Prime
Ownership test welcomed but timing, spirit questioned
Vipers director Haruna Kyobe (L) recieves an award from the club president Lawrence Mulindwa (C) as the marketing director Simon Ssekankya looks on. PHOTOS/JOHN BATANUDDE
What you need to know:
They are generally sets of rules that would pass or prohibit an individual or a company from taking over a club as an owner or a director. These rules look at a wide range of records that include criminal cases, bans by sporting or professional bodies, bankruptcy among others.
Arua Hill’s premature relegation mid last season bruised the image of the StarTimes Uganda Premier League. But that, many believe, could have been avoided had Fufa followed its own script in the Club Licensing manual to the letter.
Fufa, being the regulator, had relegated the club together with Busoga United from the initial draft league fixture last season. The reason: “Two (2) clubs, Busoga United and Arua Hill, have failed to submit the minimum mandatory requirements as per the Club Licensing regulations.”
Club licensing is a tool for promoting the professionalisation of club football. The system applies five criteria that sets minimum standards for clubs that participate in a given competition.
Club licensing
While launching the universal club licensing regulations in 2008, Fifa noted that one of its main objectives was promoting transparency in the control, ownership and financing of clubs.
These requirements relate to the sporting, infrastructure, personnel and administrative, financial and legal criteria. Arua and Busoga violated all.
Legal, by its nature, determines how the rest operate and is where the buck stops. Under this, the clubs are required to present their statutes approved by the members and owners and a club ownership declaration to ascertain the true owners as required by the laws of Uganda.
Both Busoga United and Arua Hill struggled with this. The former had to rely on Uganda Registration Services Bureau to settle their ownership case while the latter succumbed after failing to get a stable, or rather richer owner. Arua’s struggles escalated when their former owner Joel Aita pulled out of the club for what he called ‘lack of business sense’.
Winnowing the chaff
These incidents are the reason Fufa was prompted to tighten the belt and formulate laws that regulate ownership of clubs and a few elements in it.
Fufa has split ownership models into eight categories namely natural persons, private, public, private and government institutions, trust and community club ownership.
An owner will be awarded the Fufa Certificate of Club Ownership that will carry a certificate number, date of issuance, type of ownership and its owners.
Any prospective owner, part-owner or director must meet the requirements to be allowed to take over a club.
“Not everyone will be allowed to own a football club, there’s going to be a fit and proper test,” Fufa president Eng. Moses Magogo, who revealed the new move stated in a post on X.
“Persons intending to own a club will be subjected to this test to verify their credibility,” he added before listing some of the requirements."
Fufa’s new move is not a first, their new regulations are somehow borrowed from the English Football League’s system that includes the Premier League. The system has been borrowed by the UK government as well to regulate several boards of their institutions.
Lovers of the English Premier League are familiar with this test with the recent being the Newcastle ownership transfer saga.
The fit and proper test
So, what is a “fit and proper” test?
They are generally sets of rules that would pass or prohibit an individual or a company from taking over a club as an owner or a director. These rules look at a wide range of records that include criminal cases, bans by sporting or professional bodies, bankruptcy among others.
Under Fufa’s new regulations, a person may fail the test for several reasons.
It includes a person who has power to control, influence or holds significant interest in the management of another club or has been prohibited by law from owning a club. Under the National Sports Act 2023, the minister has the mandate to make regulations to prescribe this and the process of forming and running a club, especially community clubs.
Fufa President Moses Magogo handing over the book about to sports minister Peter Ogwang. Fufa chief executive officer Edgar Watson looks on. Magogo wants checks on ownership of clubs.
A number of clubs have come and gone due to ownership chaos in recent times. Some of the famous ones include Nyamityobora, SC Victoria University and The Saints. These three and several others came with pomp but their pockets ran dry and closed shop.
To tame similar cases, any prospective owner will be required to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to fund the club before being granted an ownership license.
More hurdles
The new regulations will also prohibit anyone who has owned or been in a position of influence of two or more clubs that wound up to acquire another.
On top of that, individuals who have been involved in the running of a club can only put in a new application to own another after two years from the time he quit have elapsed.
Prospective owners serving a Fufa, Caf or Fifa ban at the time of asking will not be allowed until his sentence is over.
The English manual extends this rule to any ruling body of sport internal and foreign that includes the International Olympics Committee, sports councils whether the suspension or ban is direct or indirect.
Additionally, the regulations also ban individuals who have been proved “guilty of involvement in matters considered as vices to football”. Vices in football, as defined by Fifa, are any offences that violate the Fifa Code of Ethics and could lead to a ban. They include match-fixing, corruption, discrimination, violence, misuse of funds and power, involvement in illegal betting and so forth.
A person who provides false information or hides relevant information may also fail the test. Beyond the requirements listed, a prospective owner may be disqualified for “any reason that Fufa may find appropriate”. The federation may not reveal the reasons unless asked by law.
Now this last one is where the bone of contention lies!
“The fit and proper test is good but I hope with Fufa’s arrogating itself to arbitrarily determine what is fit and proper, there is a likelihood of abuse,” sports lawyer Ivan Ojakol tells Saturday Monitor.
Rampant takeovers
The rules will also be applied to new buyers. Flashy and unregulated takeovers have contributed hugely to the mess.
Aita bought Arua around 2021 from Aziz Damani who had acquired it from Doves two years earlier. Busoga United started as Kirinya before partnering with Jinja SSS in 2013 and ended up changing to Busoga United in 2019. This has been the trend.
More than half of the 16 teams in the league did not start naturally through the pyramids. This is a complete contrast to the Premier League.
Wakiso Giants was previously Kamuli Park. UPDF’s original Simba went under before the soldiers bought The Saints and later changed to its current. Vipers was Bunamwaya, URA evolved from Lyantonde and Bul from Wamma.
Even the newly-promoted Lugazi recently changed from Kampala University three years ago while the original Mbale Heroes dissolved for previous administrators to purchase Kiboga Young before changing name.
One similarity is that the clubs bought their current identities because of a change of ownership to more loaded owners. The story has been more or less the same when the funders ran out of money or lost interest – demise.
To avert a similar situation where a club exits midway because of insolvency, Fufa will take over its management through an interim committee to ensure the league’s fixtures are not disrupted until the end of season or if a new owner is found. If not found, Fufa will withdraw the club from its competitions.
A change of ownership will not automatically mean change of name, but the process to the latter remains the same: a club will apply for change of name and submit the necessary requirements. The proposal will then be forwarded to the executive committee and if accepted, the change will be effective at the beginning of the subsequent season.
A community club will neither change name nor transfer ownership under the new settings.
The devil in the detail
A number of stakeholders agree that there was need for such regulations but the detail seems to lie in the execution.
Thaddeus Kitandwe, a shareholder and director at Vipers and Ronnie Mutebi, the chairman and director at Soltilo Bright Stars share their concerns.
“Appreciation to Fufa for always showing concern in regulating the game as mandated,” Kitandwe commends.
He advises Fufa to follow the English Premier League route.
“I must note that they must operate within the limits of their mandate. In 2010, FIFA under the Win in Africa with Africa programme envisioned to empower the clubs across the continent with objectives to enable them become corporate entities to own and manage their leagues and only co-opt only for purposes of football regulations.”
The Premier League’s fit and proper test is conducted by its own league’s governance body, which includes the league's executives, club representatives and legal teams. Changes to the rules are only passed by the clubs.
“It is very good to have a standardized criteria in any regulated industry like international sports,” Mutebi chips in.
“However, sports being a social and public good, some rules have to be contextualized to avoid being counter-productive.
The spirit
Nobert Kazibwe, a renowned commentator on local football and a member of the Villa Members Trust adds: “Regulations are good but the execution and monitoring is where the cherry-pickers leave the door ajar for selfish reasons.”
The new regulations were first communicated by the Fufa president before officially going out. While the stakeholders seem fine with regulations, its execution is where the line is drawn. The clause that leaves Fufa with a blank cheque to decide what is right or wrong without explanation also raises eyebrows.
The matter is already dragging in the football elections set for next year.
Precedent
A number of commentators feel Magogo, who is under intense scrutiny over his decade-plus leadership, is plotting to lock out potential candidates. Magogo went unopposed in 2021 after his only opponent Mujib Kasule was locked out at the last moment on technicalities.
Bright Stars has several shareholders.
A year to the 2021 elections, the federation created the Fufa Professionals League body that merged the voting bloc between Uganda Premier League and Big League clubs. The move diluted UPL’s authority, who had 16 votes initially, in deciding their representative who is the Fufa third vice president.
The UPL clubs had the autonomy of nominating a candidate but they had the same voting rights as the second division. Florence Nakiwala went unopposed.
During that time, the federation promised that the new body would fast-track the road to professionalism of clubs. But the FPL went silent as the status of the league deteriorated culminating in the recent incidents.
“Why now?” Kitandwe queries the need for the “urgent changes”.
Others feel this could be a move to take on club owners who are unfriendly to his regime.
“I have seen some elements of the ownership rules seemingly targeting individuals. A system should be intended to streamline systems not deal with individuals,” Ronnie Mutebi said in his earlier submission.
Types of club ownership models in Uganda
Government’s institutional clubs – fully owned by a government institution that is created by an act of parliament. The institution fully owns a company to own the football club on its behalf.
Clubs under this in UPL – KCCA, Nec, UPDF, Maroons, URA, Police
Private institutional clubs – owned by a private institution that deals in other businesses. The institution fully owns a company to own the football club on its behalf
Private institutional owned club in UPL - Bul
Private ownership – owned by shareholding of natural and/or legal persons, that is incorporated either as a company limited by shares or by guarantee.
Privately-owned clubs in UPL – Soltilo Bright Stars, Kitara, Vipers, Mbarara City, Wakiso Giants & Lugazi, Mbale Heroes
Trust – owned by registered trustees registered under the Trustees Act (Cap 164)
Trust-owned club in UPL – SC Villa
Community club – owned by members of a community registered under the National Sports Act 2023
UPL club owners as per previous Fufa records
Bul – Bidco Uganda Limited
Express - Express Sports Club Limited
KCCA - Kampala Capital City Authority
Kitara - Denis Musinguzi (15%), Joshua Atugonza (15%), Gilbert Nyaika (8%), Francis Mugerwa(8%), Brian Kaboyo(8%), Andrew Kirungi(8%), Pius Wakabi(8%), Jude Kalisa(8%), Godfrey Bamwenda(8%) & Emmanuel Nsabimana (6%)
Maroons – Uganda Prisons Services (100%)
Nec – National Enterprise Corporation, a business arm of UPDF
Police – Uganda Police
Soltilo Bright Stars - Soltilo Uganda Limited (70%), Ronald Mutebi (19%), Ahmed Hussein (6%), Joseph Mubiru (3%) & Tadec Miiro (2%)
UPDF – Uganda People’s Defence Forces
URA – Uganda Revenue Authority
Vipers - Lawrence Mulindwa (90%), Tadeus KItandwe (5%), & Haruna Kyobe (5%)
Wakiso Giants - Hassan Lule (80%) & Ahmed Mbabi (20%)
Lugazi and Mbale Heroes – not yet known
