South African FA Election: Former CEO brands constitution ‘toxic’ ahead of Danny Jordaan vs Zungu vote

Former South African Football Association (SAFA) CEO Dennis Mumble has questioned the fairness of the organisation’s presidential election, arguing that the problems go beyond the contest between incumbent Danny Jordaan and challenger AmaZulu FC president Sandile Zungu.

Mumble believes the deeper concern lies in the structure of SAFA itself, insisting that the association’s Constitution requires fundamental reform before future elections can be considered genuinely fair.

Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Mumble criticised what he described as an imbalance of power within the organisation and argued that SAFA’s governance framework does not provide sufficient checks and balances.

“My opinion, no SAFA election, in my view, can be fair unless you change the SAFA Constitution,” Mumble said.

“The Constitution is much too toxic to run a fair election.”

His comments come as attention intensifies around the presidential race, with Jordaan seeking to retain control of the association against Sandile Zungu, who is challenging for the presidency.

However, Mumble insists the focus should not be limited to the two individuals seeking the top job.

Mumble calls for complete SAFA overhaul

According to the former CEO, SAFA requires a much broader governance transformation, beginning with the document that determines how the organisation operates.

“The organisation needs a complete overhaul, as far as I’m concerned, from a governance standpoint,” he said.

“The Constitution does not comply with the FIFA standard.”

Mumble also questioned the effectiveness and responsibilities of SAFA’s standing committees, suggesting that their functions are not adequately defined within the association’s statutes.

Among the structures he highlighted is the Governance Committee, which is expected to provide guidance on governance-related matters.

Mumble questioned whether the committee’s responsibilities have, in practice, become heavily centred on electoral matters rather than its wider governance mandate.

His concerns point to what he considers a structural weakness within SAFA, where the existing framework may allow those already holding influential positions to enjoy advantages over challengers.

Incumbent has election advantage

Mumble believes the current system makes it difficult to create a level playing field during presidential elections because incumbents have opportunities to build relationships and consolidate support long before voting day.

A sitting president, he argues, can use the organisation’s existing local and regional structures to strengthen political support over an extended period.

That creates a significant challenge for a candidate such as Sandile Zungu, who is attempting to unseat an incumbent with established networks and influence within the association.

For Mumble, changing the individuals at the top will therefore not be enough to resolve what he sees as the underlying governance problem.

He wants SAFA to reconsider how power is distributed throughout the organisation and how its electoral processes are structured.

“I think we need to sit down at some point and really redesign the entire SAFA governance structure by first starting with redesigning that Constitution,” he said.

Jordaan vs Zungu bigger than one election

With Danny Jordaan and Sandile Zungu preparing for the presidential contest, Mumble’s intervention shifts the debate from the personalities involved to the rules governing South African football’s administrative system.

His argument is that whoever emerges victorious will still operate within the same constitutional framework unless meaningful reforms are introduced.

That makes the election, in his view, only one part of a much larger governance question facing SAFA.

Mumble believes South African football needs a system that distributes authority more evenly, strengthens institutional checks and balances and gives presidential challengers a fairer opportunity to compete.