Sports and Recreation Minister Kofi Adams has defended proposals to channel a percentage of athletes’ earnings into Ghana’s proposed Sports Fund.
According to him, the move is a strategic investment designed to increase the long-term value of Ghanaian sports talent significantly.
The proposal has attracted criticism from sections of Parliament, including former Sports Minister Mustapha Ussif, who argues that the model is not feasible because many athletes already earn modest incomes.
Similar concerns have been raised by the President of the Ghana Weightlifting Federation, who fears the deductions could burden athletes. But speaking in an interview with Muftawu Nabila Abdulai, Adams said the criticism misunderstands both the intent and structure of the fund. “How can that be problematic? ” Are they asking that the work that you do, which the fund is going to enhance, you must also continue to contribute?” he asked.
“What the Sports Fund is going to do is to ensure that decisions are data-driven.”
He stated that the fund will prioritise research, technology, and innovation, areas he believes Ghana has historically underinvested in, to the detriment of its athletes.
“When you transfer a footballer to sometimes a third-rated team in Europe, in a few months the value suddenly shoots up,” the Buem MP explained. “Not because the player has suddenly become faster or more skillful, but because data has been built around that player and used to sell him.”
The minister argued that Ghana’s failure to invest in sports data and analytics means local athletes are often transferred at undervalued rates.
“We don’t do that because we haven’t invested in such areas. The Sports Fund is going to create a funding line for us to invest in research, innovation, and technology. So, even the first transfer of an athlete, if we so desire, the value will be very high. That is value addition.”
Drawing parallels with Ghana’s traditional export model, Adams likened the current system to exporting raw materials without processing.
“It’s like sending cocoa beans raw and then buying chocolate back at a higher price, or exporting gold raw and importing finished ornaments,” he said.
“When we started adding value, we started earning more. That is exactly what this fund is meant to do for our athletes.”
He stressed that athletes would not be the primary source of funding, and that any contribution from transfers would be minimal and indirect. “Contributing a little—not a major amount—will let you also appreciate what your country has done for you. “The country builds the pitches you play on, provides infrastructure, and supports development.” He dismissed claims that athletes themselves oppose the idea.
“I believe the sportspeople themselves are happy. Those talking don’t know what it is that they go through,” he added. Adams further clarified that deductions would be made through existing transfer mechanisms, not directly from athletes’ pockets.
“Already, club owners and federations get a percentage when transfers happen. Is that wrong?” he asked.
“So what is wrong with a country that builds the infrastructure? And the country that is going to be investing in school sports more, for all these talents to be identified. What is wrong if part of what comes in is also contributed to the fund?
And do you want oil farmers to contribute to the fund that is going to support athletes?”
When quizzed whether there’s an arrangement with the GFA on how to get players contribute, and what percentage he was looking at, the government will find a way of getting the contribution, and there was no specific percentage under consideration.
“Well, how does FA get its percentage? Same medium, send it directly then? If the FA gets it, the government will use the same medium to get the players to contribute.
“Is FIFA coming to build all the stadia that we use in this country?” he questioned. “If we tell FIFA that this is how we want to develop our infrastructure and this is what our law provides, I don’t think they would refuse it.”
