Reigning league champions Vipers SC and record winners SC Villa have formally rejected Fufa’s new league format ahead of the 2025/26 season.
In an official statement signed by Dr. Lawrence Mulindwa and Hajji Omar Mandela, Presidents of Vipers and SC Villa respectively, they fully rejected the changes revealed in a circular signed Fufa CEO Edgar Watson that was made public last week.
In response to circular No. 1202 dated August 20, 2025, both teams stated their reasons for objection.
“We refer to the Federation of Uganda Football Associations’ (FUFA) Circular No. 1202, dated August 20, 2025, which outlines a series of significant reforms to the competition structure for the upcoming 2025/26 season,” started the statement.
“While we acknowledge FUFA’s stated objective to improve the sport, we find these reforms to be fundamentally flawed. They were developed without adequate stakeholder consultation and, if implemented, will have detrimental consequences on the sporting, financial, and legal health of Ugandan football clubs.
“We hereby formally reject these proposed reforms and call for their immediate suspension for the following reasons:
The unjust and unfair competition structure
A] The core of the proposed reforms-the three-phase league format-is confusing and undermines sporting integrity. The current system, a
straightforward round-robin, is well understood by fans, sponsors, and players alike.
B] The new model, however, introduces a series of complex rules that are likely to alienate the very audience the game seeks to attract. The most egregious aspect of this format is the points reset in later phases.
C] Disregarding points accumulated over a significant portion of the season unfairly penalizes clubs that have demonstrated consistency and excellence. It distorts the standings and devalues the first phase of the competition, creating a system where hard-earned results can become meaningless.
D] Furthermore, the final phases of the league may lead to an uneven distribution of home and away matches for clubs, which is manifestly unfair and discriminatory. This imbalance creates a sporting disadvantage and directly impacts the clubs’ ability to generate revenue from ticket sales.
Severe financial and operational Strain.
A] The proposed financial regulations are a direct assault on the financial independence and sustainability of football clubs. Gate collections are a primary source of revenue, and the new gate revenue sharing model drastically reduces the home team’s take-home portion.
B] Under the new model, a home team in a single-header fixture only retains 85% of shareable revenue, with FUFA and the UPL taking a cut before distribution.
For mandatory double-header fixtures, the situation is even more dire, with each home team receiving only 35% of the revenue.
C] This is indefensible, especially since clubs bear the vast majority of match-day expenses. By forcibly appropriating club property, FUFA is unlawfully interfering with the financial autonomy of legally registered entities and violating their right to property. This model, which has previously failed in the Uganda Cup due to a lack of transparency and timely remittance, is unsustainable and unjust. It effectively forces clubs to finance the federation’s operations under the guise of increasing prize money.
Legally and constitutionally problematic reforms.
A]. The reforms contain rules that are both irrational and legally unsound. The most glaring example is the new player registration rule, which limits player eligibility to those with at least two years remaining on their contracts.
B]. This is an arbitrary and unrealistic constraint that infringes on a player’s fundamental right to employment and earning a living. Furthermore, the retrospective application of this rule would force clubs to sideline players with valid, existing contracts, which is both illegal and irrational.
Additionally, the mandatory requirement for clubs to share business and sporting data with the federation contravenes Section 3 of the Data Protection & Private Act (Cap 97). Personal data cannot be dealt with in the manner proposed, and the mandatory nature of this requirement without explicit consent raises serious legal questions.
Detrimental Impact on Sponsorship and Fan Engagement
A]. A complex and unpredictable competition format is a commercial liability. Sponsors require a straightforward, marketable product to justify their investment.
B]. The proposed multi-phase system, with its confusing rules and fluid standings, makes it difficult to market the league to both fans and corporate partners. The changes could lead to a breach of existing contractual obligations with sponsors who structured their agreements around the old league format. Ultimately, this will lead to a reduction in sponsorship revenue and a decline in fan interest, which are critical for the long-term growth of Ugandan football.
Conclusion and Recommended Way Forward
A] For the reasons outlined above, we believe the proposed reforms are ill-conceived, undemocratic, and pose an existential threat to the clubs and the future of Ugandan football.
B] We, therefore, respectfully but firmly reject these reforms and demand the following course of action:
i) Immediate Suspension: The implementation of the proposed reforms for the 2025/26 season must be suspended.
ii) Inclusive Stakeholder Forum: FUFA must convene an inclusive forum involving clubs, sponsors, broadcasters, and fans to collaboratively design a competition model that is equitable, sustainable, and promotes sporting fairness.
Retain Current Rules: The current player registration and financial rules must be retained until a new, consultative policy framework can be developed.
Reject Gate Revenue Sharing: The proposed gate collection sharing model, which has proven to be inefficient and lacks transparency in other competitions, should not be implemented in the Uganda Premier League.
In conclusion, the two giants of domestic club football affirmed commitment to working with the FA but demand a better approach to issues like proposals in the future.
“Ugandan football clubs are committed to working with FUFA to grow the game. However, a top-down approach that ignores the interests of its key stakeholders will only serve to destabilize the sport, alienate its fans, and discourage the investment necessary for its progress. We urge FUFA to reconsider its position and engage with us in a constructive dialogue to forge a better path forward.”
Meanwhile, fellow giants KCCA had also earlier written to Watson showing their discontent over the new format in a letter dated July 30, 2025.
How can you Grow the game if you are opposed to change? Where are the fans Vipers and Villa are talking about? Those fans prefer watching Europeans games over domestic games. Fans only tend to show up for derby rival matched between KCCA, Villa and Express and when the Cranes play international matches. Back in the 90s and early 2000s all stadiums would be at full capacity. Now days, good luck even getting 5k fans to show up. The fans as always are more interested in good product, which is non existent today since all the best players that clubs develop get sold to other leagues since local clubs can’t even seem to pay players on time.
I think in order to grow the game especially from the grassroots standpoint and raise fan interest, they should hold off on relegation for a few years as a trial to allow regional teams that have a good fan base to stay consistent for a while. You look at a team like Heroes, or other teams from the East that have many fans but get relegated one year after being promoted. Then they lose those fans and have to go back to regional leagues just so they get back to the UPL. Why not reward those regional teams with sustainable fans base and keep them around for at least 2-3 years?