The 31st Ordinary Congress of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) has officially approved an amendment to extend the tenure of the Association’s president from a maximum of two terms to three. The decision was made on Tuesday during a decisive vote at the Ghanaman Centre of Excellence in Prampram. Out of 124 delegates, 114 voted in favour of the change, three abstained, and six opposed it. Under the revised statutes, a GFA president can now serve three four-year terms, amounting to a maximum of 12 years in office, compared to the previous limit of eight years. The move represents a significant shift in Ghana’s football governance, offering longer leadership continuity and potentially allowing presidents more time to implement long-term strategies. According to the GFA, the amendment forms part of a broader review of the Association’s statutes, aimed at strengthening governance structures and aligning them with international best practices. ## Breakdown of the Vote: 114 – In favour 3 – Abstained 6 – Against This decision is expected to have a lasting impact on the future direction of Ghana football administration, influencing leadership stability and policy continuity for years to come. ## Implications of the third term on Ghana

The extension of the GFA presidential term limit from two to three terms will have a number of far-reaching implications for Ghanaian football. One of the most notable is leadership continuity. With a maximum of 12 years in office, a president will have more time to plan, implement, and see through long-term development projects. This stability could help attract strategic partnerships, sponsorships, and investments into Ghanaian football. Another key implication is policy implementation and consistency. Longer tenures allow presidents to ensure the uninterrupted execution of programmes and reforms. This can be especially beneficial for initiatives such as youth development academies, grassroots football structures, and infrastructure upgrades, which often require years of commitment to achieve results. However, the extended term also raises concerns about power consolidation. While longer leadership can bring stability, it also increases the risk of entrenched authority. Critics may argue that it limits opportunities for fresh leadership ideas, innovation, and diversity in football administration. Balancing stability with accountability will be essential. The change will also impact GFA elections and internal politics. Fewer leadership turnovers mean fewer election cycles, potentially reducing campaign-related tensions and divisions within the association. On the other hand, aspiring candidates may have fewer opportunities to contest, which could lead to dissatisfaction among stakeholders seeking change. The GFA has justified the move as part of efforts to align with international best practices. While some global football bodies operate with similar term limits, most combine them with robust accountability measures to prevent misuse of extended power. Finally, the third term could enable long-term vision in football development. A president serving up to 12 years will be in a stronger position to pursue ambitious multi-year projects such as league restructuring, coaching reforms, the expansion of women’s football, and modern sports infrastructure projects without the disruption of an early leadership change.