Why Africa Has Never Had a FIFA President: The Power, Politics and History Behind the Leadership Gap

Why Has Africa Never Had a FIFA President?

An investigative documentary into the history, politics and power structures that have kept the world's biggest football continent from occupying football's most powerful office.

Imagine a continent producing some of the world's greatest footballers, filling stadiums with millions of passionate supporters and supplying an enormous share of the game's global talent yet never producing a permanent president of FIFA.

It is one of football's most striking contradictions.

Since FIFA was founded in Paris in 1904, every permanent president has come from outside Africa. The organisation began with seven European members : Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. South Africa did not join until 1910, while Egypt became the longest-serving African member after joining in 1923.

More than a century later, Africa has 54 FIFA member associations. Yet the continent has never had one of its own occupy the presidency.

So is this simply an accident of history?

Or does the story reveal something deeper about power in global football?

A game whose institutions were born in Europe

To understand the problem, one has to go back to the beginning.

FIFA was created in Europe, at a time when much of Africa was still under colonial rule. Its first presidents "Robert Guérin, Daniel Burley Woolfall, Jules Rimet and others ", emerged from a European football establishment that had already developed its institutions, networks and influence.

Africa was not sitting at the table when FIFA was created.

That matters.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) itself was not established until 1957. Its founding members were Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and South Africa. At the 1954 FIFA Congress, Africa had only just been recognised as a confederation and was granted the right to appoint its first representative to FIFA's Executive Committee.

In other words, African football entered FIFA's power structure decades after the organisation itself had been created.

The disadvantage was therefore not simply sporting. It was institutional.

Europe had a head start in building the relationships that eventually became the political machinery of world football.

Then came the numbers

At first glance, Africa should have an enormous advantage.

FIFA currently has 211 member associations, and CAF represents 54 of them "more than a quarter of the entire membership".

That is a formidable voting bloc.

But numbers alone do not win FIFA elections.

The presidency is decided by FIFA's member associations, not by continental population, footballing talent or World Cup performance. Every association has political agency within the Congress.

That means the real question is not simply "How many African votes are there?"

It is:

"Can those votes be converted into a coordinated political force capable of producing an African president?"

History suggests that this has been one of Africa's greatest difficulties.

The man who came closest

Perhaps no name better illustrates Africa's unfinished journey to the FIFA presidency than Issa Hayatou.

The Cameroonian became one of the most powerful figures in African football. He served as CAF president for 29 years, from 1988 to 2017, and was a FIFA vice-president and council member.

In 2002, Hayatou challenged Switzerland's Joseph "Sepp" Blatter for the FIFA presidency.

For Africa, it was a historic opportunity.

But the campaign exposed a painful reality: Africa's votes were not automatically African votes.

Hayatou lost heavily. Reuters later noted that many African countries deserted him in the election.

That defeat became an important lesson.

Having a powerful African candidate was not enough.

Africa needed political unity beyond individual national interests.

The irony of 2015

Then, almost by accident, an African temporarily occupied the FIFA presidency.

When the FIFA crisis engulfed Sepp Blatter in 2015, Hayatou became FIFA President ad interim.

For just over four months, from October 2015 until February 2016, an African sat at the very top of world football.

But it was not an electoral victory.

Hayatou inherited the position during an institutional crisis rather than winning it through a presidential campaign.

And when FIFA held its extraordinary election in February 2016, the presidency went to Gianni Infantino.

The distinction is important: Africa has had an acting FIFA president, but it has never elected an African as the organisation's permanent president.

Is Europe deliberately blocking Africa?

This is where the investigation becomes more complicated.

It would be tempting to conclude that European football simply refuses to allow an African to lead FIFA.

The evidence does not establish such a simple conspiracy.

FIFA's electoral system does not formally reserve the presidency for Europe. Indeed, FIFA's modern structure includes 211 associations across six confederations, and its reforms have explicitly promoted greater diversity and governance.

The problem is therefore less about a written rule excluding Africans and more about where political influence, institutional experience, money and alliances have historically accumulated.

European football has enormous economic power.

Its leagues attract global audiences. Its clubs dominate the commercial football economy. Its administrators have historically occupied influential positions within FIFA and international football.

That creates a network of relationships that cannot simply be overturned by counting African associations.

Africa's other problem: Africa itself

Perhaps the most uncomfortable part of the story is that Africa cannot blame outsiders for everything.

African football politics has frequently been divided by national, linguistic, regional and personal interests.

North Africa does not always see football politics the same way as West Africa. West Africa has its own rivalries. Southern, Central and East African interests can differ.

And presidential elections turn these differences into political calculations.

The 2021 election of Patrice Motsepe as CAF president provides an instructive example.

Motsepe was elected unopposed after Augustin Senghor, Ahmed Yahya and Jacques Anouma withdrew from the race as part of an African unity arrangement. CAF itself described the move as a "unity stance."

The lesson is revealing.

When Africa acts collectively, it can create overwhelming political momentum.

When it fragments, its numerical advantage becomes much less powerful.

The Infantino era exposes the paradox

Gianni Infantino's presidency has perhaps demonstrated Africa's political importance more clearly than any previous era.

In 2023, Infantino was re-elected unopposed at a FIFA Congress held in Kigali, Rwanda — the first elective FIFA Congress to be held in Africa.

And in August 2026, CAF's 54 associations reaffirmed unanimous support for Infantino as he prepares for another presidential election. Reuters described CAF as one of the most powerful voting blocs in FIFA.

This creates an extraordinary paradox.

Africa possesses enough votes to be decisive in determining who becomes FIFA president, yet it has never used that collective strength to make an African the president.

Africa can help decide who governs FIFA without governing FIFA itself.

That is perhaps the central mystery.

The problem of institutional depth

There is another factor that deserves attention: the pipeline of African football administrators.

Africa has produced influential football executives, but relatively few have accumulated the combination of international networks, institutional credibility, political alliances and global commercial relationships required to win a FIFA presidential election.

Being a successful national federation president is one thing.

Running CAF is another.

Winning the support of more than 200 football associations spread across six continents is something else entirely.

The FIFA presidency requires a candidate who can persuade Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Oceania that their interests will be protected.

That requires years  "sometimes decades ", of relationship-building.

And there is a historical burden

African football has also had to fight battles that European football largely did not have to fight.

Colonialism, apartheid, political instability, underinvestment and uneven football infrastructure shaped the development of African football institutions.

South Africa's history is a powerful example. FIFA recognised the apartheid-era white governing body for years before suspending South Africa, while CAF expelled the country in 1960. South Africa only regained FIFA membership in 1992.

These historical disruptions mattered.

While African football was fighting for recognition and equality, the established football powers were strengthening their institutions.

But the future may be different

The argument that Africa is permanently locked out is becoming harder to sustain.

The continent now has 54 FIFA members.

Africa has hosted a World Cup.

Morocco reached the World Cup semi-finals in 2022.

African administrators increasingly occupy important positions in global football.

And FIFA's own governance reforms have introduced term limits, greater oversight and structural changes intended to make the organisation more accountable.

The question is therefore no longer whether an African can theoretically become FIFA president.

The question is whether Africa can produce " and unite behind ", a candidate capable of winning the global political contest.

The unfinished story

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that Africa has been denied the FIFA presidency simply because the world does not respect African football.

The reality is more uncomfortable.

Africa has sometimes possessed the numbers but lacked unity.

It has produced influential administrators but struggled to turn continental influence into global political power.

It has sometimes supported foreign candidates who offered immediate strategic benefits rather than building a long-term African presidential project.

And historically, African football entered FIFA's institutional game late.

The result is a remarkable contradiction.

A continent that has supplied some of football's greatest players "from George Weah to Didier Drogba, Samuel Eto'o to Mohamed Salah " , has never produced the person who sits at the top of the game's governing pyramid.

The ball, ultimately, may be in Africa's own court.

The next breakthrough will probably not come simply because an African candidate is talented, respected or deserving.

It will come when African football federations decide that 54 votes are not merely 54 national interests, but potentially one powerful continental political force.

Until then, Africa may continue to possess one of the biggest voting blocs in world football while watching others occupy football's most powerful chair.

And that may be the greatest paradox in the history of African football.