*By Sunday Agunbiade (Mr VAR)*
The National Sports Commission (NSC) must demonstrate that its leadership is committed to building a sustainable sports industry through infrastructure development, clear policy direction, effective supervision and strong institutional structures, rather than allowing its activities to be dominated by the day-to-day operations of the national sports federations under its oversight.
Since the re-establishment of the NSC, Nigerians have expected a renewed approach to sports administration, one capable of addressing longstanding challenges, improving facilities, strengthening governance and creating an environment in which athletes and federations can thrive.
However, a fundamental question must be asked: what tangible infrastructure, measurable policy outcomes and enduring institutional reforms will the current NSC leadership leave behind for Nigerian sports?
The question is particularly important because the Commission’s responsibilities extend beyond the organisation of competitions and the administration of sporting activities. Its broader mandate includes sports development, policy coordination, infrastructure, funding oversight and the supervision of national sports bodies.
Under the National Sports Commission Act, 2023, Section 3 outlines functions that include encouraging sports development and participation, coordinating efforts to raise performance standards, maintaining federal government-owned or controlled stadiums, and providing and maintaining sports centres and training facilities. Section 16 addresses the Commission’s relationship with national sports associations, including supervision, government funding and the limits of interference in their general administration.
These provisions provide a basis for demanding accountability from the Commission on how it is using its powers and resources to develop sports across the country.
Where Are the New Sporting Facilities?
One of the most important questions confronting the NSC is the state of infrastructure across the different sports federations.
How many new or substantially rehabilitated football training pitches, technical centres and other football development facilities have been completed under the current leadership?
How many basketball courts have been constructed or upgraded to provide young players with opportunities to train and compete at international standards?
What facilities have been developed for judo, wrestling, boxing, weightlifting, handball, volleyball, athletics and other sports that continue to produce talented Nigerian athletes despite limited resources?
How many modern training centres, indoor sporting halls, equipment centres, athlete hostels and high-performance facilities have been delivered, and in which states or locations?
These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers supported by project records, locations, completion dates, budgets and evidence of actual use.
The NSC may point to infrastructure projects that have been announced, approved or placed under development. Such initiatives are welcome. However, announcements and proposals must be distinguished from projects that have been funded, commenced, completed and made operational.
For every infrastructure initiative announced, the public deserves to know its implementation status, the amount committed, the contractor or implementing agency where applicable, the delivery timeline and the expected benefits to athletes and federations.
Nigeria cannot build a competitive sporting industry on announcements alone. It requires functional facilities, properly maintained equipment and accessible training environments across the country.
What Are the NSC’s Policy Statements for Each Federation?
Beyond infrastructure, the Commission should make its policy direction for each recognised national sports federation clear and accessible to stakeholders.
What is the NSC’s development policy for Nigerian football? What concrete measures will improve grassroots participation, coaching education, refereeing, youth development, women’s football, facilities and the competitiveness of domestic leagues?
What is its policy for basketball, particularly youth development, school competitions, talent identification, coaching standards and the development of courts across the six geopolitical zones?
What strategic framework has it established for judo, wrestling and boxing to improve athlete preparation, coaching, talent identification, equipment, competition opportunities and international performance?
What measurable targets have been established for athletics and other Olympic sports? How does the Commission intend to improve sports science, athlete welfare, injury prevention, anti-doping education and the transition from grassroots competition to elite performance?
These questions are not intended to diminish the Commission’s role. Rather, they are intended to encourage it to fulfil that role more effectively.
Each federation should have access to a transparent development framework outlining annual priorities, performance indicators, funding arrangements, infrastructure requirements and expected outcomes. The public should be able to assess progress against those commitments.
A policy statement should not merely contain ambitious language. It should identify the problem, establish a practical solution, assign responsibility, provide a realistic timeline and specify how success will be measured.
Supervision Must Not Become Substitution
The NSC also needs to maintain a clear distinction between supervising federations and taking over their ordinary administrative responsibilities.
The Commission has legitimate responsibilities in sports policy, public infrastructure, government funding oversight and the supervision of recognised national sports bodies. Where there are credible allegations of financial misconduct, administrative failure, governance breaches or other wrongdoing, the appropriate authorities should investigate and act in accordance with applicable law.
Where allegations are substantiated, corrective measures should follow established procedures. Where temporary intervention is legally justified, it should have a clear mandate, defined objectives, accountability requirements and an appropriate exit plan.
However, allegations alone should not become a blanket justification for displacing legitimate federation structures or assuming responsibility for every aspect of their routine activities.
Section 16 of the National Sports Commission Act, 2023, provides for supervision and, subject to presidential approval, the possible temporary takeover and management of a national sports association where necessary. It also states that the Commission should not interfere with the general administration of national sports associations, although it may issue directions when necessary.This makes the distinction between lawful oversight and routine administrative substitution particularly important.
The NSC should therefore resist any temptation to turn exceptional intervention into a permanent operating model. Its primary objective should be to ensure that federations become more transparent, professionally managed, financially accountable and capable of administering their respective sports effectively.
If the allegations against a federation are genuine, investigate them, establish the facts and apply the appropriate remedies. But do not allow the investigation or intervention to overshadow the more fundamental responsibility of building a stronger sports system.
The objective must be institutional improvement, not an endless cycle of administrative takeovers.
NSC should build structures that will outlive the current 2 Man ladership.
The real test of leadership is not the number of meetings held, announcements made or events attended during a person’s tenure. It is the quality of the institutions and facilities that remain after that person leaves office.
The NSC should prioritise a comprehensive sports infrastructure development programme covering football, basketball, judo, wrestling, boxing and other recognised sports.
Such a programme should identify infrastructure gaps in every geopolitical zone, establish priorities based on athlete participation and sporting needs, encourage private-sector investment, provide transparent procurement arrangements and introduce maintenance plans that prevent newly built facilities from deteriorating.
The Commission should also establish enduring institutional frameworks for federation development, including standard governance guidelines, transparent funding and audit procedures, technical education programmes, athlete welfare standards and long-term talent development pathways.
A national sports infrastructure register would be particularly useful. It should identify existing facilities, their condition, ownership, intended use, rehabilitation needs and the status of ongoing projects. Regular public reports would help stakeholders determine whether resources are producing meaningful results.
Similarly, a publicly accessible policy scorecard for each federation would allow Nigerians to track commitments, expenditure, implementation and performance. Such a system would strengthen confidence in the Commission and encourage greater cooperation between government, federations, state sports authorities, schools and private investors. These are the kinds of institutional reforms that can survive changes in leadership and provide a stable foundation for Nigerian sports.
Accountability must accompany funding.
The NSC should also explain how available public resources are being translated into measurable improvements across the sporting sector.
For infrastructure projects, stakeholders should be able to establish what was budgeted, what was released, what was spent and what was delivered. For federation support, the Commission should communicate the basis for allocations, the conditions attached to grants and the mechanisms used to monitor expenditure and results.
Transparency should not be limited to announcing the amounts allocated to selected competitions or national teams. It should extend to the broader development priorities that determine whether Nigerian sports can produce athletes consistently and compete successfully over the long term.
The Commission should publish periodic reports showing progress on infrastructure, grassroots development, coaching, athlete welfare and federation governance. Where projects have been delayed or targets missed, it should explain the reasons and provide revised implementation plans.
Such accountability would not weaken the NSC. It would strengthen its credibility and demonstrate that its leadership is prepared to be judged by results.
The NSC has an opportunity to lay the foundation for a new era in Nigerian sports administration. It should use that opportunity to improve facilities, develop coherent policies, establish transparent funding systems and strengthen the institutions responsible for each sporting discipline.
Its leadership should be encouraged to concentrate on the areas where a national coordinating body can make the greatest difference: infrastructure, policy, regulation, institutional capacity, strategic investment and effective supervision.
Where federation misconduct is established, appropriate action should follow. Where governance reforms are necessary, the Commission should support their implementation. But where federations are functioning within the law, their legitimate administrative responsibilities should be respected.
Football should not be the only sport whose institutional challenges attract national attention. Basketball, judo, wrestling, boxing, athletics and other sports deserve development plans that reflect their needs and potential.
Nigeria possesses abundant sporting talent. The challenge is to create the facilities, policies and institutions capable of turning that talent into sustainable success.
The NSC should therefore answer the questions before it: What facilities have been delivered? What policies have been implemented? What institutional reforms have been completed? And what structures will remain when the current leadership leaves office?
These questions deserve evidence-based answers, not political exchanges.
Ultimately, the Commission should be remembered not merely for the activities it supervised or the disputes it managed, but for the infrastructure it developed, the policies it implemented and the institutions it strengthened.
I so humbly submit
