AFCON Third-Place Match: Needless Effort or Meaningless Tradition?

 

The Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) has grown into one of the most competitive and emotionally charged tournaments in world football. From improved infrastructure to better organization and increased global attention, African football has evolved significantly over the decades. However, one tradition that continues to raise questions is the AFCON third-place match.

Is it still necessary, or has it become an effort in futility?

A Brief Historical Context

The Africa Cup of Nations began in 1957 in Khartoum, Sudan, with just three participating teams: Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. South Africa was meant to be part of that inaugural tournament but withdrew due to its apartheid policy, insisting on selecting only white players — a stance that was rightly rejected.

The third-place match was introduced in 1962 at the AFCON tournament hosted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with Tunisia finishing as the first-ever third-place team.

At the time, the inclusion of a third-place match made sense. The competition was small, player workload was limited, and the tournament structure allowed for it without major consequences. But football — especially African football — has moved far beyond those early years.

Fatigue: Players Are Already Spent

By the time teams reach the third-place match, players are physically and mentally exhausted. AFCON is played mid-season, often after a long and demanding club campaign. Many players have already logged heavy minutes before even arriving at the tournament.

Expecting players to suddenly find motivation for a bronze-medal match after the emotional pain of a semi-final defeat is unrealistic. Fatigue affects performance, quality, and ultimately the value of the game itself.

Clubs Want Their Players Back

European clubs — where the majority of AFCON stars ply their trade — are not particularly enthusiastic about a third-place playoff. Clubs want their players back healthy, rested, and injury-free.

A largely meaningless match that carries injury risk creates unnecessary tension between clubs and national teams. For a competition that already struggles with club-country relations, the third-place match only adds to the strain.

Nobody Remembers Third Place

Let’s be honest: history remembers champions, sometimes finalists — but rarely third-place finishers.

Ten AFCON bronze medals do not equal one gold. Years later, nobody introduces a team as “AFCON third-place winners.” It does not shape legacy, elevate status, or define greatness. Even fans struggle to recall who finished third in previous editions without checking records.

If the outcome does not meaningfully impact history, prestige, or footballing legacy, then its relevance must be questioned.

Players Are Rarely Interested

Third-place matches often lack intensity because players themselves do not see them as important. After losing a semi-final, motivation drops sharply. The emotional high is gone, the dream is over, and the body is tired.

This is reflected in the quality of play — slow tempo, cautious challenges, and little emotional investment. A match that players are not mentally present for cannot deliver the spectacle fans deserve.

Coaches Treat It as an Experiment

More often than not, coaches use the third-place match as a testing ground rather than a competitive fixture. Squad rotation, tactical experiments, and fringe players dominate team selections.

While experimentation has its place, it further proves that the match is not treated as a serious competitive event — not by players, not by coaches, and not even by football authorities.

Waste of Resources

Hosting an extra match means additional logistics, security, broadcasting costs, and organizational effort. For a tournament that prides itself on progress and efficiency, this becomes a questionable use of limited resources.

CAF has done well in recent years improving stadiums, broadcasting quality, and tournament planning. Holding onto an outdated tradition contradicts that forward-thinking approach.

African Football Has Evolved — CAF Should Too

CAF has shown that it can evolve. Infrastructure has improved. Organization has improved. Global attention has increased. It is time for traditions to evolve as well.

The third-place match belongs to an earlier era of AFCON — one with fewer games, fewer players, and fewer demands. Today’s football calendar is congested, intense, and unforgiving.

Final Thoughts

The AFCON third-place match is not harmful — but it is unnecessary. It adds little sporting value, carries avoidable risks, and is largely forgotten once the tournament ends.

African football deserves traditions that reflect its current level, ambition, and reality, not ones held onto simply because they have always existed.

Sometimes, progress means knowing what to let go.

Disclaimer

This article represents my personal opinion on the relevance of the AFCON third-place match. It is not intended to discredit CAF, players, or teams involved. Football thrives on debate, and differing perspectives are welcome.

I encourage readers to share their views respectfully in the comment section — whether you agree or disagree — and support your stance with clear reasons and context. Healthy discussion is how the game grows.

Habeeb Kuti