Ugandan football clubs, players and officials seeking to challenge eligible decisions beyond FUFA could face uncertainty over where to take their cases after the federation aligned its dispute-resolution system with a national sports arbitration mechanism whose operational structures remain unclear.
The FUFA Competition Rules recognise National Sports Arbitration, or NSA, as the arbitration mechanism established under the National Sports Act, 2023.
Under Rule 6(9), the FUFA Appeals Committee receives appeals from decisions of the FUFA Disciplinary Panel, Dispute Resolution Chamber, Referees Disciplinary Panel and Licensing Committee.
The rules add that decisions expressly declared final under FUFA regulations cannot be appealed, while other eligible decisions may be challenged in accordance with the CAF Statutes, FIFA Statutes and the NSA.
Club licensing is treated separately, with licensing decisions subject to the procedures provided for under FUFA’s club licensing framework.
The reference to national arbitration reflects a wider change within FUFA following amendments to its statutes earlier this year to comply with Uganda’s National Sports Act.
At an Extraordinary General Assembly held virtually on June 4, 2026, FUFA delegates approved amendments to Articles 1, 24, 36, 67, 68, 74, 75 and 91 of the federation’s statutes following recommendations from the National Council of Sports.
FUFA Legal Director Denis Lukambi, who spoke at the assembly, said several provisions required adjustment to bring the federation’s statutes into line with the National Sports Regulations.
“There are about six clauses that were missing. These have now been resolved and submitted to the delegates of FUFA who approved unanimously all the proposed amendments to the FUFA statutes,”
Lukambi said at the time.
More significantly for football disputes, Lukambi explained that the amendments changed how FUFA intended to handle matters that previously could be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.
“Previously, we referred disputes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a federation. The recommendation now is that we refer all matters relating to disputes to national sports arbitration in accordance with the National Sports Act,”
he noted
Lukambi also made clear that approval by FUFA delegates was part of a wider compliance process, with the amended statutes subsequently due to be submitted to NCS for approval.
The change brings FUFA’s framework closer to Part IX of the National Sports Act, which establishes arbitration as the mechanism for settling sports disputes.
Section 55 provides that the minister responsible for sports appoints arbitrators from nominations submitted by NCS and national sports associations and federations. Parties to a dispute are then permitted to select at least three arbitrators, with the number required to be odd.
Section 57 goes further by requiring the constitution of every national sports association or federation to recognise the jurisdiction of those arbitrators and their decisions as final.
The practical question, however, is how accessible that mechanism currently is to a football stakeholder seeking an urgent independent remedy.
There has been no widely publicised information identifying the appointed arbitrators, a permanent secretariat, filing procedures, applicable fees or a publicly accessible record of cases handled through the mechanism.
That uncertainty matters because football disputes are often extremely time-sensitive.
Cases involving player eligibility, suspensions, promotion, relegation, elections or qualification for competitions can lose their practical significance if they are not determined quickly. A successful appeal delivered after a competition has progressed may offer little effective remedy.
There is also a need for clarity about the relationship between national arbitration and CAS.
FUFA’s 2025 Club Licensing Regulations, for example, recognised the national arbitration process for disputes of a national dimension involving FUFA, clubs and their members, while recognising CAS in Lausanne for disputes of an international dimension, particularly those involving FIFA or CAF.
The June 2026 amendments therefore make it important for FUFA to clarify precisely how that distinction operates under its amended statutes and whether there are circumstances in which a domestic football stakeholder can still appeal to CAS after exhausting FUFA’s internal processes.
The issue is not whether Uganda should have its own sports arbitration mechanism. The National Sports Act clearly provides for one, and FUFA has taken steps to align its statutes and competition framework with that law.
The question is whether the mechanism provided for in law is sufficiently constituted, accessible and equipped to receive the disputes now being directed towards it.
NCS and the Ministry of Education and Sports could provide clarity by identifying the appointed arbitrators, explaining how cases should be filed and outlining the procedures stakeholders must follow.
FUFA, meanwhile, needs to make clear what happens after its internal appeal mechanisms have been exhausted and how national arbitration interacts with the rights and obligations contained in FIFA and CAF statutes.
Until those questions are answered, Uganda may have established the legal pathway for independent sports arbitration without making that pathway sufficiently clear for the football stakeholders expected to use it.