The Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL) is facing criticism over a disciplinary decision involving Rivers United, with questions emerging about how consistently the league applies its rules to clubs accused of breaching its regulations.
The controversy centres on an incident during Rivers United’s Matchday 11 fixture against Rangers International on Sunday, when the Port Harcourt club was accused of obstructing the live broadcast of the encounter.
While the league acknowledged the seriousness of the breach, its handling of the matter has drawn scrutiny from journalists, analysts and supporters, particularly over how the decision compares with previous disciplinary cases.
The NPFL imposed a ₦15m fine on Rivers United, alongside a deduction of three points and three goals. However, rather than enforcing the sanctions immediately, the league placed them under suspension, warning that they would take effect if the club commits another similar offence during the ongoing season.
The decision was communicated to Rivers United in a summary jurisdiction ruling signed by NPFL Chief Operating Officer, Dr Ayo Abdulrahaman.
Why Rivers United were sanctioned
The incident involved the league’s broadcast arrangements for the Matchday 11 fixture against Rangers, which had already been scheduled for live television coverage.
According to the report by PUNCH Sports Extra, Rivers United claimed they were unaware of the broadcast schedule, despite a league circular having been circulated on October 29 and 30.
Abdulrahaman, however, drew the club’s attention to Sections B, Rules 6.22 and 6.23 of the NPFL Framework and Rules, which guarantee the league’s broadcast rights owner exclusive and unfettered access to all league venues without prior notice.
Rule 6.23 prescribes a fine of up to ₦15m, in addition to a deduction of three points and three goals from a club’s accruable totals, for breaching the broadcast access regulations.
Despite establishing the applicable sanctions, the league said it had considered the circumstances surrounding the incident before deciding to suspend their implementation and issue Rivers United a formal final warning.
“In view of the seriousness of this incident, the league hereby issues Rivers United FC a formal and final warning and places the prescribed sanctions under suspension.
“Accordingly, the fine of ₦15,000,000.00 together with the deduction of three (3) points and three (3) goals from the club’s accruable points and goals, is hereby suspended. These sanctions will activate if the club commits any subsequent breach of these provisions, without prejudice to any additional sanctions applicable under the Framework and Rules,” the decision stated.
The league also insisted that clubs cannot determine whether broadcast partners are granted access to their venues, describing such access as a regulatory obligation.
“Access by the league’s broadcast partners to league venues is a regulatory requirement and not a matter subject to the discretion or approval of individual clubs. No club is permitted to obstruct, restrict or deny such access, particularly in respect of scheduled live matches,” the statement added.
Critics question consistency of NPFL sanctions
The decision has since attracted criticism, with some league observers questioning why Rivers United received a suspended punishment when other clubs have faced financial penalties for similar broadcast-related incidents.
ACL Sports NPFL expert Samuel Areo described the ruling as an example of what he considers selective application of the league’s regulations.
“This isn’t even a matter of this or that, and thank goodness the league referenced that part of the rulebook. All we have been saying and asking is: why do we have a selective application of the same rulebook? The attempted explanation from Dr Ayo is too watery, self-incriminating,” Areo said.
READ MORE: Cristiano Ronaldo’s full statement after emotional retirement farewell
League journalist Abiodun Moyosore also questioned the difference between Rivers United’s suspended ₦15m fine and the ₦2m penalty imposed on Abia Warriors over an incident involving the live stream of their match against Niger Tornadoes.
“You gave Rivers United ₦15m ‘suspended’ fine for denying the league broadcast partners access to the stadium for the Rivers United vs Rangers game. But Abia Warriors were fined ₦2m for trying to disrupt their game against Tornadoes’ live stream,” Moyosore said.
The comparison has become a central part of the debate, with critics asking whether the NPFL’s disciplinary decisions reflect a consistent application of the same regulations across its member clubs.
Supporters have also expressed concern that suspending the sanctions could encourage other clubs to test the league’s broadcast regulations.
Sarafa Lawal suggested the decision could establish a precedent for future cases, saying: “Suspended fine? Looks like the FIFA playbook has found its way to the NPFL Board. A precedent has been set, and others are clearly taking notes.”
Adekojo Damilola was similarly critical of the league’s approach.
“I don’t think NPFL can grow with the soft landing punishment given to Rivers United,” he said.
The debate comes as the league continues to emphasise the importance of broadcast access to its commercial and organisational ambitions. Its ability to enforce those regulations consistently will remain an important measure of its disciplinary credibility.
Rivers United, meanwhile, are scheduled to travel to Lagos on Saturday to face Sporting Lagos, with the club having received a final warning over the incident.
