Why has Caf abandoned plans to hold Afcon every four years?

In a surprising reversal, the Confederation of African Football (Caf) has decided to keep the Africa Cup of Nations (Afcon) on its traditional two‑year rhythm, shelving a plan announced last December to shift the tournament to a four‑year cycle. President Patrice Motsepe framed the U‑turn as a move to “advance, protect and promote” African football, citing the need to safeguard the sport’s financial lifeline and developmental impact across the continent.

From Four‑Year Proposal to Biennial Reality

The idea of extending Afcon to a four‑year interval first emerged at a Caf executive committee meeting in December 2025, when officials voted to adopt the new schedule without first presenting it to the general assembly of all 54 member associations. Critics argued that such a decision should have been debated for months, noting that Afcon serves as the “locomotive” that funds the federation’s other competitions. The backlash prompted Caf to ask each national association to state a preference, and the executive committee ultimately voted to retain the biennial format.

Motsepe explained that the original shift was intended to align the African calendar more closely with the global football timetable, reducing the clash with the European club season that has repeatedly sparked disputes over player releases. Yet the backlash underscored how deeply the two‑year rhythm is woven into the continent’s football fabric, with officials like Zambia’s Sydney Mungala describing the biennial cycle as having “served the continent very well.”

Financial Stakes: Why Afcon Remains Irreplaceable

Afcon is Caf’s biggest revenue generator. The 2025 edition in Morocco was projected to bring in $192 million, accounting for roughly two‑thirds of the governing body’s total competition income. Earlier, the tournament’s profit outlook rose from $75 million for the 2019 Ivory Coast finals to $114 million for the 2025 edition, highlighting a clear upward trajectory in earnings. This financial muscle underpins not only Caf’s own operations but also the budgets of many national federations that rely on Afcon proceeds to fund their programmes.

For federations with limited government or corporate backing, the tournament’s payouts are vital. In Zambia, for example, only two of the eleven national teams receive partial government sponsorship; the remainder depend on federation coffers, which are bolstered by Caf’s support derived largely from Afcon revenues. The prospect of a four‑year cycle threatened to shrink this financial stream, prompting concerns that the continent’s broader football development could suffer.

The Africa Nations League: An Ambitious Alternative

Alongside the proposed schedule change, Caf floated an annual Africa Nations League, envisioning a “world‑class competition every year” that would diversify revenue sources beyond Afcon. The league, slated to launch in September 2029, would involve all 54 member nations and aim to create a more sustainable commercial model. However, Motsepe admitted that the new competition would likely need “several years” before delivering “substantial financial and football development contributions.”

The concept echoes a previous attempt to broaden Caf’s commercial base: the Africa Super League announced in 2022. Projected to generate $200 million annually, the Super League was discontinued after a single edition when commercial partners failed to meet financial expectations. Motsepe’s reflection that “partners … were not giving us the deals we thought we would be happy with” underscores the challenge of building new revenue streams in a market where Afcon remains the dominant draw.

Political Underpinnings: The FIFA Connection

The push for a four‑year Afcon cycle was not purely a Caf initiative. FIFA President Gianni Infantino first floated the idea in February 2020, seeking to harmonise the global calendar and perhaps ease the integration of a 48‑team World Cup. While Motsepe initially resisted the proposal after becoming Caf president, his later alignment with Infantino’s broader agenda—particularly the expansion of the World Cup and the potential for greater African representation—suggests a nuanced diplomatic dance.

Infantino’s presence at Caf’s recent strategy conference in Cape Verde, where he reportedly received “support … in return for some concessions,” points to a quid‑pro‑quo dynamic. According to Algerian journalist Maher Mezahi, the return of Afcon to a two‑year schedule was a key concession that reflected Africa’s willingness to assert its interests even as it courted FIFA’s backing. This interplay highlights how continental football governance is increasingly entangled with global power structures.

Implications for Future Tournaments

With the biennial rhythm restored, the next Afcon will be staged in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda from 19 June to 17 July 2027. The tournament’s timing, just a year after the 2026 edition, underscores Caf’s commitment to maintaining the existing cadence while it continues to explore the Nations League concept. Subsequent editions are slated for 2028, 2031 and 2033, deliberately spaced to avoid clashes with the World Cup, which itself will expand to 48 teams.

The decision also signals a cautious approach to long‑term scheduling. By keeping Afcon on a two‑year cycle, Caf preserves a predictable revenue flow and avoids the logistical headaches that have plagued past attempts to restructure the calendar. At the same time, the federation signals that any future changes will need broader consensus, given the criticism that the original four‑year plan was decided without a general assembly vote.

Stakeholder Reactions and the Road Ahead

National associations have voiced mixed feelings. While many, like the Football Association of Zambia, welcomed the retention of the biennial format, others expressed concerns about the lack of transparent decision‑making. Algerian journalist Maher Mezahi warned that “these kinds of decisions should be put to the general assembly,” emphasizing the need for inclusive governance.

Motsepe’s acknowledgment of misgivings surrounding the Nations League suggests that Caf will tread carefully as it pilots the new competition. The federation’s stated aim is to create a “self‑supporting” football ecosystem, but the timeline for achieving that goal remains uncertain. As the 2027 Afcon approaches, the pressure will be on Caf to demonstrate that the tournament can continue to deliver both sporting excitement and financial stability for African football.

What the U‑Turn Means for African Football’s Future

Ultimately, the decision to keep Afcon on a two‑year cycle reaffirms the tournament’s central role in African sport and economics. It preserves a reliable source of income for national federations, many of which rely on Caf’s support to fund programmes beyond the senior men’s team. It also maintains a rhythm that fans across the continent have come to expect, ensuring that the spectacle of Afcon remains a unifying cultural event.

At the same time, the episode highlights the delicate balance Caf must strike between innovation and tradition. The ambition to launch an annual Nations League reflects a desire to diversify revenue and reduce dependence on a single event, yet past experiences like the short‑lived Africa Super League caution against over‑promising. As Caf moves forward, the lesson may be clear: any new venture must be built on realistic commercial foundations and inclusive decision‑making, lest the continent’s football heart be weakened by missteps.

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: BBC News Africa; bbc.co.uk; Global1.News (03 November 2026).

By Amara Diop, Staff Writer