Team Kerlon Peters announces slate for GAA elections

by Michael Bascombe

ST GEORGE’S, Grenada, August 21, 2026 - Team Kerlon Peters on Friday announced its seven-member slate to contest the Grenada Athletic Association’s elections on Saturday.

Peters will contest the presidency, with Mike Baptiste seeking the post of First Vice President and Albert Joseph nominated for Second Vice President.

Jamila Lewis will contest the position of General Secretary, while Valene Hagley will seek election as Assistant General Secretary.

Vaughn Joseph is the team’s candidate for Treasurer, while Lester Smith will contest the position of Public Relations Officer.

Peters said the slate brings together professionals with experience in several fields, including sport and administration. All seven candidates have also been involved in track and field.

“I am answering the call to serve, and I am confident in the people who have agreed to be part of this team,” Peters said.

“We have assembled a balanced slate, with each person bringing different skills and professional experience. At the same time, every member understands athletics and the work required to move the sport forward.”

Peters said the association needs people who can work together and listen to athletes, coaches, clubs, officials and other stakeholders.

“No one person can manage the association alone,” he said. “We believe we have a team capable of working together and putting the development of athletics first.”

The elective general meeting will be held at the Kirani James Athletic Stadium, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

GAA must clear the air before Saturday’s election

Sports Commentary by Michael Bascombe

Before the Grenada Athletic Association casts a single vote at its elective general meeting on Saturday, August 22, it needs to clear up the questions now hanging over the process.

The association recently circulated a list of affiliates deemed eligible to participate in the election. That list should have brought clarity. Instead, it has created more confusion.

Several clubs and schools that competed in GAA-sanctioned events this year are not listed among the eligible affiliates. Those events included the National Relay Meet, National Championships and Whitsuntide Games.

Among the missing clubs are Top Flight Athletics of St John, Momentum Track and Field of St Mark and Altitude Track Club of St Andrew. These are not unfamiliar names. They have athletes competing regularly and have been part of the local athletics season.

Let us be fair: paying an entry fee to compete in an event may not be the same as paying an annual affiliation fee. Participation in a sanctioned meet may not automatically carry voting rights. Schools may also be allowed to enter competitions without holding the same membership status as athletics clubs.

But that distinction is precisely what the GAA must explain.

If these organisations were permitted to register athletes, pay event fees and compete under their club or school names, were they told that they were not financial affiliates? Were they given notice of the outstanding affiliation requirements? Was there a deadline by which fees had to be paid for them to participate in the electoral process?

Or were they accepted throughout the season to encourage maximum participation, only to discover shortly before the election that they could not vote?

We understand that both Altitude Track Club and Top Flight Athletics are questioning their omission from the list of financial affiliates. Representatives of both clubs have confirmed that their affiliation fees were paid at the start of the year.

Those payments should be easy for the GAA to verify against its receipts and financial records. If the clubs are financial, the list should be corrected before Saturday. If there is another reason for their exclusion, the association should explain it clearly.

There are also no clubs or schools from Carriacou and Petite Martinique listed among the affiliates eligible to participate in the election. For an organisation responsible for athletics throughout the State of Grenada, that absence should be concerning.

It may point to a wider problem with the structure of athletics in the sister isles rather than anything connected directly to the election. Either way, it deserves attention. A national association should be able to demonstrate that it is creating opportunities for organised clubs and schools across Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique.

The uncertainty surrounding the date of the meeting has not helped.

The election was constitutionally due in January at the end of the executive’s four-year term. It was postponed to maintain administrative continuity ahead of Grenada’s hosting of the CARIFTA Games in April.

That explanation was understandable. However, several people with whom I have spoken said they were informed that the elective meeting had been rescheduled for September. It is now being held on August 22.

Who decided to change the date? When was that decision taken? When and how were affiliates officially notified? Did the notice satisfy the requirements of the GAA’s constitution? Were clubs given enough time to settle outstanding fees, nominate candidates and prepare for the meeting?

The timing has attracted further attention because Kerlon Peters, who has confirmed his interest in contesting the presidency, was abroad representing Grenada at a World Anti-Doping Agency regional symposium when the new date became known.

That circumstance alone is not evidence that the meeting was scheduled to disadvantage anyone. It would be irresponsible to present it as such. However, elections must not only be properly conducted; the process must also give every candidate and affiliate confidence that the rules were applied fairly.

Poor communication creates suspicion, even when there may be an innocent explanation.

I have argued in earlier commentaries that our national sporting associations cannot become stronger without properly organised affiliates. Clubs cannot exist only in name or appear only when there is a competition.

A functioning club should have recognised officers, a membership structure, proper records, coaches, athletes and a development programme. It should hold meetings, account for its finances and meet the affiliation requirements of its national governing body.

Some clubs and schools may need to do better in those areas.

But responsibility travels in both directions. The national association should maintain an updated register of affiliates, communicate annual fees and deadlines, provide reasonable notice of meetings and help developing clubs meet the required standards.

Governance cannot suddenly become important during election week.

The GAA can settle much of this uncertainty before Saturday by publishing the formal notice of the meeting, the relevant constitutional provisions, the deadline for becoming financial and the basis on which each affiliate’s eligibility was determined.

It should also explain why the meeting moved from the widely understood September date to August 22 and provide an opportunity for any omitted affiliate to seek a review of its status.

If the exclusions are legitimate, the association should have no difficulty showing that the same rules were communicated and applied to everyone. If mistakes were made, there is still time to correct them.

Transparency is not a favour to any candidate or club. It protects the association, the electoral process and whoever is eventually elected.

The next GAA executive should take office with a clear mandate, not under a cloud of unanswered questions that could have been settled before the first vote was cast.

Peters confirms bid for GAA presidency ahead of Saturday’s election

by Michael Bascombe

ST GEORGE’S, Grenada, August 20, 2026 - Kerlon Peters, founder and coach of Max Potential Sports Club, has confirmed that he will contest the presidency of the Grenada Athletics Association (GAA) at its elective Annual General Meeting on Saturday.

The election is expected to produce a new president following reports that incumbent Conrad Francis will not seek another term.

Peters confirmed his candidacy while returning from Lima, Peru, where he represented Grenada at a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Regional Symposium. The meeting was held to prepare stakeholders for the changes and requirements under the 2027 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards.

Before leaving for Peru, Peters had already begun reaching out to GAA affiliates and discussing his plans for the association.

“My initial information was that the meeting was scheduled for September, but I only learnt recently that it will be held on Saturday,” he said. “That has not changed my focus on representing the interests of the athletes.”

Peters said one of his main objectives is to increase participation in track and field, not only among athletes but also in coaching, officiating, and administration. He also wants the association to place greater emphasis on developing a strong grassroots programme.

However, he stressed that greater attention must also be given to Grenada’s elite athletes, particularly those returning home without the support needed to continue their careers.

“We have athletes returning home, and there is no structure for them,” Peters said. “Along with the grassroots programme, we also have to take care of our elite athletes.”

He said a coaching programme should be established to give returning athletes continuity and help them remain competitive. His plans would also address athletes’ welfare, benefits, and insurance coverage.

Peters believes the GAA needs a strategic plan with a business component to attract support and create more opportunities. He also wants greater attention paid to athletes’ intellectual property rights and how their names and images are used.

Up to the time of publication, the GAA had not released an official list of candidates for Saturday’s election. However, reports indicate that three members of the outgoing executive - First Vice President Johnell Mitchell, General Secretary Desiree Stephen, and Public Relations Officer Kwame Hypolite - have expressed an interest in contesting positions.

It is not yet clear which posts they will seek.

The election was constitutionally due in January, at the end of the executive’s four-year term. Affiliates agreed to postpone it to preserve administrative continuity while Grenada prepared to host the 53rd CARIFTA Games from April 4–6.

Francis was elected president in January 2022. The outgoing executive also includes Second Vice President Abrel Patrick, Assistant General Secretary Geraldine Thompson, and Treasurer Claudia Francis.

Denise Williams serves as the coaches’ representative, Jelani Franklyn as the athletes’ representative, and Devon Layne as the officials’ representative.

Saturday’s meeting will determine the leadership entrusted with guiding Grenadian athletics through its next administrative cycle.

Grenada's Ministry of Sports must sit down with the GCA

Sports Commentary by Michael Bascombe

What exactly is happening with cricket in Grenada?

That question became even more pressing following Saturday’s TalkSports programme, when it was revealed that the Grenada Cricket Association (GCA) has been attempting to meet with the Ministry of Sports to discuss several outstanding matters.

If that account is accurate, it should concern everyone who cares about the development of cricket.

A recognised national sporting association should not have difficulty securing a meeting with the ministry responsible for sport. The government and the GCA will not always agree. Still, they must be able to sit around the same table and discuss funding, facilities, national team preparation, youth development, regional competitions, and the long-term direction of the game.

A meeting is not a favour. It is part of the working relationship that should exist between the Ministry of Sports and every national sporting association.

There is also the troubling report that thousands of dollars remain outstanding to stakeholders who worked alongside the Grenada Cricket Association in hosting matches, tournaments and series. The GCA itself is not reportedly owed the money. However, payment is said to be delayed because documents requiring government approval or a signature have not been completed.

We have not seen the relevant documents, and the report should not be presented as an established fact. However, it has been repeated often enough to warrant an official response.

How much money is outstanding? Which stakeholders are awaiting payment? What services did they provide? What document requires the government’s signature, when was it submitted, and who is responsible for approving it? Has Cricket West Indies communicated directly with the Government of Grenada?

The Ministry of Sports can bring clarity to the matter. If the information is inaccurate, it should be corrected. If approval remains outstanding, the reason should be explained. If there is no legal or administrative obstacle, the process should be completed without further delay.

Although the money is not owed directly to the GCA, the situation could damage its relationship with the people and businesses that helped to stage these events. Stakeholders may be reluctant to provide services, extend credit or support future competitions if they are uncertain about when they will be paid.

The GCA could also suffer reputational damage despite not being responsible for issuing the payments. Grenada cricket depends on the cooperation of many partners, and those relationships must be protected. A prolonged delay could make hosting future regional and international cricket more difficult and more expensive.

This is also about much more than one payment.

The GCA has reportedly developed a three-year plan that includes a high-performance centre alongside a grassroots cricket programme. That proposal deserves serious consideration.

One of the weaknesses in Grenada’s cricket structure is the limited amount of competitive cricket being played at the Under-15 level. The Under-19 players also need more matches, strong competitions, and a clearer pathway into senior cricket. Coaching sessions are important, but they cannot replace regular match play.

The proposed programme would also involve families and use Masters Cricket as a means of connecting experienced players with the younger generation. That makes sense. Former players have knowledge that should not be lost when they stop playing competitively. They can mentor young cricketers, help them understand the demands of the game, and reinforce the discipline required to succeed.

The proposed high-performance centre would be particularly important for Grenadian players who are not contracted by the Windward Islands Volcanoes. Without a structured programme at home, those players can easily fall into a gap between domestic cricket and the regional professional system.

Grenada has a useful pool of talent. Andre Fletcher, Johann Jeremiah, Teddy Bishop, Darron Nedd, Ryan John, Darel Cyrus, Kirt and Kirtsen Murray, Shermon Lewis, and Preston McSween are among the players who demonstrate the depth and potential that exist.

Not all of them are at the same stage of their careers, but there must be a system capable of supporting established players, emerging talent, and those pushing for another opportunity at the regional level.

A high-performance centre would require proper examination. The GCA should be prepared to present its budget, coaching structure, player-development targets, staffing requirements, and expected results. The Ministry does not have to accept every aspect of the proposal without question. But it must be willing to hear it, assess it, and determine where the government can assist.

That is what consultation is supposed to accomplish.

There is also the approaching Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games. With cricket included on the programme, the GCA is understandably watching the qualification possibilities for players from smaller Caribbean countries.

The eventual pathway may involve movement through the Windward Islands structure and then the wider Cricket West Indies system. The precise arrangements will have to be confirmed by the relevant cricket and Olympic authorities. Whatever the final process, Grenada cannot wait until qualification begins to think about preparation.

If our players are to have a realistic opportunity, the groundwork must start now.

Infrastructure forms another part of the discussion. During my recent visit to Grenada, I toured several of the country’s major sporting facilities, including those used for track and field, football, and cricket. I also visited the aquatic centre now under construction.

There is visible investment, and that should be acknowledged. However, investment must eventually produce facilities that meet the required standards and can be used to attract regional and international competition.

At the National Cricket Stadium, I was advised that adjustments are still required to the recently installed lights as part of the process towards securing the necessary ICC grading and approval. That work must be followed through to completion.

Installing lights is one stage. Having a properly certified venue capable of hosting international and day-night cricket is the outcome that matters.

The development and renovation of sporting facilities must also include consultation with the people who will use them. National associations, athletes, coaches, grounds staff, event organisers, and broadcasters should be involved before important decisions are finalised.

Broadcasting requirements, for example, cannot be treated as an afterthought. Camera positions, sightlines, commentary areas, lighting levels, power supplies, internet connectivity, and space for technical equipment all affect whether an event can be properly presented to audiences at home and overseas. It is far less expensive to address those matters during planning than to correct them after construction has been completed.

The immediate way forward should be straightforward.

The Ministry of Sports should schedule a meeting with the Grenada Cricket Association. The reported funding issue should be clarified, the documents should be examined, and the GCA should be allowed to present its three-year development plan.

The GCA, for its part, must arrive prepared to provide details, budgets, timelines, and measurable targets. If Cricket West Indies needs to participate in the discussion, it should be invited to do so.

This should not become another prolonged disagreement in which letters are sent, meetings are requested, and nothing moves.

The people who suffer most from that kind of delay are not the administrators. They are the young cricketers who are not playing enough matches, the national players trying to prepare without adequate support, and the Grenadian players seeking a route into regional and international cricket.

Grenada has talent. It has facilities. There are development ideas on the table, and funding may be accessed.

What is needed now is a serious conversation, and there is no good reason why that conversation should not begin immediately.

A risky own goal: Why the GFA should not have broken ranks with CONCACAF

by Michael Bascombe

When a football association as small as Grenada’s enters a dispute at the highest level of the world game, its position should be guided by one question: What best protects the long-term interests of football in Grenada?

The statement issued by the Grenada Football Association in support of FIFA President Gianni Infantino does not convincingly answer that question.

The GFA welcomed Infantino’s withdrawal of the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative, praised his “swift action,” declared its commitment to good governance, and warned that it would not support any association or confederation seeking to undermine FIFA’s institutional processes.

It then reaffirmed its support for Infantino “for the years to come.”

That was not a neutral statement. Against the background of a FIFA presidential election in 2027, it sounded very much like an advance political endorsement. Its reference to actions by a “Member Association or Confederation” could also reasonably be interpreted as a rebuke of CONCACAF, the Asian Football Confederation, and UEFA.

The chronology matters.

On July 28, FIFA presented a plan to create a commercial subsidiary valued at US$20 billion and sell a minority interest of up to 20 per cent to outside investors, raising as much as US$4.2 billion. Member associations were told they could potentially access up to US$40 million each through expanded development funding and an optional Fast Forward programme.

The money would be extremely attractive to smaller associations. However, the size of the promised benefit made proper scrutiny even more important.

On July 29, Concacaf said it had learned about the proposal through media reports and expressed concern about the absence of consultation and due process.

The following day, CONCACAF said it convened the presidents of its 41 member associations. According to the official statement issued after that meeting, the membership rejected the proposal and instructed its representatives on the FIFA Council to address the matter through the procedures established in the FIFA Statutes.

That is an important point.

CONCACAF did not announce that it was abandoning FIFA’s institutional processes. It said it was using those processes. It instructed elected FIFA Council members to act within the FIFA system.

Infantino withdrew the proposal on July 31, after opposition spread across the football world. The withdrawal was necessary and should have been welcomed, but it was not a personal favour to Grenada or anyone else. The person who withdrew the proposal was also the person who advanced it.

Putting out a fire after the alarm has been raised does not erase the circumstances in which it started.

On August 10, the AFC, CONCACAF, and UEFA went further. Their joint open letter argued that the proposal had been pushed on a compressed timetable without meaningful consultation. They called for a fully independent review, rather than an investigation conducted by FIFA into itself.

The Caribbean Football Union, of which Grenada is a member, subsequently joined U.S. Soccer, Canada Soccer, and the Central American Football Union in calling for meaningful changes to FIFA’s governance, transparency, and accountability.

Against that background, the GFA’s warning about confederations undermining FIFA’s processes appears misdirected. The regional bodies were demanding that proper processes be respected.

The GFA may continue to reject the substance of the Forward Enterprise proposal but objects to talk of boycotts, breakaways, or the removal of Infantino. If that is its position, it should say so plainly. The present statement mixes separate issues and offers loyalty to an individual without explaining what Grenadian football gains from doing so.

The Guyana Football Federation (GFF) chose a more responsible approach.

The GFF said the proposal was circulated to its Council for review. It convened an emergency meeting, considered the concerns of its members and stakeholders, and reported that the Council unanimously agreed to support CONCACAF’s position.

Guyana did not attack FIFA. It reaffirmed its willingness to work with FIFA, CONCACAF, and other associations while defending transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.

That is what good governance looks like: a meeting, deliberation, a recorded decision, and an explanation to the public.

The GFA statement does not say whether its Council met, whether a vote was taken, or who authorised the pledge of support for Infantino. It also leaves several questions unanswered.

Was Grenada represented at the July 30 meeting of CONCACAF’s 41 presidents? Did the GFA support the collective rejection of the proposal? If it subsequently changed its position, when was that decision taken and by whom? Does “for the years to come” amount to an endorsement of Infantino’s 2027 candidacy?

These are fair questions because CONCACAF issued its original statement in the name of all 41 member associations, including Grenada.

Grenada is entitled to disagree with CONCACAF. Every FIFA member association has its own vote, and no confederation should dictate how that vote must be cast. Independence, however, does not mean isolation. Dissent should be based on a clearly stated football or governance principle, not on an open-ended pledge to one officeholder.

Supporting CONCACAF on this matter would not require the GFA to pledge personal loyalty to CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani either. It would mean supporting the regional position on due process, collective bargaining, and an independent review.

Grenada’s immediate football home is CONCACAF. The confederation provides a competitive pathway for senior national teams, youth teams, women’s football, and clubs. The 2026-27 Nations League, in which Grenada will compete in League B, includes all 41 associations and serves as the qualifying route to the 2027 Gold Cup.

Grenada has no fully professional domestic league, while the men’s national team is ranked 163rd in the world. Those realities make regional cooperation more important, not less.

A single Grenadian vote is valuable to anyone seeking the FIFA presidency. But one vote provides little bargaining power once the election is over. Grenada has far more influence when its concerns are carried collectively by 41 regional associations and supported by other confederations.

There is no question that FIFA funding has benefited Grenadian football. FIFA’s own impact page lists approximately US$4.74 million in completed and ongoing commitments for infrastructure, competitions, national team support, and other projects.

That support should be acknowledged. It should also be properly managed, audited, and measured against sustainable results.

However, FIFA Forward money is not a personal gift from Gianni Infantino. FIFA describes the programme in terms of financial entitlements available to every eligible member association, subject to approved projects, reporting requirements and independent audits.

The money comes from football’s commercial assets. It does not come from the private pocket of the FIFA president.

That distinction is important. Once institutional funding is presented as the generosity of one man, gratitude can easily be converted into political loyalty.

International reporting has already highlighted this danger. Reuters reported that smaller associations dependent on FIFA funding could be important to Infantino’s political survival. Critics of the system argue that legitimate development funding can also create a relationship in which financial power produces political influence.

That does not prove that the GFA or any of its officials was promised a personal benefit. No such evidence is in the public domain, and it would be irresponsible to present suspicion as fact.

Nevertheless, the GFA created an unfortunate perception. It thanked one man for institutional funding, criticised unnamed confederations, and pledged its support “for the years to come.” If the statement was not intended to secure future access, favourable treatment, or goodwill from the FIFA leadership, the Association should explain what national football objective it was designed to achieve.

Travel by national teams is welcome, but travel alone is not a development strategy. Grenadian football must still confront the absence of a professional league, limited infrastructure, player-development challenges, and a men’s team sitting 163rd in the world.

Cabo Verde’s World Cup appearance, cited by the GFA, is an inspiring achievement. It should not be reduced to the benevolence of a FIFA president. It reflects the work of players, coaches, administrators, clubs, the diaspora, and years of national planning.

The wiser GFA statement would have welcomed the withdrawal, acknowledged FIFA’s development assistance, supported an independent review, and reaffirmed Grenada’s commitment to working with FIFA, CONCACAF, and the CFU.

That would have preserved Grenada’s independence without placing the Association on the wrong side of its own region.

Small associations need strong rules even more than powerful ones do. If development funding is treated as a favour that must be repaid with loyalty, it stops being an entitlement and becomes leverage.

The GFA may have gained attention in Zurich by declaring its support for Infantino. What it risked losing at home and within the region was something more valuable: its credibility.