MONROVIA – Nearly a decade after his departure from the high-stakes corridors of continental football governance, former Liberia Football Association (LFA) President Musa Hassan Bility has re-emerged to cast a critical eye on the current leadership of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and its relationship with FIFA. In an exclusive reflection on the evolving crisis surrounding FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Bility claims that the systematic patterns of control and institutional overreach he highlighted during his tenure have finally reached a breaking point, vindicating his long-standing warnings about the erosion of African football sovereignty. Bility’s assessment comes at a delicate time for African sports diplomacy, where the continent’s 54 member associations are often caught between the desire for genuine grassroots development and the fiscal realities of reliance on Zurich-based funding. To understand Bility’s position, one must look back to 2016, a watershed moment in global football politics.
During the post-Sepp Blatter vacuum, the FIFA presidential election became a battleground for influence. Bility, then a central figure in African football, initially championed Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, believing his platform offered a more democratic approach to the global governing body. However, as the political winds shifted, Bility pivoted to support Gianni Infantino in the second round, a move he now describes as an effort to ensure that Africa would have a seat at the table of reform. 'We did it in good faith,' Bility asserted, noting that Liberia was among the few vocal supporters of Infantino at the time, despite opposition from entrenched continental power structures.
This support was intended to foster a new era where Africa could independently manage its affairs under a reformed FIFA. This momentum culminated in the 2017 election of Ahmad Ahmad as CAF President, a campaign spearheaded by figures such as the late Kwesi Nyantakyi of Ghana. For a brief window, it appeared that the movement had succeeded in dismantling the old guard. However, Bility argues that the project was quickly derailed.
The turning point, according to the former LFA head, was the direct intervention of FIFA into the operational mechanics of CAF. The appointment of FIFA personnel to manage CAF’s day-to-day functions signaled, in his view, a surrender of sovereignty rather than a genuine reform. Bility’s resistance to this centralization of power led to a period of intense personal and professional turmoil. He recounts being warned of dire consequences should he choose to dissent against the emerging FIFA-CAF alliance.
His refusal to yield resulted in protracted disciplinary proceedings, a process he maintains was based on questionable legal interpretations. Despite the formal sanctions, Bility points to subsequent forensic audits within the Liberian football structure which, he claims, substantiated his innocence regarding financial misappropriation—a narrative he believes was obscured by the global machinery of football politics. The broader implications for Liberia and Africa are profound. In the Liberian political context, where sports serve as a vital conduit for youth engagement and national identity, the autonomy of the LFA is paramount.
Bility’s argument is rooted in the belief that African football associations have been turned into mere 'voting blocs' used to shield leadership from accountability rather than centers of excellence. He questions the current trend where the CAF Executive Committee issues unanimous endorsements for FIFA leadership without convening an Extraordinary Congress. 'On whose mandate?' Bility asked.
'Which of Africa’s 54 member associations were consulted?' This criticism resonates with broader governance concerns within the ECOWAS region, where the balance between international cooperation and national sovereignty is frequently debated. The influence of external funding often dictates the policy direction of local institutions, leading to what Bility calls 'political obedience' in exchange for grants. He argues that this dependency cycle is the primary obstacle to developing professional domestic leagues, sustainable youth academies, and world-class infrastructure.
Instead of focusing on revenue generation and commercial development within the continent, the current model rewards those who align with the interests of powerful international gatekeepers. 'Money tied to political obedience is not development,' he emphasized. Bility’s call for an emergency consultation suggests a fundamental shift in how African football ought to be governed: from the bottom up. By demanding that member associations reclaim their voice, he is advocating for a governance model that prioritizes the interests of African stakeholders over the preservation of an individual’s power.
He maintains that his critique is not born of a desire for personal revenge, but rather a long-term vision for the 'liberation' of the sport. Throughout his statement, Bility underscored that his experience served as a cautionary tale for the next generation of sports administrators. He warned that the revolution once envisioned for African football was effectively hijacked by personal interests and international pressure. As the global spotlight turns once again to the administration of FIFA, Bility’s voice serves as a reminder of the historical grievances that have shaped the current landscape of the game.
For many observers of Liberian and African politics, this latest intervention is a signal that the debate over institutional integrity is far from over. Whether his call for a return to sovereignty will gain traction among current football leaders remains to be seen, particularly in an era where the financial incentives for compliance are greater than ever. However, Bility remains steadfast in his conviction: 'The CAF Executive Committee is not Africa. Football belongs to the people.'
As the continent prepares for future electoral cycles and governance reforms, the challenge for leaders will be to navigate the fine line between necessary international partnership and the preservation of institutional dignity. For Bility, the path forward is clear: a radical reinvestment in local structures and a firm rejection of any system that demands the surrender of regional autonomy. The struggle for the soul of African football, it seems, has only entered a new chapter, one that continues to be defined by the friction between global power and the voices of those on the continent who seek to redefine their own future.
