The upcoming South African Football Association (SAFA) elective congress on 12 September 2026 has come under fire from the Football Union of South Africa (FUSA), which says the process effectively excludes active player representation from decisions that will shape the professional game.
Unions say players are being sidelined
FUSA secretary-general Taelo Motloung told KickOff that the elective congress' structure prevents active player unions from participating meaningfully in the National Executive Committee voting process. Motloung said unions – the bodies that represent current players – are not included in the arrangements and must be invited in order to meaningfully represent those on the pitch.
"We're watching the whole thing from afar; unions are not included, and that's what I want to fight against so that unions can be there," Motloung said.
Motloung questioned the legitimacy of a process that excludes current players from a forum where decisions about their future and working conditions will be made. He asked pointedly: "When decisions about the players are made, unions have to be there to represent the players. At the moment, who is representing the players in that congress?"
Former players included, active players left out
FUSA's complaint highlights a perceived imbalance in representation: a specific cohort of former professionals, the South African Masters and Legends Football Association (SAMLFA), led by Jacob 'Bhudda' Mathathe, has been included in the proceedings, while active player unions have not.
According to FUSA, giving a platform to former players does not address the needs of the modern professional game and its labour realities. The union argues that contemporary players, through their unions, should have a clear and formal channel into SAFA's electoral decision-making.
- Key date: 12 September 2026 – SAFA elective congress.
- Group raising concerns: Football Union of South Africa (FUSA).
- Included former players' body: South African Masters and Legends Football Association (SAMLFA), led by Jacob 'Bhudda' Mathathe.
Implications for governance and player welfare
The dispute touches on broader questions of governance and stakeholder inclusion in South African football. Who has a seat at the table during crucial administrative elections affects policy on player welfare, league structures, labour conditions and the alignment between professional clubs and national administration.
FUSA's position is straightforward: when decisions are taken that directly affect players, the unions that bargain on their behalf should be present. Without that formal presence, unions say, the voices of current professionals risk being under-represented or absent altogether.
SAFA is preparing for a contested elective environment, with a battle for the presidency that has already drawn intense scrutiny. The absence of active player representation could add another layer of controversy to the process and may provoke calls for reform of participation rules ahead of the elective congress.
| Stakeholder | Status in congress |
|---|---|
| Football Union of South Africa (FUSA) | Not included (according to FUSA) |
| South African Masters and Legends Football Association (SAMLFA) | Included; led by Jacob 'Bhudda' Mathathe |
| Active players (through unions) | Claimed to be not represented |
As the elective date approaches, the debate is likely to intensify. Rights, representation and the structure of SAFA's decision-making mechanisms will be under the spotlight, with implications for the day-to-day lives of professional players and the governance of the sport nationwide.
For now, FUSA has signalled it will fight for inclusion. The coming weeks will show whether SAFA amends participation rules or whether the unions seek alternate avenues to have players’ interests reflected in the next leadership cycle.
