‹

›

What does the return to an AFCON every two years mean for Moroccan football?

The first benefit, and perhaps the only positive one I see, is the opportunity to win more titles. With the tournament taking place every two years, Morocco, one of the continent’s favourites, can add to its honours, provided it wins, of course. It could also give Mohamed Ouahbi’s team opportunities to compete in tournaments before the World Cup. We could see local players or dual nationals emerge, which is good news, as he will have the chance to test several players. But it will also put more pressure on the coach if results go against him.

For Moroccan internationals, many of whom play in Europe, what will the consequences be for their workload, recovery and relationships with their clubs?

That is the downside of this announcement. Morocco’s top internationals already juggle club seasons, international windows, qualifiers and major tournaments. A two-year cycle adds a tournament lasting almost a month, along with travel and different climatic conditions. The risk is cumulative: a player like Achraf Hakimi, who played in a World Cup quarter-final in July and then an AFCON, quickly finds himself playing long seasons with little meaningful time off.

Recent AFCON editions have taken place in winter, midway through the European season, forcing players to return while league campaigns are in full swing, with limited preparation and recovery time. A summer AFCON would be less disruptive for clubs, but it would cut into players’ holidays. In either case, fatigue accumulated over several seasons increases the risk of muscle injuries, particularly after the tournament.

Under FIFA rules, clubs are generally required to release their players. But we are likely to see further disputes and clubs holding on to players until the last possible moment.

Another concern is that major clubs may decide against signing top African players because AFCON takes place in winter. Having it every two years could be problematic for some of those clubs.

What about the proposed African Nations League? Was the project premature, or does it still represent an opportunity for African football?

It was indeed planned for 2029, with the format still under discussion. Nothing seemed clear. It could have been a good idea for some regions, with regular clashes between Africa’s strongest teams, but other regions would have been left with much less appealing fixtures. Trying to copy UEFA was not a good idea. CAF should focus on developing its existing competitions: AFCON and the Champions League.

Historically, AFCON has been CAF’s main source of funding. And I believe developing the Champions League is essential. That is a competition through which CAF could generate revenue, provided, once again, that it puts in the necessary work. That is not currently happening.

What are the financial consequences of this reversal for CAF?

From what I understand, moving to a four-year cycle would have meant losing at least a billion dollars over eight years. Going from four AFCON tournaments to two over that period would have drastically reduced the product’s value for broadcasters and sponsors. Returning to a two-year cycle preserves a regular source of revenue for CAF and national federations.

But there is another consequence: yet another loss of credibility. Changing policy twice in ten months can undermine confidence.

For host countries, could an AFCON every two years increase the pressure to deliver infrastructure on time? Would a four-year cycle have eased those constraints and allowed better preparation?

With fewer than nine months to go before the tournament, doubts remain over Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. The precedent of CHAN, which was postponed by several months in those same countries to allow stadiums to be completed, adds to those concerns.

Moving to a four-year cycle would probably have allowed more time between awarding hosting rights and staging the tournament, while reducing the number of countries undertaking major construction projects each year. It would also have reduced the frequency of the strain on stadiums and public budgets.

Every two years, one or more countries must deliver infrastructure that meets the required standards. That favours countries with already approved stadiums, such as Morocco, Egypt and Côte d’Ivoire. For smaller countries, having to build several stadiums carries the risk that they will end up abandoned.

I understand why some people are enthusiastic about AFCON taking place every two years. We all agree that it is a celebration. But a tournament every two years assumes there will be plenty of candidates ready to host it. Is that really the case? I am not certain. Will AFCON’s scheduled dates be respected rather than changed, as so often happens? I am not certain.

The competition’s credibility rests on all these details. And let us not dismiss them as “African folklore”. AFCON is technically the world’s third-biggest football tournament after the World Cup and the European Championship, so it deserves a calendar of the same standard.