Nigeria’s 3–0 humiliation in Bissau has reopened the familiar argument over coaches, players and administrators. But there is another institution that should interrogate itself: the Sports Writers Association of Nigeria.
By Frank Big ID Alapa
Nigeria lost 3–0 to Guinea-Bissau.
Within minutes, the blame game was under way.
The players.
Éric Chelle.
The administrators.
Preparation.
Selection.
The domestic league.
Scouting.
Football politics.
Everybody had a culprit.
But there is another institution that should also be asking itself a question after nights like this.
The Sports Writers Association of Nigeria.
If SWAN intends to exert meaningful pressure within Nigerian sport, what exactly should that pressure look like?
Because Nigerian sports journalism does not suffer from a shortage of opinions.
What it too often lacks is something considerably more powerful:
structure, institutional memory and sustained accountability.
Kaduna already gave SWAN the challenge
This is not a new argument being imposed on SWAN from outside.
At the association’s National Delegates Congress in Kaduna in August, senior voices within SWAN challenged sports journalists to reclaim their roles as watchdogs and agenda setters — moving beyond event reporting toward stronger scrutiny of administration, policy and development.
That challenge has hardly had time to cool.
And Nigerian football has already supplied the test.
So perhaps the issue is no longer whether agenda-setting journalism is desirable.
It is whether sports journalists are prepared to practise it when the moment arrives.
Bissau is such a moment.
Everybody wants somebody blamed — journalism needs something better
One school of thought insists that administrators must accept responsibility because football results often begin long before kick-off — in planning, structures, player development, preparation and governance.
Another argues that administrators do not kick the football.
They did not misplace passes.
They did not lose tackles.
They did not fail to track runners.
They did not concede three goals.
Both positions raise legitimate questions.
And that is precisely where journalism should become more useful than argument.
Rather than selecting a camp and shouting louder, the fundamental question should be:
Who is responsible for what?
The coach should answer for tactics, selection, preparation and playing philosophy.
Players should answer for execution, concentration, intensity and decision-making on the pitch.
Technical structures should answer for scouting, player monitoring, succession planning and the development of a coherent national-team philosophy.
Administrators should answer for the environment surrounding those responsibilities — structures, appointments, logistics, systems and institutional support.
And those overseeing the wider reform process should explain what is changing, when it is supposed to change and how Nigerians will know whether those reforms have succeeded.
That is more useful than simply shouting:
“Sack the coach.”
It is also more useful than replying:
“Administrators didn’t play the match.”
Both positions can become convenient ways of avoiding the deeper accountability question.
Bissau did not happen in a vacuum
On 27 August, President Bola Tinubu directed a comprehensive reform of Nigerian football, specifically identifying governance, administration, stakeholder representation, development pathways, domestic competitions and accountability among the areas requiring attention.
Days later, FIFA formally accepted the resignations of principal NFF officers and said engagement would continue with the Nigerian authorities, CAF and the NFF administration toward a comprehensive reform roadmap.
Then on 17 September, SWAN itself called for a total football governance reset, arguing for reform anchored on inclusion, integrity, representation, accountability and performance.
Then came Bissau.
None of those developments proves that administrative instability caused a 3–0 defeat.
It would be irresponsible journalism to pretend otherwise.
But they make this a perfectly legitimate moment to ask a harder question:
What has actually changed — and what is supposed to change next?
That is where agenda-setting begins.
Pressure cannot disappear with the headline
A meaningful pressure role cannot simply mean becoming loud whenever Nigerian sport enters crisis.
Pressure should be organised.
Around facts.
Around responsibility.
Around questions.
Around commitments.
Around timelines.
And, crucially, around follow-up.
A committee is inaugurated.
What was its mandate?
A reform is announced.
What are its deliverables?
An administrator promises change.
By when?
A coach explains a failure.
What did he promise to correct?
A federation announces a development programme.
How will success be measured?
Then journalism must return.
Three months later.
Six months later.
A year later.
What did you promise?
What happened?
What remains undone?
That is pressure.
Anything else risks becoming noise.
Agenda-setting is not activism
There is sometimes discomfort when journalists speak about setting agendas.
It should not mean deciding what everyone must believe.
It should not mean SWAN declaring beforehand that an administrator, player or coach is guilty.
Agenda-setting means identifying the important questions that must not be allowed to disappear.
SWAN does not have to declare that administrators caused the defeat in Bissau.
Neither should administrators automatically be absolved because they were not wearing boots.
The stronger professional response is:
Establish the responsibility chain.
Then require every part of that chain to account for the decisions within its control.
The job of SWAN is not to decide in advance who is guilty. It is to make sure nobody who bears responsibility escapes the questions.
That is a far more powerful form of pressure.
But SWAN must also turn the mirror inward
There is an uncomfortable side to demanding standards.
They must apply to journalists too.
We cannot demand evidence from sporting institutions while treating rumours as reporting.
We cannot demand independence while allowing relationships and access to determine how difficult our questions become.
We cannot demand professionalism from sports institutions while allowing legitimate professional disagreements among ourselves to collapse into personality contests.
And we cannot condemn administrators for becoming active only when crisis arrives while our own scrutiny disappears when the news cycle moves on.
If SWAN demands higher standards from Nigerian sport, SWAN must demand higher standards of sports journalism.
Access is useful. Institutional memory is stronger
Many Nigerian sports journalists possess direct relationships with important decision-makers.
That access matters.
But individual access is not institutional accountability.
One journalist knows a federation official.
Another speaks directly with an administrator.
Another has access to coaches and players.
Fine.
But imagine something more durable.
A SWAN culture in which major sporting issues generate a documented set of professional questions.
Those responsible are invited to respond.
Their answers are recorded.
Commitments are preserved.
Deadlines are noted.
And somebody returns.
That makes accountability less dependent on personalities and more dependent on professional standards.
It also makes journalism fairer.
Those being questioned get the opportunity to answer.
But once they answer, their answer becomes part of the record.
Now there is something to measure.
From event journalism to consequence journalism
Nigeria announces reform.
We report it.
A committee is established.
We report it.
Officials resign.
We report it.
FIFA and CAF engage Nigeria.
We report it.
The Super Eagles win.
We report it.
The Super Eagles lose 3–0.
We report it.
But who connects those stories?
Who remembers what was promised before the next result?
Who determines whether reform produced anything?
Who retrieves the administrator’s statement months later?
Who asks whether the coach corrected what he previously admitted was wrong?
Who prevents Nigerian sport from beginning every accountability conversation from zero?
That should be one of SWAN’s greatest strengths.
Institutional memory.
Without it, every failure becomes another shock.
Every new administration receives another blank page.
Every reform becomes another announcement.
And the same questions return years later.
Bissau is the test
The Guinea-Bissau result will eventually leave the headlines.
Nigeria will play another match.
The Super Eagles may win.
The outrage will subside.
Something else will trend.
That is exactly why this moment matters.
The questions should be recorded now.
What football identity is Nigeria building?
What standards are being used to assess the coach?
What standards apply to the players?
What responsibilities belong to the technical structure?
What responsibilities belong to administrators?
What exactly is the football reform process expected to produce?
What are the timelines?
And who will return to check?
Those questions must survive the result.
SWAN Abuja can help start it — SWAN Nigeria can institutionalise it
Abuja is a natural place for this culture to gather momentum.
Many of the institutions and decision-makers shaping Nigerian sports policy and administration operate there.
But the principle should ultimately become national.
Not another communiqué culture.
Not permanent confrontation with administrators.
Not becoming cheerleaders for government or federations.
Not turning sports journalism into activism.
Something simpler — and much harder:
Set the question.
Establish the facts.
Identify responsibility.
Demand the answer.
Record the commitment.
Return to the issue.
SWAN has already argued nationally for stronger governance, institutional accountability and performance in Nigerian football.
Bissau now presents a real-world test of what sustained accountability journalism should look like.
Will sports journalists simply cover the anger until Nigeria’s next match?
Or will they establish the questions, record the answers and return to measure what changed?
Nigeria lost 3–0 in Bissau.
That result will pass.