Safa certainly knows how to shoot itself in the foot. It has not been two months since Danny Jordaan was re-elected as president of the association, yet the organisation is already raising serious red flags over its allegedly ailing governance structures.
Safa recently announced that it had lodged no complaint against Jordaan – chief financial officer Gronie Hluyo, former acting chief executive Russell Paul, and Grit Communications director Trevor Neethling – amid the group’s long-running court case at the Palm Ridge Magistrate's Court, where they face serious charges of theft, fraud, and corruption involving the association's funds.
The football body also confirmed it will cover the legal costs incurred by Jordaan and Hluyo to date, appoint legal counsel to monitor proceedings, initiate disciplinary action against individuals who bring the organisation into disrepute, and formally notify the court of its official stance.
Granted, Jordaan and his co-accused remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, it is mind-boggling that the very association Jordaan is accused of embezzling from is stepping forward to bankroll his defence – financially and otherwise.
This is not to say Safa cannot support its leadership, but it is critical to note that Jordaan and his co-accused face independent criminal charges. If the charges stem from actions requiring personal legal defence outside official association business, why is Safa footing the bill rather than forcing them to pay out of their own pockets?
Just recently, Safa declared it lacked R50 million to implement VAR, noting that a R20 million grant from the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) would fall short. Yet, somehow, the organisation finds spare capital when it comes to catering to the personal legal needs of high-ranking individuals.
RECOMMENDED READ
Jacob Mathathe blasts 'soulless Safa NEC' for endorsing Danny Jordaan's legal battles
Safa is not only projecting dishonesty regarding its financial health – though it’s received unqualified audits – but it is also making a mockery of its commercial partners. Corporate sponsors like Standard Bank and Castle Lager surely did not align their brands with South African football to watch their investment channelled into private legal defence funds.
While any governing body should maintain an emergency reserve, those funds must be strictly reserved for legitimate, organisational emergencies. In recent months, Safa made headlines following reports that it was forced to downsize staff to cut operational costs.
Furthermore, the issue of delayed bonuses continues to haunt the association. There has been no official communication from Hluyo’s office clarifying whether overdue World Cup bonuses have finally reached the players. Yet, amid unresolved staff layoffs and unpaid player incentives, the association continues to throw money behind high-ranked criminally-charged officials.
Pre-election honorariums
The distribution of honorariums right before the recent Safa elective congress is another controversial case entirely. Opinion remains divided – some argue the funds should have gone toward player bonuses, while others insist the money was pre-allocated for administrative honorariums and had to be disbursed accordingly.
While that debate remains open, what stands out is Safa's selective generosity. In the middle of severe financial constraints – which even dragged out contract negotiations during the appointment of Bafana Bafana coach Pitso Mosimane – Safa miraculously finds the resources to defend individuals.
CAF recently announced an increase in annual grants to roughly R11.6 million per member association for football development, while Fifa are said to be considering a reported windfall subsidy exceeding R400 million every quadrennial.
The hope across the local football landscape is that this money will finally be spent wisely on its intended development purpose – and not consumed by the personal legal costs of officials accused of crimes against the very organisation they serve.