Any organisation, but purposes of this article, we shall refer to the Rwanda Football Federation (FERWAFA), may reserve the right to hire and fire a coach depending on their success or failure, or the terms of the contract.

However, it's also important to take into account that every decision must be taken in accordance with the terms of reference therein the contract between the parties involved.

Which is why the latest compensation ruling against FERWAFA should not be viewed merely as another financial dispute between a federation and a former coach. It has to be looked at with wider specs.

But most importantly, it should raise serious questions about how decisions are made when national team coaches are appointed, managed and eventually dismissed.

FIFA’s decision ordering FERWAFA to pay former Amavubi head coach Adel Amrouche around US$360,000 (approximately Rwf530 million) for unlawful termination of his contract is a significant financial blow.

It follows a similar 2018 case involving former national team coach Johnny McKinstry, where FIFA ordered the federation to pay approximately US$180,000 (about Rwf158 million) after ruling that his dismissal was unjustified.

Between the two cases alone, FERWAFA has been ordered to pay about Rwf688 million in total. That is money that could have been invested in developing the future of Rwandan football rather than compensating coaches because of costly administrative decisions.

Football federations have every right to make changes when results are poor. A national team coach is ultimately judged by performance, and no federation can be expected to continue with a coach indefinitely if expectations are not being met. However, the right to dismiss a coach does not mean contracts can be ignored.

Employment agreements exist to protect both parties. If a federation believes a coach has failed to meet expectations, it must ensure that the reasons for termination are legally sound, properly documented and consistent with the terms of the contract.

The last time I checked, poor results alone may not automatically amount to a breach that allows a federation to escape compensation obligations. This is why contracts are signed.

The repeated legal defeats raise concerns about whether FERWAFA seeks sufficient legal advice before taking such decisions or whether some dismissals are made emotionally, under pressure from public opinion and frustration over results.

The Amrouche case appears to follow a familiar pattern – a coach struggles to deliver the desired results, pressure increases and the federation acts to make a quick change.

But football management cannot be based only on emotion or short-term/implussive reactions. A professional federation must balance sporting ambitions with legal responsibility. And also keep in mind that there are consequences for every decision in that regard.

The important question now is whether this latest financial penalty will lead to a change in approach. Because doing things the usual way has backfired on FERWAFA, not once but twice.

Will future coaching dismissals be handled with greater caution, with proper legal reviews carried out before contracts are terminated? Or will FERWAFA find itself facing similar disputes again because lessons have not been learned?

Our friends at the FERWAFA House must realize that a strong football administration is not measured only by its ability to hire and fire coaches. It is measured by the quality of its decision-making processes.

Professional clubs and federations around the world routinely dismiss coaches, but they do so while protecting themselves through clear contracts, performance clauses and legal procedures.

The money lost through these disputes represents missed opportunities for football development. Hundreds of millions of (Rwandan) francs could support youth academies, grassroots competitions, coach education programmes across the country.

Who doesn't know that investment in youth football would have long-term benefits. Funding could strengthen initiatives such as school football competitions (this lacks the vibrancy that it deserves), regional youth leagues, training centres for promising players.

FERWAFA could also utilize that money in development programmes that provide young athletes with better coaching and facilities.

It could also support the education and certification of local coaches who will eventually guide future generations of Rwandan players.

The cost of repeated compensation payments should therefore be seen as more than a financial issue. It is a question of priorities. Every franc spent correcting administrative mistakes is a franc lost for building the base of the game.

My humble opinion is that FERWAFA must use this latest ruling as an opportunity for reflection – accountability does not mean avoiding difficult decisions; it means making those decisions professionally, legally and strategically.

Hiring, changing or firing coaches will always be part of not only the beautiful game but every sport. But how those changes are made reveals the strength of an organisation. Remember that.

Therefore, if FERWAFA wants to build a viable football system, it must ensure that future coaching changes are guided by contracts, evidence and expert advice — not pressure and impulse.

Rwf688 million in compensation could have been an avoidable mistake if contracts were indeed well structured, intentional and respected.