pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
By Our Reporter
Vipers Sports Club’s bombshell announcement that it will not participate in the Uganda Premier League under FUFA’s new format has shaken the very foundations of Ugandan football.
While some may dismiss the boycott as drastic, a closer look reveals a club pushed into a corner by a federation more intent on flexing its authority than fostering genuine consensus.
On October 2, 2025, Vipers president Dr. Lawrence Mulindwa formally notified FUFA and the Uganda Premier League Secretariat of the club’s withdrawal—effective immediately—starting with the Venoms’ much-anticipated fixture against Kitara FC at Namboole on October 4.
This dramatic move follows months of frustration. Vipers insist that FUFA ignored multiple letters (dated August 23, September 23, and September 29) and concerns raised during meetings. Instead of dialogue, the club alleges it was met with “ridicule, blackmail, and ostracization through mainstream and social media.”
For a federation that prides itself on professionalism and inclusivity, such a response raises fundamental questions about FUFA’s commitment to dialogue.
The controversy stems from FUFA’s unilateral introduction of a new league format, rolled out without meaningful consultation or consideration of club realities. Reform can be positive, but process matters.
By bulldozing changes without stakeholder input, FUFA risks alienating the very clubs that sustain the competition. Vipers argue the reforms are “not timely and appropriate,” warning that the rushed rollout poses an “existential threat” to their stability.
This is not alarmism. Privately owned clubs like Vipers shoulder immense financial burdens—player wages, infrastructure, match-day operations, sponsorship obligations—and sudden format changes disrupt planning, investment, and sustainability. FUFA’s approach suggests either a lack of understanding or a willful disregard for these realities.
Vipers’ protest highlights FUFA’s dismissive attitude toward privately owned clubs. Dr. Mulindwa made this plain:
“We do not only find this unethical and disrespectful but also a total disregard of what we go through as a privately owned football club to raise football to the level we have done and still do.”
This is not empty rhetoric. Vipers have consistently invested in talent development, infrastructure, and professional management, raising the bar in Ugandan football. Yet instead of being treated as partners in progress, they feel scapegoated for daring to dissent.
The boycott is not merely one club’s refusal to play—it is an indictment of FUFA’s governance. A federation should be a neutral custodian of the game, upholding transparency, inclusivity, and fairness. Instead, FUFA has become associated with unilateral decisions, heavy-handedness, and silencing opposition.
By copying its protest letter to the Minister of Education and Sports, the National Council for Sports, and sponsors, Vipers has escalated the matter beyond football. It is a call for oversight—a signal that FUFA’s conduct has crossed from sport into political and legal territory.
If one of Uganda’s leading clubs feels cornered into boycotting, what hope is there for smaller, less financially secure clubs? The credibility of the entire league now hangs in the balance, with fans and sponsors equally unsettled.
Whether one agrees with Vipers’ method or not, their message is unmistakable: Ugandan football cannot be run through intimidation, unilateralism, and closed-door decisions.
FUFA must be reminded—without clubs, there is no league. Without dialogue, there is no progress. Reform imposed without consultation is not reform at all—it is coercion.
Instead of celebrating the start of a new season, Ugandan football is now engulfed in uncertainty. The ball is in FUFA’s court: will it continue down an authoritarian path, or finally recognize that sustainable reform can only be achieved through transparency, partnership, and respect?
For now, Vipers’ boycott stands as both a warning and a wake-up call.
