Why CAF’s U-turn on AFCON’s four-year cycle is a major victory for African football

The Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) will continue to be staged every two years after the Confederation of African Football (CAF) reversed its controversial plan to move the competition to a four-year cycle, in a decision that could prove crucial to the financial and sporting future of African football.

The reversal marks a significant departure from the position announced by CAF president Patrice Motsepe in December, when he revealed plans to hold the continent’s flagship international tournament once every four years as part of efforts to restructure the increasingly congested football calendar.

However, the initial proposal attracted criticism over its potential impact on African national associations, players and supporters, with concerns that reducing the tournament’s frequency would deprive the continent of one of its most important sources of football revenue.

CAF’s decision to retain the biennial format has therefore been welcomed as a positive development, particularly for countries that depend on the competition to generate income, develop their national teams and sustain interest in international football.

Financial lifeline for African football

Since the inaugural tournament in 1957, AFCON has largely maintained a two-year schedule, providing African countries with regular opportunities to compete at the highest international level.

Although Africa’s representation at the FIFA World Cup has increased significantly, with 10 nations featuring at the 2026 tournament, the continental championship remains an essential platform for countries that do not regularly qualify for the global showpiece.

More importantly, AFCON is a major commercial asset for African football, generating broadcast, sponsorship and other revenue streams that support national federations and the wider football ecosystem.

Moving the competition to a four-year cycle would have reduced those opportunities, potentially leaving several associations with fewer resources to finance their football programmes.

The biennial arrangement also allows CAF to distribute major tournaments across a wider selection of host nations rather than concentrating its attention on countries capable of generating the biggest commercial returns.

While hosting AFCON can stimulate investment in stadiums and other sporting infrastructure, the benefits extend beyond established football markets such as Morocco, Egypt and South Africa to countries including Mali, Angola and Equatorial Guinea.

Although infrastructure projects do not always deliver lasting benefits, the opportunity to host major international competitions can help develop football facilities and expand the sport’s reach across the continent.

European football calendar raises questions

The proposed four-year cycle was also linked to efforts to accommodate the increasingly demanding international football calendar and the interests of European clubs.

European leagues have frequently expressed concerns about losing African players during AFCON, particularly when the tournament takes place in January and February, disrupting domestic competitions.

Moving the competition to June and July would have reduced some of those scheduling conflicts, but hosting it during the European summer presents significant challenges for several African countries.

The rainy season in parts of West Africa makes that period unsuitable for staging a major tournament, raising questions about whether countries in the region would effectively be excluded from hosting future editions.

The competition would also face greater competition for attention from the European Championship, potentially limiting its visibility and commercial appeal among European audiences, including African diaspora communities.

Retaining the two-year cycle, with the flexibility to stage tournaments in January-February or June-July depending on the host country’s climate, offers CAF more options when determining the competition’s schedule.

FIFA politics behind CAF’s reversal?

The circumstances surrounding CAF’s change of position have also raised questions about the influence of wider power struggles within world football.

Speculation has emerged that the reversal could be connected to the political relationship between FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Motsepe and influential African football administrators.

Motsepe and Moroccan Football Federation president Fouzi Lekjaa reportedly held discussions with UEFA officials in Salzburg ahead of the European Super Cup final in August.

The meeting came amid controversy surrounding Somali referee Omar Artan, who had reportedly been denied entry into the United States despite being selected to officiate at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

There have been suggestions that the discussions could have formed part of wider political manoeuvring within FIFA, with the restoration of AFCON’s traditional schedule potentially strengthening support for those seeking changes to the organisation’s leadership.

However, there is no established evidence that the reversal was the result of a political bargain involving FIFA or UEFA.

Questions also remain over why Motsepe initially pushed for the four-year arrangement, particularly given its potential financial consequences for African football associations.

The proposal would have reduced the frequency of one of the continent’s biggest revenue-generating events at a time when several national federations depend heavily on international football competitions for financial support.

A welcome decision for African football

Despite the questions surrounding the circumstances of the reversal, CAF’s decision to retain the two-year cycle represents a significant victory for African football.

The next editions are scheduled for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in 2027, with CAF’s revised calendar also pointing towards a 2028 tournament and subsequent editions in 2031 and 2033.

The scheduling plans, however, will need to be carefully managed to avoid further disruptions, particularly given the history of AFCON tournaments being staged outside their originally scheduled dates.

Ultimately, maintaining the biennial format protects an important source of revenue, gives more countries opportunities to host the tournament and ensures African national teams continue to enjoy regular competitive football.