When the Federation of Uganda Football Associations (Fufa) announced sweeping reforms for the 2025/26 season, many expected excitement-higher stakes, more competitive matches, and professionalised clubs. What no one anticipated was the high-profile standoff between Fufa and one of the league’s most powerful clubs: Vipers.
The reforms, introduced in September 2025, include a three-phase league format: 16 teams play a single round-robin in the first phase, split into two groups of eight for home-and-away matches in the second, and finish in a final phase where the top six contest the championship while the bottom six fight to avoid relegation.
While most clubs agreed to participate, the rollout was far from smooth. Some of the top-flight sides, including SC Villa, KCCA and NEC, initially raised objections similar to Vipers. They questioned the fairness of resetting points for the second phase, the potential fixture congestion and the administrative pressure on clubs. After consultations and internal deliberations, however, these clubs decided to accept the reforms and play under the new format. Their acquiescence left Vipers increasingly isolated in its opposition.
How other leagues do it
Several leagues around the world use multi-phase or split-season formats. In Belgium’s First Division A, for example, 16 teams play a regular season, then the top six advance to a championship playoff while points are halved to maintain competitive balance. Scotland’s Premiership splits the league after 33 games: the top six fight for the title, the bottom six for relegation, with points retained in full. South Africa’s MTN Premiership experimented with a similar playoff system for top clubs, while bottom-tier teams continue with a straightforward aggregate table. These examples highlight ways to balance fairness, maintain excitement, and manage fixture congestion.
Vipers argues that Uganda’s new format differs because it resets points between phases, a change they claim devalues early-season performance, strains smaller squads and increases administrative burdens.
Vipers’ objection
Despite Fufa’s insistence, Vipers remains unyielding. The club argues that the three-phase format devalues first-phase performance, introduces fixture congestion, and imposes administrative pressures that could strain smaller squads. For Vipers, the reforms are not merely a governance issue but a challenge to the club’s autonomy, reputation and operational planning.
In a strongly worded October 2, 2025 letter to Fufa CEO Edgar Watson, Vipers President Lawrence Mulindwa accused the federation of disrespect and blackmail, stating that the club’s repeated petitions had been ignored despite engagements in August and September. Mulindwa emphasised that Vipers would not participate in the upcoming fixture against Kitara scheduled for October 4 until Fufa formally and respectfully addresses the issues raised in the club’s previous correspondences and petitions.
Fufa’s response
Fufa, for its part, has remained firm. On October 3, chief executive officer Edgar Watson sent a letter to Mulindwa highlighting that Vipers had already applied for a club license and signed compliance forms to participate in the season.
Watson pointed out that 12 matches had already been played under the new regulations, and that Vipers was expected to honour its fixtures. The letter also referenced Mulindwa’s repeated refusal-three times-to pick calls from Fufa President Moses Magogo following a September 2 meeting, which Mulindwa had walked out of.
Fufa reiterated that the reforms were part of a long-term Technical Master Plan submitted to Fifa, aimed at professionalising the league, expanding competition to 18 teams by 2026/27, and aligning Uganda’s top-flight football with international standards.
A history of standoffs
The current standoff between Vipers and Fufa is far from an isolated incident. Ugandan football has a long history of tense relations between the federation and clubs or administrators who challenge its authority.
During the 2012/13 season, when Uganda had two parallel leagues running-the USL and UPL-Maroons emerged as USL champions, only to later face sanctions and exclusion from top-flight competition due to disputes with Fufa over league recognition and administrative compliance.
Similarly, Proline, a top-flight club known for its disciplined management and youth development programs, was punished for publicly resisting Fufa directives, including fines and point deductions.
The club had raised concerns over scheduling and administrative transparency, but the federation responded with sanctions, signaling a strict stance against dissent.
Disputes have also reached the level of administrators. Kavuma Kabenge, a former Express administrator, publicly criticised Fufa governance and decision-making processes, arguing that transparency and consultation with stakeholders were often lacking.
Kabenge faced disciplinary action from Fufa, including a decade long ban from football management roles, highlighting that the federation has historically responded firmly to criticism-regardless of the profile of the individual.
These precedents frame the current Vipers standoff in a wider historical context. It raises a compelling question: Can FUFA punish Lawrence Mulindwa, the man widely credited with rebuilding the federation and helping Moses Magogo rise to power, while he now challenges the same leadership?
Analysts argue that this is more than a clash over league format; it is a test of FUFA’s governance philosophy, the balance of power between the federation and top clubs and the limits of accountability for leadership.
The dilemma
On one hand, FUFA’s reforms promise a more professional, financially viable and competitive league. On the other, Vipers’ objections reflect genuine concerns about fairness, fixture congestion and operational strain-issues that cannot be ignored.
‘The league has to modernize, but it also has to be credible. If top clubs feel sidelined, it could undermine the reforms themselves,’ said Haruna Kyobe, a sports analyst.
Vipers’ options
Vipers has several avenues to pursue if they feel Fufa has ignored their concerns. They can continue to engage Fufa’s internal mechanisms, including filing formal complaints to the Disciplinary and Appeals Committee, citing breaches of governance or sporting integrity.
Should internal remedies fail, the club could escalate the dispute to the Uganda Football Association Tribunal, which handles disputes over league rules and club rights.
If domestic mechanisms are exhausted, Vipers could take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the internationally recognised body for sports disputes. CAS can issue binding rulings, suspend league changes pending review, and ensure the club’s rights as a Fufa member are protected. While this option offers legitimacy and neutrality, it can be lengthy and expensive.