Every summer, tens of millions of pounds flow across borders as African footballers make the move to Europe. Their transfer fees reflect their talent. Their wages often do not. Behind the glamour of the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A lies a quiet, persistent economic injustice — one backed by data, documented by academics, and felt in the bank accounts of the very players who light up these leagues.
This is the story of how African footballers are systematically underpaid relative to their European and South American counterparts — and why the football industry has chosen, largely, not to talk about it.
The Numbers Do Not Lie
A 2024 analysis of Premier League wage data reveals a stark picture. The average annual salary for a non-African player in England’s top flight stands at approximately £3.4 million. For African players, that figure drops to £2.8 million — an 18.5 percent gap. Remove Mohamed Salah from the African average, and the gap widens to nearly 31 percent.
Across Europe’s Big 5 leagues — England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France — the disparity is compounded by a striking comparison. Research published in the Sports Economics Review in 2024 found that South American players, primarily from Argentina and Brazil, command an 11 to 15 percent wage premium over European players. African players, meanwhile, sit at the opposite end of that spectrum.
The Ivory Coast and Senegal are the best-represented African nations in these leagues, yet their players average just €2.4 million and €2.3 million annually respectively. The pattern is unmistakable: the further a player’s passport is from Europe or South America, the less they are likely to earn — regardless of what they produce on the pitch.
High Fees, Low Wages — The Transfer Paradox
Perhaps the most revealing dimension of this story is the gap between what clubs pay to acquire African players and what they choose to pay those players to stay.
Victor Osimhen is one of the most dominant strikers in world football. In 2023, Napoli valued him at over €100 million. Yet his annual salary at Galatasaray sits at approximately €15 million. Erling Haaland, his closest positional peer in terms of market value and output, earns £27 million a year at Manchester City. That is a gap of more than 40 percent. Same position. Similar valuation. Dramatically different pay.
Sadio Mane’s decision to leave Liverpool for Al-Nassr in 2023 was widely discussed as a footballing decline. It was more accurately a financial correction. His Saudi earnings were roughly double what he received in Europe. Riyad Mahrez, upon leaving Manchester City for Al-Ahli, saw his annual wage triple — from approximately £18 million to over $56 million. These are not outliers. They are indicators of a market that was consistently pricing African talent below its actual value.
The Sell-On Clause Trap
When clubs cannot suppress African players’ wages outright, they find other mechanisms. The sell-on clause — a contractual provision entitling a selling club to a percentage of any future transfer fee — is disproportionately applied to African players, who typically arrive from smaller clubs with less negotiating leverage.
Consider Abdul Fatawu Issahaku, the Ghanaian winger who moved from Steadfast FC to Sporting Lisbon. His transfer fee was €7.9 million — significant for a young player from a West African club. Buried in his contract was a sell-on clause requiring 50 percent of his future transfer fee to be returned to Steadfast within the first three years. The player’s market appreciation — built on his own work, talent, and development — would predominantly benefit the clubs, not himself.
Yoane Wissa’s move from Brentford to Newcastle United carried a 25 percent sell-on clause in Brentford’s favour. This is not illegal. It is not even unusual. But it is a mechanism that, when applied systematically to a class of players with less bargaining power, functions as a structural wealth transfer away from those players and toward the institutions that represent them.
The Agents: A Pipeline Built on Exploitation
Behind every professional footballer is an agent. For African players, that relationship carries particular risk.
FIFPro, the international players’ union, estimates that approximately 15,000 African players are trafficked annually through fraudulent recruitment schemes. Families across Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal are approached by individuals posing as licensed agents, offering guaranteed trials with European clubs in exchange for fees ranging from €1,000 to €5,000 — sums that can represent a family’s entire savings.
The outcomes are, in most cases, devastating. Simon Adingra — now at Brighton and Hove Albion — paid $300 at the age of 12 for a place in a fake Beninese academy. He and ten other boys were abandoned. In an extreme case documented by human rights investigators, an 18-year-old Senegalese player named Cheikh Toure was murdered after travelling to Ghana following a fraudulent agent’s invitation. His family could not raise the ransom demanded by his captors.
For the minority who do reach Europe through legitimate channels, exploitation does not end at the border. African players’ agents — even licensed ones — tend to secure less favourable contract terms, shorter durations, and heavier sell-on obligations than their counterparts representing European or South American clients. The power imbalance that begins in a village in West Africa extends all the way to a contract negotiation in Manchester or Madrid.
The AFCON Factor — How Clubs Use a Tournament as a Weapon
Players from Europe and South America regularly miss club fixtures for international tournaments. The difference is one of timing. The Africa Cup of Nations falls in January — the heart of the European season — while UEFA’s European Championship and CONMEBOL’s Copa America take place in June, when most leagues are dormant.
Clubs use this timing asymmetry not to design equivalent compensation structures, but as a downward lever on wages. A Nigerian player’s international absences in January reduce his perceived value during contract negotiations. A French player’s absences in June do not. The result is a structural penalty on African players for the simple fact of when their continental tournament is scheduled — a factor entirely outside their control.
An Echo of History
Academic researchers have begun connecting these economic patterns to a longer historical arc. In peer-reviewed work published in Soccer and Society, researchers studying African football labour migration found structural similarities between the modern transfer market and the colonial resource extraction model — a system in which raw materials were exported from Africa to enrich European economies, with minimal return to the continent of origin.
The parallel is not merely rhetorical. African academies identify talent at a young age, invest in initial development, and export that talent to European clubs. The capital generated by those players’ careers flows to European owners, European agents, and European clubs. The African nations, clubs, and families who produced the talent receive comparatively little. A sell-on clause that returns €3 million to a Ghanaian club from a €20 million transfer is, by this logic, a facsimile of the royalty system — a small percentage returned to the source while the majority of value is captured downstream.
Writing in The Elephant in early 2026, analysts described the modern African football economy as “capitalist extraction with a sporting veneer.” The economic mechanics it describes are real and documented.
The Institutions That Should Act
FIFPro has acknowledged the problem. In a 2023 statement, the union noted that “for players in Africa, the biggest challenges are the working conditions and the non-payment of salaries.” In early 2025, FIFPro Africa launched a workload study documenting that Africa-based players with international commitments play up to 60 matches per season — a figure that would prompt immediate intervention if applied to European players.
The problem is not awareness. It is that awareness has not translated into binding protections. The South African Premier Soccer League has no legally binding minimum wage agreement. A 2024 survey by the South African Football Players Union found that 38.4 percent of PSL players earn less than R8,000 per month — roughly $440. In Cameroon, SYNAFOC documented 101 salary complaint cases in a single year, with clubs owing players tens of millions of CFA francs in unpaid wages. Forty percent of first-division players in Cameroon lack even a written copy of their own contract.
In European leagues, where the money is abundant, the protections exist on paper but the wage gap persists in practice — because no union, no regulator, and no governing body has treated wage discrimination by nationality as a priority issue requiring intervention.
What Needs to Change
A meaningful response requires several concrete steps. FIFA and UEFA need to mandate transparent wage reporting by nationality, making disparity measurable and therefore politically addressable. FIFPro’s Africa division needs the resources and mandate to pursue wage discrimination claims, not just issue statements. Sell-on clause percentages applied to players from lower-income footballing nations need to be capped by regulation. And agents — licensed and unlicensed — who exploit the desperation of young Africans and their families need to face consequences that go beyond occasional awareness campaigns.
Football’s ability to tell stories about itself — the underdog who made it, the immigrant dream, the working-class hero — is extraordinary. Its ability to examine its own economics with the same honesty has been far more limited. The wages are the story. The data exists. The question is whether the sport is willing to read it.
Leave a Reply