, declined to respond to the allegations.
Dominance
The Nigerian women's team has exercised a near-total dominance in African football, which is partly credited to a head-start in the women's game. Nigeria created the first football league for women in 1978, years before their counterparts on the continent.
However, the gains have not catapulted the team to similar achievements on the global stage in what analysts say is a failure of the authorities to capitalize on this early advantage.
'The men's team is huge generally within the administration of Nigerian football as the cash cow,' Chukwu said.
The gifts now promised by the president, including money and property, have not convinced the fans.
'This one-time payment and apartment does not make any sense. For what? What they need is investment in the facilities, the staff, and payment. The lack of investment in women's football is one of the reasons why it is not as high quality as the men's," Funmi Obasa, a football fan in Abuja who follows the women's team, told AP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India rejects UK report alleging ‘transnational repression'
India Friday categorically rejected as 'baseless' a British parliamentary report that named it among countries engaged in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said the allegations stemmed from 'unverified' and 'dubious sources' predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals. 'We have seen the references to India in the report and categorically reject these baseless allegations,' said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'These claims stem from unverified and dubious sources, predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,' he said. Jaiswal said the 'deliberate reliance on discredited sources calls into question the credibility of the report itself'. The report made by the British Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights listed India along with China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as countries allegedly engaging in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The report titled 'Transnational repression in the UK' was made public on July 30. Some of the details related to India cited in the report were provided by Sikhs for Justice, a pro-Khalistan organisation banned in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and other UK-based Sikh groups.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
