Sometimes, in the heat of loyalty battles, individuals lose sight of their true purpose and become prisoners of the very system they once sought to influence. What begins as a show of faith or conviction can easily morph into blind allegiance, where reasoning gives way to ego and progress is sacrificed for pride.
When one’s energy is consumed by defending or fighting a system rather than improving it, the line between conviction and obsession becomes dangerously blurred. In such moments, people often forget that no system is sacred, it is merely a structure built by human minds and, therefore, capable of transformation through the same human intellect.
The recent boycott by some media practitioners in Ibadan serves as a telling example of this paradox. The protest, initially positioned as a move of solidarity and advocacy, has yielded little or no tangible result in the broader landscape of sports communication and brand promotion.
Shooting Stars SC , which was at the center of the storm, has continued its activities largely unaffected in terms of brand visibility, awareness, and engagement. Matchday attendance remains modest, and revenue generation has not witnessed the expected dip. In fact, other emerging media voices have stepped up, filling the vacuum and proving that the ecosystem of communication will always evolve to accommodate change.
For those behind the boycott, the results should inspire deep reflection. The intention may have been noble, but the outcomes reveal a strategic misstep. By withdrawing their platforms from active engagement, these journalists have not weakened the system; they have weakened their own influence within it.
Their absence from the public conversation means lost opportunities to shape narratives, reduced audience engagement, and a slow erosion of trust among their listeners. Concerns should be raised on behalf of those young and innocent minds being misled and get caught up as pawns in a chess game they will never win. In a competitive media environment, silence is rarely neutral, it is a surrender of visibility and relevance.
Moreover, the ongoing standoff underscores a broader truth about purpose and professional identity. Journalism thrives on credibility, consistency, and connection with the public. When practitioners step away from their core responsibilities in pursuit of a personal or collective feud, they risk diluting the very values that define their craft.
The supposed fight for principles begins to look more like a purposeless rebellion when it fails to yield progress or clarity. Listeners, who once tuned in for information and insight, begin to drift toward platforms that continue to deliver content with energy and commitment.
The implications are not just professional but reputational. Credibility in journalism is hard-earned and easily lost. By engaging in a loyalty battle that offers no clear path to reform or mutual understanding, these practitioners risk being remembered not for their contributions to sports development but for their absence in a crucial moment of transition.
Their silence does not challenge the system, it strengthens the perception that they were only as relevant as their airtime. In the age of digital media and instant access, audiences have options, and attention quickly shifts to those who remain consistent.
Ultimately, no system is designed to be static. The human mind possesses the power to think, to change, and to redefine what that system should look like. True reform and relevance come not from confrontation alone but from constructive engagement and innovation. The lesson here is simple but profound: fighting the system without a clear sense of purpose is a losing battle.
Purpose gives direction to loyalty, and when loyalty loses direction, it becomes a chain that binds rather than a compass that guides. The time has come for those caught in this cycle to rethink their strategies, rediscover their purpose, and rejoin the conversation, not as combatants, but as contributors to progress.
Idris Animasaun
Architect and Social Change Advocate
