With the successful East Africa Pamoja bid by Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda to host the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations (Afcon), fast movers in the region are already trying to sniff out the opportunities – and sceptics have declared it a mega-disaster in the making.
The EAC Pamoja bid book is impressive in its feel, but it reads more like a tourism promotion and investor brief than a sports pitch. On closer scrutiny, it is surprisingly thin about the market for football in the region.
While it correctly notes the increasing number of football fans, and an existing diehard base, it does not even approximate the number of fans in the three bid nations who can afford the tickets priced between $5 and $70.
The ambitious infrastructure the bid promises will, together, likely run into over $1 billion if they are all delivered. But the bid only lists $200 million to be spent in preparation for Afcon 2027 over the next four years, money it says will come from both government and private sponsorships.
In several places, it speaks of existing “state-of-the-art” stadia, and says the Pamoja Bid countries have “massively” invested and will continue to invest big in them.
This is an exaggeration, as only the Benjamin Mkapa Stadium is good enough to host Afcon today, according to the Confederation of African Football (CAF). Perhaps not surprising then, in two short sentences, the bid slips in the fact that, “the project team will establish its headquarters in Dar es Salaam.
This will serve as the central hub for all sections involved in preparing and staging the tournament on behalf of the East African Community (EAC).
In this, it positions Afcon 2027 not as a Kenya-Tanzania-Uganda affair, but a broad EAC project, a clever play, subtly opening the door for members outside the bid, like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, to pick up the slack should the Pamoja trio fail to deliver – as Kenya has on two previous occasions.
It also says the “bid believes in the power of football and the Afcon to inspire innovation, build bridges between cultures and peoples, and accelerate positive social transformation in East Africa and Africa at large.”
It is in that wider regional promise, though not headlined, that Afcon might bring its biggest benefits.
Tanzania makes a big sales pitch for its electrified standard gauge railway (SGR) and rehabilitation of a metre gauge line, and the fact that it will link to DRC, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.
In another potentially important integration element, the Pamoja Trio say they have agreed to “develop a local green building rating system to evaluate the environmental performance of the Afcon 2027 Stadiums.
This is significant because, until lately, Tanzania was seen as the most cautious EAC partner toward deeper integration. In the Pamoja bid, it emerges as a leader, a radical shift that could significantly boost the East African Community.
The trio also recognise that there will have to be greater freedom of movement for East Africans to enjoy the Afcon, and hint at a greater opening up to the rest of Africa and the world. In Kenya, President William Ruto has said his government is considering removing visa restrictions for all countries in the world.
By 2027, there could be more uniformity in the Pamoja Trio’s visa regime. East Africa, and its air space, could be the freest by 2027. And it could be for most Africans too.
The bid touts the single East African Tourist Visa (EATV), which is so far offered only by Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.
Tanzania looks set to join, which would considerably increase its premium. It is likely that by 2027, at least one of the other EAC members – Burundi, South Sudan, and the DRC – will have joined the EATV.
Another opportunity in transport infrastructure for the tournament is travel over Lake Victoria. The Tanzania shore of the lake has seen a boom in activity in the past three years.
The Lake Victoria economic zone has a potential of $50 billion. Football might just be what unlocks it.
Experts say Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania have no room for error as they embark on a four-year marathon of planning and learning.
But the big question remains: will this process be free of corruption, inflated budgets and kickbacks? That is what affects stadium construction, what delays completion.
Analysts argue that East Africa carries the unflattering label of a dearth of talent and hosting capacity, with the exception of Ethiopia (1962, 1969 and 1976).
Mark Ssali, an award-winning football journalist, commentator and sports management consultant, said hosting is undeniably the surest way of getting in, “and our region cannot truthfully claim to be a football powerhouse on the continent.”
“But we have had our moments,” he added, citing Uganda which has been at Afcon seven times, while Kenya has made it six times. Tanzania is making its third appearance at the finals next year in Cote d’Ivoire.
“Hosting this tournament could be the springboard we have been waiting for, for proper takeoff,” Mr Ssali said.
Uganda’s junior minister for sports Peter Ogwang told Parliament that the country’s plan to fulfil its end of the Pamoja bid is to construct an additional two stadia, Akii Bua in Lira, in the north and either Buhinga or Hoima City Stadium in the west, to supplement under renovation Mandela National Stadium.
He said budget allocations must kick in consistently, as CAF expects regular updates about the country’s progress to secure all the required funding, starting with $30 million that Uganda must remit to the Cairo-based football governing body before 2025.
Hosting nations are also expected to have eight operational airports to enable the national teams, officials and thousands of fans fly in easily; besides Entebbe, Uganda can table only the Kabalega International Airport that is still under construction, to be ready and operational by 2027.
“The Pamoja bid should be celebrated as historic, both for our region and for African football. Three countries hosting might be a first, but it is not overkill. The rest of the world is going that way too, our continent has just beaten them to it,” argues Ssali.
He cites the 2026 World Cup that will be hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico, which span a much bigger geographical area, with longer travel hours and other logistical challenges despite that being a more developed part of the world.
The Euro 2028 finals will be hosted by the UK and Ireland, and that is in essence five countries [England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland] each with a national team. In comparison, Kampala, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are just one hour away from one another by air, and are also reachable by road; and by 2027, by rail too.
When bombarded with social media taunts about how Uganda made the bid, the President of Federation of Uganda Football Associations (Fufa) Moses Magogo said that bids are given not based on existing infrastructure but on plans.
But when asked about Uganda’s plans Magogo said they are “still doing a lot of internal consultations at the moment,” and Fufa “will make public these plans when we are ready.”
“Sports facilities both at national and regional level are inadequate, dilapidated and substandard, and cannot host international competitions. The Mandela National Stadium has not hosted international competition for over two years since it was banned by the Fifa),” the bid book says.
Observers say this is already an indictment that puts Uganda on the back foot and gives Kenya and Tanzania the upper hand to hog all the benefits that come with hosting rights.
“As you would expect in a joint bid there will be fights. Who is going to host the opening ceremony, who will host the final…which country takes charge of providing certain services? Kenya can say we want to handle all accommodation because we have the best hotels, and Uganda can only object if it can match Kenya’s facilities. At the moment, I don’t think Uganda can,” a sports events manager says.
Uganda notes that while there is a massive job at hand, the benefits are long-term, citing the 2019 AfCON held in Egypt, which drew $85 million in revenue.
