Nigeria's women's football team rise above poor management to clinch continental trophy
For the latest updates, follow us @ArabNewsSport
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 soccer 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.
A difference in treatment
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, honors, and titles to Nigeria,' Okeleji said.
A spokesperson for the Nigeria Football Federation, the country's governing soccer body, declined to respond to the allegations.
Victims of success
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, said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Africa's debt crisis demands self-reliant solutions
The much-discussed Jubilee Report, emerging from expert deliberations commissioned by the Vatican, diagnoses the acute debt distress strangling developing economies, particularly in Africa, with commendable clarity. It presents a familiar litany of systemic failures: pro-cyclical capital flows, creditor-friendly legal architectures in New York and London, the inadequacy of debt sustainability analyses, and the perverse incentives perpetuated by international financial institutions. Its prescriptions, including a new heavily indebted poor countries initiative, legal reforms to curb predatory litigation, shifts toward 'growth-oriented austerity,' and massive increases in multilateral financing, echo decades of expert consensus. Yet, a fundamental flaw remains. The report's prescriptions rely on coordinated global goodwill and structural reform that is demonstrably absent in today's fragmented world. For Africa, where public debt has outpaced national economic growth since 2013, and home to 751 million people in countries spending more on servicing external debt than on education or health — waiting for this global consensus is not strategy; it is surrender. The report's morally resonant idealism dangerously underestimates the entrenched hostility to meaningful concessions benefiting African economies and overlooks the imperative for radical, self-reliant solutions. Consider the sheer scale of the crisis versus the proposed global fixes. A total of 54 developing countries now allocate over 10 percent of public revenues merely to interest payments. In Africa, this fiscal hemorrhage directly competes with existential needs: costly climate adaptation for countries contributing minimally to emissions, yet facing devastating impacts, and investment in a youth population projected to reach 35 percent of the global total by 2050. The report rightly condemns the injustice, historical and ongoing, embedded in this dynamic. However, its central remedy, a heavily indebted poor countries initiative, requires unprecedented cooperation from diverse and often adversarial creditor blocs: traditional Paris Club members; newer bilateral lenders such as China; and, crucially, private bondholders who now dominate over 40 percent of low and lower-middle income country external debt. Regardless, historical precedent does not inspire confidence. A predecessor heavily indebted poor countries initiative, while delivering relief, failed to prevent recurrence precisely because it did not alter the fundamental dynamics or the structure of global finance. Why expect a sequel, demanding even greater concessions from powerful financial interests operating within unreformed legal jurisdictions, to succeed now? The Common Framework, hailed as progress, has delivered negligible relief precisely due to creditor discord and obstructionism. Betting Africa's future on such actors suddenly developing a collective conscience is not realism; it is negligence. Additionally, the report's reliance on international financial institutions as engines of reform and finance is equally problematic. It calls for an end to International Monetary Fund bailouts of private creditors; lower surcharges; massive SDR, or Special Drawing Right, reallocations; and transformed multilateral development bank lending models. Yet, the governance structures of these institutions remain frozen in mid-20th-century power dynamics that remain heavily skewed against African representation and influence. For instance, securing a $650 billion SDR allocation during the pandemic proved a herculean task; achieving the regular, larger, and equitably distributed issuances the report envisions, given rising fiscal nationalism and escalating geopolitical rivalries, seems quixotic. Moreover, the notion that these same institutions, historically enforcers of austerity and guardians of creditor interests, can reinvent themselves as champions of unconditional, mission-driven finance for African transformation ignores their institutional DNA and the political constraints imposed by their major shareholders. Meanwhile, the call for MDBs to lend massively in local currencies, while technically sound for reducing exchange rate risk, faces fierce resistance from bond markets and rating agencies wary of currency volatility, effectively limiting its scale without improbable capital increases. Furthermore, the report's focus on grand interventions, from debt buyback funds and global climate funds to international bankruptcy courts, fails to grapple with the toxic geopolitical environment. Historical prejudices framing African governance as inherently corrupt or incapable, combined with rising great power competition, actively work against complex cooperative frameworks perceived as primarily benefiting African countries. Solutions built on African agency, regional cohesion, and financial self-reliance offer a more realistic path out of the debt trap. Hafed Al-Ghwell In addition, resources for global funds are notoriously scarce and fiercely contested; establishing new international legal architectures faces veto points at every turn. The current global context is not merely indifferent to African debt distress; elements within it are actively hostile to solutions requiring hefty financial transfers or perceived concessions of leverage. Waiting for this hostility to abate condemns Africa to prolonged debt traps, draining precious reserves crucial for the continent's 1.4 billion people and, ultimately, global stability. The path forward, therefore, demands a harsh pivot toward solutions Africa controls, minimizing reliance on external mobilization vulnerable to global whims. This is not isolationism but pragmatic self-preservation. It requires, for instance, aggressively developing domestic capital markets. Africa's savings, estimated in the trillions of dollars collectively, are often parked in low-yield advanced economy assets or leave the continent entirely. Redirecting these resources requires efforts to deepen local bond markets, strengthen regulatory frameworks, and incentivize institutional investors to allocate capital locally. Second, the report mentions implementing strategic capital account regulations, but underplays their centrality. African countries must actively deploy tools, from reserve requirements to taxes on short-term inflows and prudential limits on foreign currency exposure, to break the pro-cyclical boom-bust cycle of capital flows. This shields fiscal space and reduces vulnerability to the monetary policy shocks emanating from advanced economies. It is a tool of sovereignty, not retreat. Third, strengthening mechanisms such as the African Monetary Fund and expanding regional swap arrangements is critical for building robust regional financial safety nets. Pooling reserves and establishing regional payment systems, thereby reducing dollar dependency for intra-African trade, can provide vital liquidity during crises without the conditionalities of the IMF. This demands unprecedented political will for regional integration and also offers a tangible buffer against global volatility. Fourth, every new infrastructure project financed in dollars increases future vulnerability. Negotiating harder for local currency loans from remaining bilateral partners and MDBs, even at marginally higher initial rates, is essential. Simultaneously, investing in credible monetary policy frameworks is nonnegotiable to sustain this approach. Lastly, transparency and robust domestic oversight of borrowing, including contingent liabilities from public-private partnerships, are vital to prevent repeating past mistakes. Building domestic technical capacity for sophisticated debt sustainability analyses, independent of existing models often blind to climate vulnerability, strengthens negotiation positions. Ultimately, the diagnoses are accurate — there is no argument there. However, the prescribed medicine is simply a dose the global pharmacy refuses to dispense. Africa's debt crisis, crippling distressed countries and suffocating the futures of 288 million people in extreme poverty, cannot await a global kumbaya moment. The moral imperative remains, but the strategic response must shift. Solutions built on African agency, regional cohesion, and financial self-reliance, however difficult, offer a more realistic, and ultimately, more dignified path out of the debt trap than persistent reliance on a system structurally biased against the continent's development.
Asharq Al-Awsat
6 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Bayern Munich Midfielder Pavlovic Fractures Eye Socket Ahead of New Season
Bayern Munich midfielder Aleksandar Pavlovic's bad luck with injuries and illness seems to have struck again. The German champion said Saturday that Pavlovic has undergone surgery after fracturing his eye socket in a team training session Friday, The Associated Press reported. Bayern didn't say exactly how the injury happened or how long Pavlovic would be out, just that he 'is facing a spell on the sidelines.' The 21-year-old Pavlovic is considered one of world soccer's best young defensive midfielders but has already racked up a list of absences for sometimes-unusual injuries and illness. Pavlovic struggled with tonsillitis in his breakthrough 2023-24 season and was ruled out of Germany's team for Euro 2024 with illness. Last season, he had spells out with a collarbone fracture and glandular fever. Bayern's season starts Aug. 16 against Stuttgart in the German Super Cup.
Leaders
8 hours ago
- Leaders
Trump Repositions Nuclear Submarines amid Escalating US-Russian War of Words
The US President, Donald Trump, has ordered the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines in 'the appropriate regions' amid an escalating war of words with Russia's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. The decision was a response to what the US President called Medvedev's 'highly provocative statements' as the two men have been engaged in a series of verbal attacks on social media following Trump's deadline for Russia to end the war in Ukraine by August 8, 2025. Deploying Nuclear Submarines On Friday, Trump posted on social media that he would deploy two US nuclear submarines in the 'appropriate regions' in response to Medvedev's threats. 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. He added that his decision came 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Responding to Russian Threats The US President said that he aimed by this decision to protect the US people against Russian threats. 'A threat was made, and we didn't think it was appropriate. So I have to be very careful,' he told reporters later on Friday. 'I do that on the basis of safety for our people. A threat was made by a former president of Russia. And we're going to protect our people,' Trump added, according to the Associated Press (AP). 'When you talk about nuclear, we have to be prepared. And we're totally prepared,' Trump said during an interview with Newsmax, adding that the submarines were being moved 'closer to Russia.' Submarine Capabilities The US and Russia possess the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and both countries have a fleet of nuclear submarines. The US has a fleet of 71 nuclear-powered submarines, including 14 Ohio-class Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs), 53 Nuclear-Powered attack submarines (SSNs), and 4 Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN). Meanwhile, the Russian Navy possesses a fleet of 64 nuclear submarines, including 16 SSBNs, 14 SSNs, 11 SSGN, and 23 Diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs), according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative arms control group. Russia's Deadline The latest rhetoric escalation between Medvedev and Trump began after the latter set a deadline for Russia to agree on a ceasefire in Ukraine. On July 29, Trump said Moscow had '10 days from today' to end the war, cutting his previous 50-day deadline. On this matter, the US President said that his Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, was traveling to Russia to push for a ceasefire that brings the war in Ukraine to an end, threatening new economic sanctions against Moscow and it oil buyers in case no progress was made. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, for his part, showed no sign of changing his stance on the war. On Friday, he that said Moscow hoped for more peace talks with Ukraine but that the momentum of the war was in its favor, reported Reuters. 'As for any disappointments on the part of anyone, all disappointments arise from inflated expectations. This is a well-known general rule,' he said, without explicitly referring to Trump. 'But in order to approach the issue peacefully, it is necessary to conduct detailed conversations. And not in public, but this must be done calmly, in the quiet of the negotiation process,' Putin noted. Trump-Medvedev War of Words Medvedev was Russia's president from 2008 to 2012 and is the current deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council. He has been known for his provocative and inflammatory remarks, especially against Western leaders, since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022. The US President's statements prompted Medvedev to raise the prospect of war in a series of online posts. In response to Trumps' deadline, the Russian official wrote on X: 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10. He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.' Trump issued a warning to Medvedev. 'Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' he posted on Truth Social. Hours later, Medvedev posted on Telegram that 'Russia is doing everything right and will continue to proceed along its own path.' He also reminded Trump of the 'Dead Hand,' a semi-automated Russian command system designed to launch nuclear missiles if its leaders were killed in a decapitating strike. Short link : Post Views: 11
