This is a potentially scandalous story, though it's also potentially just a ton of sensationalist nonsense. You should read it, so you know what the Mail's selling and what Drogba (and his foundation) are up against.
Reluctant to post the Mail article tbh, but here it is https://t.co/6wZiviQdSL
— Sid Celery (@sidcelery) April 14, 2016
While the Daily Mail certainly produces more than their fair share of journalistic (and semi-journalistic) trash, simply ignoring this supposed "investigation" is probably not wise either, especially since the UK Charity Commission has supposedly launched a probe as a result. I can't really make any value judgement beyond that about it — for example, both sides agree that the hospital in question is not yet in operation, which, in a way, already lends the Mail's report more credibility than, say, The Times and their attempt to start a doping scandal based on the word of one controversial doctor of questionable reputation. On the other hand, it's the Mail and Drogba (and his foundation) have long been celebrated for their charity. Surely, it's not been all just a giant sham...
What we do know is that Didier Drogba issued a very strong official statement in response. Drogba may not currently be a Chelsea player, but he's a club legend and there's every chance that at some point in the next 12 months, he will be back at the Bridge in some capacity. He's also a legend of world football, in large part due exactly to his charitable activities back in his home country.
Statement : pic.twitter.com/RP1dUd73Rb
— Didier Drogba (@didierdrogba) April 14, 2016
Basically, the Mail's full of lies, claims Drogba, and their lies have already caused "untold amounts" of damage to the foundation, which has all its accounts in both the Ivory Coast and the UK in order. The statement assures that there is "no fraud, no corruption, no mismanagement, no lies, no impropriety" at the foundation or with the foundation's use of funds and donations.
This is a developing story, so it's probably wise to withhold judgment either way until all the facts come to light. Our natural inclination is to trust Didier over the Mail, I'd presume, but depending on how the Mail respond to the legal action, it may be the lawyers and the accountants who end up sorting out truth from fiction.