Furious members accuse football’s governing body of putting accused leaders before development and are exploring legal and political avenues to challenge the move
The South African Football Association is facing new internal battles after its public declaration that it will cover the legal costs of its president, Danny Jordaan and chief financial officer Gronie Hluyo as the pair face charges of theft, fraud and corruption.
The move, confirmed after a national executive committee meeting in Johannesburg, has been met with sharp private anger among some association members who view it as an indefensible use of resources meant for the development of the game.
According to Safa’s statement, the NEC resolved to pay all legal expenses incurred by Jordaan and Hluyo, including the accumulated costs, in the case that is in the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court. The association also said it would appoint an attorney and senior counsel to maintain a watching brief, submit a detailed written statement refuting the allegations of wrongdoing against the two officials and former acting CEO Russel Paul and consider civil action against anyone it believes has brought Safa or its officials into disrepute.
Safa insists it never lodged a complaint with the police or Hawks and that the complainants are former NEC members and employees acting in their personal capacities. It further noted that the association received unqualified audits for the relevant periods.
Jordaan, who was re-elected for a fourth term in September, and Hluyo were arrested in 2024 after a Hawks investigation into the alleged misuse of about R1.3 million in association funds. The case, which also involves Grit Communications director Trevor Neethling, has been running for about two years and centres on allegations of unauthorised expenditure, including private security and a public relations arrangement. Both men remain on bail.
Publicly, Safa has framed its decision as a necessary defence of its leadership and institutional integrity. Internally, however, the announcement has provoked offence among members who believe the organisation is protecting the very individuals accused of damaging it.
A group text message circulating among some members captures the intensity of that frustration: “Good afternoon colleagues. I hope you are all well. This group has quite a number of learned and highly reputable individuals. Leaders in your own right. Do we really suggest that we are all failing to deal with Danny and his executive?
“To the extent that publicly Safa says we are taking the money meant for football development is taken to pay legal costs for fraud and corruption against the same institution he defrauded. This can only take place in the RSA not anywhere else in the world.
“By right Danny should have been out from SAFA until his case is over. I implore all of us to change the gear. This man is taking advantage of all of us in this country. May we not approach a legal firm on pro-bono status to help us on this matter. I’m really fed up with Danny and his executive. If we should get opposition parties to help us out, so it be.
“The noise we are making is not enough or may be misdirected. We really need to up the game. May we not get a delegation to go meet SZ? He is still one of us who may not appreciate these shenanigans taking place in Safa.
“May we not visit the office of Public Protector to present our case? I’m really not happy at all so I believe you are. The world is in a bad state not because of bad people but because of the silence of the good. So provide guidance leadership. Thanks.”
The message reflects a view that Safa’s public position effectively commits development funds to defending officials facing serious allegations against the association. Critics in the organisation argue that Jordaan should have stepped aside pending the outcome of the case and they are exploring practical next steps, including pro-bono legal advice, approaches to opposition parties, engagement with Sandile Zungu (widely understood as the “SZ” reference), and a possible complaint to the Public Protector’s office.
The tension highlights long-standing concerns about governance, accountability and the prioritisation of resources in South African football. Safa has long faced questions about financial management and leadership continuity. Supporters of the NEC decision maintain that the association is entitled and obliged to defend its elected leadership when it believes the complaints lack institutional standing and when audits have been clean. Dissenters counter that using association money to fund the defence of accused officials, while development programmes struggle, crosses a fundamental ethical line and further erodes public trust.
As the court process continues, the internal mobilisation suggests the controversy is unlikely to remain confined to closed groups. Members are being urged to escalate their concerns through formal channels and political avenues.
Whether that pressure produces any change in Safa’s stance or simply hardens divisions remains to be seen. What is clear is that the decision to underwrite the legal costs of Jordaan and his co-accused has opened a fresh and bitter chapter in the association’s ongoing governance struggles. Efforts to reach Safa’s media office have not been responded to.