Sow, Cissé, Fall... the FSF in a post-World Cup communication operation

The dismissal of Thiaw as the first act of communication

Officially, the FSF chose to be firm. Meeting behind closed doors on Saturday, July 11 in Dakar, the Executive Committee launched proceedings to dismiss coach Pape Thiaw and his entire technical staff—a decision presented as being taken in the higher interest of Senegalese football after a thorough evaluation of the sporting results and prospects for the national team.

On public television RTS, Secretary General Abdoulaye Sow summarized the federation's reasoning in a simple formula: the World Cup campaign was a failure that needed consequences, with the priority now no longer the World Cup but the upcoming deadlines. By making only the bench responsible, the Federation gave itself an immediate scapegoat and, at least temporarily, diverted attention from its own governance.

The political calculation was clear: to place the blame for failure on a coach who was already weakened, since Pape Thiaw had been working without a renewed contract since February and had accumulated salary arrears, rather than on the administrative apparatus. Abdoulaye Fall, moreover, was expected to hold a press conference to detail the motivations behind this decision and announce a restructuring of all the national teams.

Cissé, the grain of sand in the federation's communication

That's where Bacary Cissé comes in. A member of the FSF’s Executive Committee (Comex), he sent President Fall a letter denouncing various dysfunctions and demanding the dismissal of Secretary General Sow. In this text, which was made public, he refused the comfort of collective silence: the moment is neither for formal congratulations nor silence out of convenience—the moment is for truth, he wrote, judging that the early elimination revealed administrative, organizational, and strategic dysfunctions that had weakened the team well before the first whistle.

On the set of TFM, Cissé went further by directly targeting the leadership duo. He described a locked-down governance in which the president and the secretary general made decisions and imposed them on the rest of the Executive Committee, in his view preventing the other members from fully exercising their roles. It was a direct and rare accusation from a sitting member of the body, targeting not just management of bonuses but also logistical and visa issues that, according to him, undermined the delegation's peace of mind.

“It was the president and secretary general who made the decisions and imposed them on us,” he asserted.

But the dissent fizzled out. Under pressure from Amadou Kane, 4^th vice-president of the FSF, Bacary Cissé ultimately withdrew his resolution demanding the dismissal of Abdoulaye Sow. An episode that says a lot about the internal balance of power and the Federation's ability to muffle, at least for now, dissenting voices in its ranks.

Fall and Sow, between measured admissions and defensive posturing

Facing the media after the announcement of Thiaw’s departure, Abdoulaye Fall chose a communication strategy focused on the future rather than introspection: the lessons from the World Cup would serve as a foundation for the restructuring of the national team, without publicly going into the internal shortcomings raised by Cissé.

The president of the Federation thus assures that the lessons from this World Cup campaign will allow the restructuring of the senior national team “and to approach upcoming challenges under better conditions, starting with the qualifiers” for the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations. This strategy of staying the course contrasts with the seriousness of the accusations circulating at the same time, whether about disputed leadership or suspicions of financial mismanagement around debts accumulated by the Federation.

Nevertheless, Abdoulaye Fall did not hesitate to give his version regarding Pape Thiaw's contract. “We are not happy with the way our collaboration with Pape Thiaw ended. He is my little brother, I say this very sincerely. Our relationship did not just start today, nor with the national team. He knows this. We had an honest relationship, which helped us win (the AFCON). But I think, afterwards, things changed. There has never been a contractual issue between Pape and me. Discussions started even before the end of the year. I made him a proposal in February. At that time, he was in Saudi Arabia. He came back to me on March 8. But when I saw his demands, I felt there were some conditions that were a bit hard to meet. So, I called him so we could talk. I told him that if we kept certain conditions, there would be instability around the contract,” Mr. Fall explains.

He continued, providing more details. “Afterwards, we agreed and I asked him to discuss it with the Minister of Sports (Khady Diene Gaye, since replaced—ed.), especially since the two have an excellent relationship. As for the financial aspect, it is not the Federation that pays the coach. It’s the State that handles it. Without getting into details, I sent a letter to the Minister of Sports so she could set the coach’s salary and signing bonus for us. Khady Diene Gaye asked me to refer to the last contract signed by Aliou Cissé and his assistants. So, we used that as a basis to make a new offer to Pape. But he was not satisfied. According to him, this offer did not match what the Minister of Sports had proposed to him. Pape had his demands. That is perfectly normal and legitimate. Everyone knows their own value. But there are limits,” the official went on.

He concluded: “To our great surprise, we learned in the press that Pape Thiaw did not want to board the plane on the eve of the departure for the United States, supposedly because he still had not signed his contract. Then there was the intervention of the Head of State, which made him change his mind. Then we went to the United States. But, surprisingly, when we arrived, Pape Thiaw demanded a better contract. He wanted something else. Verbally, he asked us for 1% of the victory bonus, but in writing it was 13%. I accepted the 1% because I thought he deserved it. Then he asked me for an exceptional bonus. I replied that it would be a bit complicated, but I would try. In the end, we agreed. Up to that point, everything was going well in the discussions. But at a certain stage, there were frictions and the negotiations became very complicated. It was no longer about money.”

A crisis of governance that goes beyond just sports

Beyond egos and settling of scores, it is the solidity of the Federation’s edifice itself that is wavering. Several members of the Comex are reportedly rebelling against Abdoulaye Fall, denouncing what they see as opaque management of performance bonuses. An online petition is even demanding the creation of a parliamentary inquiry commission into the management of the FSF, a sign that the protest now goes beyond the circle of sports observers and is speaking directly to State institutions.

What this episode reveals is less a one-off disagreement between three men than a method: everyone communicates with their own narrative. One positions himself as a whistleblower before backtracking, while the other two act as calm managers looking toward the future—yet no common, transparent, and collectively endorsed version has emerged.