Why has Caf abandoned plans to hold Afcon every four years?

Caf reversed its decision to stage the Africa Cup of Nations every four years from 2028. It will instead keep the tournament every two years. The change matters because Afcon is both the continent’s biggest football event and Caf’s main source of income.

The four-year plan was announced by Caf president Patrice Motsepe before the 2025 finals. He said it could make the global football calendar more coordinated. Critics argued that it mainly suited Fifa and global scheduling, while many African federations preferred the existing cycle.

Caf later asked all 54 associations to choose between the two formats. Its executive committee then voted to restore the biennial schedule. Motsepe said this was in African football’s best interests. The proposed Africa Nations League will not immediately replace Afcon’s financial contribution.

The Africa Cup of Nations, commonly called Afcon, is Africa’s major football competition for national teams. It brings countries from across the continent into one tournament. The event matters because it showcases African football and finances much of the sport’s wider development.

The competition has been held predominantly every two years since its first edition in 1957. Caf, the Confederation of African Football, governs and organizes it. The article describes Afcon as Caf’s biggest revenue generator and the “locomotive” funding its other competitions.

Afcon was scheduled to continue every two years after Caf reversed its proposed four-year cycle. The tournament’s importance therefore extends beyond matches and trophies. Its commercial income supports Caf’s broader competitions, while its scheduling affects African players, European clubs, Fifa, and national football associations.

Afcon is Caf’s biggest revenue generator, making its frequency a major financial decision. The article forecasts a $114m profit from the 2025 finals in Morocco. That figure rises substantially from the $75m profit recorded for the previous finals in Ivory Coast.

The money comes from Afcon’s commercial strength as the continent’s flagship football competition. Caf considered replacing some of its financial reliance on the tournament with an annual Africa Nations League involving all 54 countries. The proposed league was intended to create a regular, sustainable commercial model.

However, the article does not provide Afcon’s percentage share of Caf’s total competition revenue. It only describes Afcon as Caf’s biggest revenue generator and its financial “locomotive.” That makes the tournament’s continued biennial staging important, especially because the alternative league could take years to deliver comparable income.

A four-year Afcon cycle could reduce the regular income that supports African football. Afcon is Caf’s biggest revenue generator and funds its other competitions. Less frequent finals could therefore create gaps in money for development, competitions, and broader football operations.

Caf proposed an annual Africa Nations League involving all 54 countries as a replacement source. Motsepe described it as a possible “world-class competition every year.” But he later admitted that the league might need several years before making substantial financial and football-development contributions.

The current reality is that Afcon remains the dependable financial engine, while the alternative is unproven. Caf’s earlier Africa Super League projected $200m in annual revenue but ended after one edition when commercial deals disappointed. Keeping Afcon biennial protects existing income while Caf considers longer-term development options.

Afcon has predominantly used a two-year cycle since its first tournament in 1957. The schedule has generally served the continent well, according to the sentiment reported by the Football Association of Zambia. It also keeps Caf’s biggest revenue generator active and regular.

The timing creates conflict because recent Afcon tournaments have taken place midway through the European club season. African players employed by European clubs may then leave their clubs for national-team duty. Clubs and national associations have repeatedly disputed when players must be released.

Motsepe proposed a four-year cycle partly to make football’s global calendar more synchronized. Fifa general secretary Mattias Grafstrom appeared beside him when the change was announced. Critics argued the plan favored global scheduling more than African football. Caf ultimately retained the two-year cycle after consulting its 54 associations.

The proposed Africa Nations League was designed to reduce Caf’s dependence on Afcon. It would involve all 54 African countries and provide a major competition every year. The goal was a more sustainable commercial model that could fund football development.

Its key mechanism would be regular matches and commercial activity across the continent, rather than relying mainly on biennial Afcon finals. Yet Caf president Patrice Motsepe acknowledged that the league could need several years before making substantial financial and football-development contributions. That delay matters because Afcon already generates large profits.

The league is therefore a possible complement, not a proven replacement. Caf’s Africa Super League offers a warning: it projected $200m in yearly revenue but was discontinued after one edition when commercial deals fell short. Afcon remains the safer financial foundation for now.

Football bodies make decisions through executive committees, consultations, and assemblies. In this case, Caf’s executive committee first approved a four-year Afcon cycle without presenting it to the general assembly. Critics said all member nations should have debated it for months. Caf later asked its 54 associations for their preferences before voting again.

They raise money through competitions and commercial deals. Afcon was forecast to make $114m in profit in 2025, while the proposed Nations League sought a broader annual revenue base. The Africa Super League showed the risk: projected income failed to materialize because partners offered weaker deals.

The dispute also reveals competing priorities. Fifa promoted a four-year Afcon cycle to harmonize the global calendar. African officials and federations emphasized Afcon’s financial and developmental role. Caf ultimately prioritized the continent’s established competition and retained its biennial format.