By BM
As the 2025/26 Uganda Premier League (UPL) season gets underway this weekend under a controversial new format, a widening rift between Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) President Eng. Moses Magogo and his predecessor Dr. Lawrence Mulindwa has taken centre stage, threatening to fracture the very foundations of Ugandan football.
What began as a debate over the league’s structure has now morphed into a symbolic and high-stakes standoff between two football powerhouses: Magogo, the current face of federation-driven reforms, and Mulindwa, the former FUFA boss and current president of Vipers Sports Club, who has emerged as the most vocal critic of the new direction.
A Radical Shift in League Format
The spark that reignited tensions was FUFA’s decision to introduce a new three-round UPL format starting this season, billed as “faster, fiercer, and fairer.”
Under the revised format:
First Round: All 16 clubs play each other once in a single-leg format.
Second Round: The teams are split into two groups — the top eight and bottom eight — to play home-and-away fixtures within their respective groups.
Final Round: The top six from Group 1 form a championship playoff group (Group 3), while the bottom six from Group 2 compete in a relegation battle (Group 4), both in a one-leg format.
FUFA argues that the system enhances competitiveness, improves fan engagement, and aligns with global trends. But many clubs including heavyweights like Vipers SC, SC Villa, and NEC see it differently.
Clubs Cry Foul Over Consultation, Finances, and Control
Dissenting clubs have raised serious concerns over a lack of consultation, financial viability, and growing authoritarianism within FUFA.
Central to their grievances is the claim that the reforms were imposed from the top down, without genuine input from the clubs who bear the operational and financial weight of the league.
Among the most criticized changes is the revenue-sharing model, which reduces gate receipts for home teams, potentially impacting club sustainability.
Other contentious issues include mandatory data sharing, new player registration policies, and the use of compliance forms that clubs claim were signed under duress or misleading circumstances.
SC Villa has opted to participate “under protest and duress,” while Vipers SC, one of the country’s most dominant clubs in recent years, has taken a harder line—threatening non-participation altogether.
SC Villa’s Protest Letter: A Warning Shot
In a strongly-worded letter dated October 1, SC Villa President Omar Ahmed ‘Mandela’ accused FUFA of pushing through reforms without adequate stakeholder involvement.
“We maintain our view that this new format should have been piloted first in the lower league to test its efficacy,” the letter stated. Villa also criticized the UGX 3.4 billion investment announced by FUFA as a “red herring” and questioned the sincerity of federation leadership.
Villa’s position reflects a broader sentiment that FUFA’s current administration is prioritizing control and image over collaboration and sustainability. Still, out of respect for players and staff, Villa will take part in the league—but under protest.
Mulindwa’s Open Revolt: ‘We Will Not Participate’
It is Dr. Lawrence Mulindwa, however, who has gone furthest in challenging the federation.
In a scathing October 2 letter, the Vipers SC president accused FUFA of blackmail, disrespect, and ignoring club petitions.
“To our surprise and dismay and with utter disrespect, we have to date never received any formal response to the several pertinent issues raised in our petitions,” Mulindwa wrote.
He accused the federation of responding with “social media ridicule, blackmail, rebuke, and ostracization,” and warned that Vipers would not honour their scheduled double-header fixture against Kitara FC on October 4 at Namboole or participate in any matches until their concerns were formally addressed.
The letter, which was also copied to the Minister of Education and Sports, the National Council of Sports, UPL management, sponsors, and fans, signals a deliberate escalation by Mulindwa to put pressure on the federation and expose what he sees as institutional overreach.
FUFA’s Response: Firm, Unyielding
FUFA quickly issued a rebuttal via CEO Edgar Watson, insisting that Vipers had attended multiple consultative meetings in August and September and had already signed Form 901—declaring commitment to the new season.
“It is also regrettable that you opted to walk out of the same meeting where a number of modifications as proposed by the other clubs were incorporated in the reforms,” Watson wrote.
FUFA reminded Vipers that 12 matches had already been played under the new regulations and that Vipers, as a licensed participant, was expected to honour all its fixtures starting October 4.
The federation’s position remains that the reforms are legitimate, passed through appropriate channels, and necessary for the sport’s evolution.
A Feud Years in the Making
This confrontation has deep historical roots. In 2013, Mulindwa stepped down as FUFA President after eight years and was succeeded by Magogo.
At the time, Magogo described their relationship as cordial, praising Mulindwa’s contributions and dismissing speculation of rivalry.
However, cracks appeared as early as January 2014, when then-FUFA Communications Head Rogers Mulindwa (a close ally of Lawrence Mulindwa) resigned, citing a shift in values under Magogo’s leadership.
“I cannot continue to work under an administration whose focus seems to differ so much from the foundation and objectives we laid,” he said at the time.
Despite a temporary reconciliation in 2019 when Magogo co-opted Mulindwa into the FUFA Executive Committee the current situation suggests that the truce was only skin-deep.
In June 2024, tensions resurfaced when Mulindwa accused FUFA of altering tie-breaker rules midway through the season to disadvantage Vipers.
Magogo responded by defending the “head-to-head” rule as pre-approved and consistent with international standards, denying any targeting of clubs.
A League in Crisis?
With 15 clubs prepared to start the season and Vipers on the brink of a boycott, Ugandan football finds itself at a crossroads.
The governance model of FUFA is now under intense scrutiny, as is Magogo’s leadership style marked by reformist zeal but criticized for centralization and exclusion.
Mulindwa, long respected as a passionate and strategic football investor now appears to be reclaiming a more active role in football politics possibly setting the stage for a bigger showdown in the future.
As the 2025/26 UPL season prepares to officially kick off, fans, stakeholders, and observers are left with more questions than answers. Will Vipers play? Can FUFA afford to sanction one of the league’s most influential clubs? And, more fundamentally, is Ugandan football headed toward renewal or rupture?
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Ugandan Football
The ongoing feud between Magogo and Mulindwa is more than a personal clash, it is a defining battle over the future of football governance in Uganda.
Whether the outcome leads to reform, reconciliation, or deeper division remains to be seen.
But one thing is certain: the beautiful game in Uganda is undergoing a dramatic and turbulent transformation—and the eyes of the nation are watching. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
