The E10 000 fee charged by government for the use of Somhlolo National Stadium has sparked widespread debate among members of the public.
While some argue that the amount is excessive and unfair to struggling football teams, others believe the fee is justified given the status and maintenance demands of the country’s premier sporting facility.
Critics contend that only teams with large fan bases can afford to host matches at Somhlolo, effectively excluding smaller clubs. Some officials and supporters have gone further, blaming the Ministry of Sports and accusing it of burdening teams that are already battling financially.
The argument is that many clubs will never get the opportunity to play at Somhlolo National Stadium, despite it being regarded as the country’s football mecca.
However, the ministry has attempted to justify the charge by pointing to the high costs associated with maintaining and upgrading the stadium. Taking all factors into consideration, it is difficult to agree that the E10 000 fee is unreasonable. The real issue is not the cost of the stadium, but the financial instability of many local teams.
Government has invested significant resources into upgrading Somhlolo National Stadium to meet Confederation of African Football (CAF) requirements and to enable Eswatini to host international matches. This has been a costly and ongoing process.
Despite these investments, the stadium still does not fully meet CAF standards. At present, the country only holds a provisional licence, which allows it to host preliminary international fixtures.
Given this context, it is unrealistic to expect the stadium to be hired out at minimal cost. Maintenance, compliance upgrades, staffing, security and utilities require consistent funding. These expenses do not disappear simply because teams are struggling financially.
One of the main reasons clubs find the E10 000 fee unaffordable is their over-reliance on gate takings. Many teams depend almost entirely on match-day ticket sales for survival. This model is outdated and unsustainable.
If local football continues to rely solely on gate revenue, the game will stagnate. Clubs must explore alternative income streams, including commercial sponsorships, merchandising, strategic partnerships, and improved marketing and brand positioning.
Clubs often complain that sponsors do not support them, yet sponsorship does not arrive by chance. Sponsors are attracted, not begged for. Teams must present themselves as professional, well-managed and marketable entities. Once clubs begin to professionalise their operations, sponsorship opportunities are more likely to follow.
The E10 000 stadium fee should therefore be viewed not as punishment, but as a challenge for teams to raise their standards. It should encourage clubs to rethink their business models and operate like modern football institutions rather than social teams.
Another critical issue often ignored in this debate is the damage caused to sporting facilities by teams themselves.
Belief in muti has led to destructive practices that carry serious financial consequences. There have been instances where teams deliberately damage artificial turf to bury substances believed to bring luck, with no regard for repair costs. Dressing rooms are sometimes left dirty, burnt substances are discovered, and extensive cleaning or repairs become necessary.
This raises an important question: if stadium usage fees are reduced, who will bear the cost of repairs and ongoing maintenance?
Maintenance is not an occasional activity. It is a daily process that requires staff, equipment and resources — all of which cost money.
The E10 000 fee contributes directly to the upkeep of Somhlolo National Stadium. If Eswatini wants to maintain a national facility capable of hosting international matches, teams must play their part.
It is also important to be realistic. Not every team needs to host matches at Somhlolo. Clubs with small fan bases risk financial losses by choosing such a venue and should instead opt for more affordable grounds.
However, if a club insists on using the national stadium, paying E10 000 should not be negotiable.
Ironically, some teams manage to find money for muti and individuals claiming to perform “black magic”, yet struggle to raise funds to book Somhlolo National Stadium. This contradiction highlights that the problem lies more with priorities than affordability.
In conclusion, the E10 000 fee is justified.
The focus should shift from complaining about costs to addressing the deeper structural and financial weaknesses within local football. Teams must fix their finances, not blame government.
