Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FAZ / FIFA · 2022–2026

Zambia's Copper Queens and a Coach Under Investigation

Bruce Mwape led Zambia's women's team, the Copper Queens, to their first Olympics and first Women's World Cup. In 2022 the Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) said it had referred allegations of abuse against him to FIFA. During the 2023 World Cup a complaint alleged he had rubbed a player's chest after training; FIFA confirmed it was investigating. In 2024 a FIFA contractor alleged he had touched her breast at the same tournament. Mwape denied the allegations. He coached Zambia at the Paris 2024 Olympics under conditions barring private contact with players, and was moved to an advisory role in January 2025. No FIFA outcome was made public before he died in 2026. The case asks what governing bodies owe players when investigations stall and a coach under investigation stays in charge.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Mwape is appointed head coach of Zambia's women's team.
  2. The FAZ says it has referred allegations of abuse against Mwape to FIFA.
  3. At the Women's World Cup, a complaint alleges Mwape rubbed a player's chest after training; FIFA confirms an investigation.
  4. The Guardian reports a FIFA contractor's allegation that Mwape touched her breast at the World Cup.
  5. Mwape coaches at the Paris Olympics under conditions barring private contact with players.
  6. The FAZ replaces Mwape with Nora Häuptle and moves him to an advisory role with junior teams.
  7. The FAZ announces Mwape's death; no FIFA outcome has been made public.

The ethical issues

  • Players' safety while an investigation is pending.
  • Due process for the accused.
  • Fear of reporting when a coach controls selection.
  • Delays in safeguarding investigations.
  • Accountability of national federations and international bodies.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Zambia's playersSafety, voice and fair selection.
Complainants, including a FIFA contractorBeing heard and protected.
Bruce MwapeDue process and his reputation.
FAZResults, governance and its standing with FIFA.
FIFA and the IOCCredible safeguarding at their events.
Women's football in AfricaGrowth built on safe environments.

The case

Background

Bruce Mwape was appointed coach of Zambia’s women’s national team, the Copper Queens, in 2018.[1][5] He took them to three Women’s Africa Cup of Nations tournaments, a bronze medal in 2022, back-to-back Olympics in Tokyo and Paris, and the country’s first Women’s World Cup in 2023.[5] At that tournament in New Zealand, Zambia lost 5-0 to both Japan and Spain before beating Costa Rica 3-1 for their first World Cup win.[1]

Allegations had followed Mwape for some time. In September 2022 the Football Association of Zambia said it had referred allegations of abuse against him to FIFA. Mwape called earlier allegations “fake” and said “the truth of the matter should actually come out.”[1] The Guardian reported that players had told it of earlier allegations of sexual misconduct.[1]

The rules and governance

FIFA has its own ethics and disciplinary bodies, and at the Paris 2024 Olympic football tournament it ran an event safeguarding program.[3] National federations decide who coaches their teams. When FIFA investigates, it does not usually publish details. FIFA told the Guardian it “cannot provide further details” because of confidentiality, adding: “Where guilt is established, Fifa takes the strongest possible sanctions.”[1]

Decision point: a complaint at the World Cup

In August 2023 the Guardian reported that a complaint had been made alleging that Mwape rubbed a player’s chest after a training session two days before the win over Costa Rica. According to the report, witnesses waited to report the incident to a FIFA delegate because they feared they would not be selected.[1] The BBC reported that FIFA was looking into an official complaint of sexual misconduct, and that New Zealand police said no further action was required on their part.[2] The FAZ’s general secretary said the association had not received a complaint and noted that training sessions were filmed.[1]

Mwape stayed in post. The players’ fear of losing selection points to a structural problem: when a coach controls places on a national team, players may stay silent.

Decision point: the Olympics

In May 2024 the Guardian reported that a FIFA contractor working closely with the team at the World Cup alleged that Mwape had intentionally touched her breast. Mwape denied the accusations.[3][4] He was initially denied a visa to enter France for the Paris Olympics, a decision later reversed with strict conditions: he was not to have private contact with any player, and any one-on-one meeting was to take place in an open space.[3] The FAZ reportedly said it was too late to replace him.[3]

The contractor said she was “bitterly disappointed” that he was allowed to coach at the Olympics. “He should have gone years ago,” she said.[3] The IOC said it would follow the case “closely,” and FIFA said it had an event safeguarding program for the Olympic tournament with a clear reporting process.[3]

Aftermath

In January 2025 the FAZ replaced Mwape with Nora Häuptle, a former Switzerland midfielder, and reassigned him to an advisory role with junior teams. The FAZ president praised his record. The Guardian reported that FIFA’s investigation remained open and that political pressure to remove him had grown ahead of FAZ elections.[4] In July 2026 the FAZ announced that Mwape had died in Chingola after a short illness.[5][6] As of his death, no outcome of FIFA’s investigation had been reported publicly.[4][5]

The core dilemma

A coach faced repeated allegations from players and a FIFA contractor. He denied them, and no finding was ever made. For more than a year, he stayed in charge of the women who had complained or witnessed the alleged conduct, including at the Olympics under special conditions. What did the federation and FIFA owe players while the investigation continued, and what did they owe the coach?

Competing values

  • Player safety vs. due process: protecting players now against punishing someone not found responsible [1][3].
  • Results vs. responsibility: a coach who delivered historic success against the welfare of the players he coached [4][5].
  • Confidentiality vs. transparency: protecting investigations against public accountability for delays [1][4].
  • National vs. international duty: the FAZ’s control of its coaches against FIFA’s safeguarding role [1][3].

Strongest arguments

For keeping Mwape in post pending an outcome: he denied the allegations, and no investigation found against him [3][4]. Removing a coach on allegations alone can be unfair and could be abused. The conditions imposed at the Olympics were meant to manage risk [3].

For removing him earlier: there were allegations from several sources over years, and players reported fear of retaliation [1][3]. Safeguarding guidance generally favours interim measures that protect athletes while an investigation runs. An investigation with no outcome for years fails both complainants and the accused.

On the institutions: the federation said it referred matters to FIFA; FIFA cited confidentiality [1]. The gap between them left no one clearly responsible.

Applying the frameworks

Care

An ethics of care centres the players and the contractor: their vulnerability, their fear of losing selection and their need to be heard [1][3]. It asks whether the institutions responded to them as people, not as a reputational risk.

Justice

A justice lens asks for fair procedures for everyone: complainants deserve a timely hearing, and the accused deserves due process. Delay is itself a failure of justice, especially when power is unequal.

Rights

A rights lens asks about players’ right to a safe workplace and to report without retaliation, and the accused’s right to a fair process and the presumption of innocence.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are the FAZ’s safeguarding lead in August 2023 after the World Cup complaint. The stakeholders are the players, the complainants, Mwape, the FAZ, FIFA and the IOC.
  2. Gather facts. Find out what FIFA is investigating, when it expects to decide and what earlier referrals said [1][2]. Watch for success bias: a winning coach can make allegations seem less credible.
  3. Test options. Option A: keep him in post. Option B: keep him with safeguarding conditions. Option C: place him on interim leave until FIFA decides.
  4. Check codes and law. Check FIFA’s ethics and safeguarding rules, the FAZ’s own policies and Zambian employment law.
  5. Decide and document. Record the risk assessment and why the measures protect players.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Tell players how to report safely, press FIFA for a timeline and review the decision as new information arrives.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: Mwape led Zambia to historic achievements; FIFA confirmed an investigation in 2023; a FIFA contractor made a further allegation; he denied the allegations; he coached at Paris 2024 under conditions; he was moved aside in January 2025; and no FIFA outcome was made public before his death in 2026 [1][2][3][4][5].

Contested: whether the allegations were true, whether he should have been removed earlier and who was responsible for the delays.

Why this case matters

Safeguarding fails when investigations stall and power stays where it was. Compare Haiti’s Football Federation and Yves Jean-Bart, The NWSL Abuse Crisis and the Yates Report and Rubiales and the Spain World Cup Kiss.

Key terms

Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Whistleblowing
Disclosure of wrongdoing in the public interest by someone inside or close to an organization: a moral safety valve.
Prevent, minimize, mitigate, remedy
An order of priorities for harm: prevent it if possible, then minimize it, mitigate what remains, and remedy what has been done.
Glass ceiling
Invisible, systemic barriers in hiring and promotion that keep women and minorities out of leadership roles.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should the FAZ have suspended Mwape while FIFA investigated? What would due process require?
  2. Were the Olympic conditions an adequate safeguard, or a sign he should not have been there?
  3. What does it say that no public outcome was reached in nearly three years?
  4. How can players report abuse without fearing for their places in the team?
  5. Who should bear responsibility when an international federation's investigation stalls?

Sources

  1. Fifa investigating claims Zambia coach rubbed player's chest at World Cup — The Guardian
  2. Bruce Mwape: Fifa looking into official sexual misconduct complaint against Zambia head coach — BBC Sport
  3. Bruce Mwape banned from private contact with Zambia players at Olympics — The Guardian
  4. Zambia Women coach accused of sexual misconduct is moved aside — The Guardian
  5. FAZ mourns former Copper Queens coach Bruce Mwape — COSAFA
  6. Former Copper Queens coach, Mwape, dies at 65. Seven things to remember about him — Zambia Monitor