By Kunle Solaja.

Nigeria’s controversial failure to qualify for the 2026 FIFA World Cup has taken a dramatic new turn following revelations that FIFA officials determined that Democratic Republic of Congo goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi was ineligible to represent the country, yet allowed him to continue playing in the qualification campaign and eventually at the World Cup.

The revelation, contained in an investigation by The New York Times and supported by reporting from Le Monde and The Washington Post/AP, has cast fresh light on the circumstances surrounding Nigeria’s complaint against DR Congo after the two countries met in the decisive African playoff in November 2025.

It also gives renewed significance to a Sports Village Square exclusive published on March 17, 2026, which reported that Nigeria’s protest had never actually been examined on its merits because it failed to meet FIFA’s procedural requirements.

At the time, Sports Village Square reported, citing an inside FIFA source, that the Nigeria Football Federation’s complaint was received by FIFA on November 28, 2025, 12 days after the November 16 playoff in Rabat.

Under Article 8 of the regulations governing the World Cup preliminary competition, a protest over player eligibility had to be communicated to the match commissioner within two hours of the match and followed by a detailed written submission within 24 hours.

The report also disclosed that the mandatory CHF1,000 protest fee had not been paid, meaning the complaint was never formally processed by FIFA’s judicial bodies. FIFA subsequently informed the NFF of the procedural failure on March 9.

That account now assumes considerably greater significance.

The new investigation suggests that while Nigeria’s complaint was technically defective and therefore not entertained, FIFA itself subsequently examined Mpasi’s eligibility and determined that he had not completed the process required to switch his international affiliation from France to DR Congo.

Mpasi, born in France and a former French youth international, was required to complete FIFA’s formal process for a change of sporting nationality before representing DR Congo.

Lionel Mpasi, the ineligible player that FIFA covered up

According to documents cited by The New York Times and Le Monde, that process had not been properly completed.

FIFA disciplinary officials reportedly established that Mpasi did not have the required approval when he began representing DR Congo.

Yet the goalkeeper went on to play five matches in DR Congo’s World Cup qualifying campaign, including the decisive playoff against Nigeria and the subsequent intercontinental playoff against Jamaica.

The consequences were enormous.

DR Congo defeated Nigeria 4–3 on penalties after a 1–1 draw following extra time in Rabat on November 16, 2025, eliminating the Super Eagles from the African qualification pathway.

DR Congo subsequently defeated Jamaica in the intercontinental playoff in March 2026 to secure its first World Cup appearance since 1974.

Mpasi then went on to represent DR Congo at the 2026 World Cup, including the team’s knockout-stage match against England.

The revelations have therefore raised a fundamental question: could Nigeria have been given another opportunity to qualify had FIFA acted on its own finding concerning Mpasi’s eligibility?

FIFA could act despite Nigeria’s defective protest

Nigeria’s failure to comply with FIFA’s protest procedure remains an important part of the story.

However, the latest revelations raise another issue: FIFA’s own authority to act independently of a formal protest.

According to The Washington Post/AP, FIFA’s disciplinary framework allows the governing body to act ex officio in cases involving the use of ineligible players.

In practical terms, that means FIFA was not necessarily dependent on Nigeria’s late complaint before investigating or taking disciplinary action if its own officials subsequently established that an ineligible player had been used.

There is also a Nigerian precedent.

During the qualification campaign for the 2018 World Cup, FIFA overturned the result of Nigeria’s match against Algeria after determining that Nigeria had fielded an ineligible player, Abdullahi Shehu.

The action followed FIFA’s own disciplinary process rather than a formal protest from Algeria.

That precedent makes the current controversy particularly significant.

If FIFA could act on its own initiative in the Nigeria-Algeria case, the question now is why a similar approach was not taken after its officials reportedly determined that Mpasi was ineligible.

Nigeria was among the options considered

According to the reports, FIFA officials considered several possible responses after the eligibility issue emerged.

One of the most consequential options was allowing Nigeria to replace DR Congo in the intercontinental playoff against Jamaica.

Other possibilities reportedly included imposing sanctions on DR Congo or taking no action because Nigeria’s complaint had been submitted outside the prescribed deadline.

Had Nigeria replaced DR Congo, the Super Eagles would have had the opportunity to fight Jamaica for the final World Cup qualification place.

That does not mean Nigeria would automatically have qualified. It would still have had to defeat Jamaica.

But it would have received an opportunity that disappeared with the penalty-shootout defeat to DR Congo.

There was also another possible consequence.

According to the Washington Post/AP account of documents cited by Le Monde, if DR Congo’s qualifying results in matches in which Mpasi played had been forfeited, Burkina Faso could have replaced DR Congo in the African playoff.

The implications therefore extended beyond Nigeria and DR Congo.

The eligibility issue potentially affected the entire structure of the African qualification pathway.

Bolivia precedent raises further questions

FIFA’s handling of the DR Congo case is also being viewed against its previous treatment of ineligible players.

During the 2018 World Cup qualifying competition, Bolivia forfeited two matches after FIFA determined that it had fielded an ineligible player.

The precedent demonstrates that player-eligibility breaches can have direct sporting consequences, including changes to match results and qualification standings.

The question now is why the DR Congo case did not produce a comparable sporting sanction if FIFA’s own officials had determined that Mpasi lacked the necessary clearance.

Infantino connection adds another layer

The controversy has also drawn attention to the relationship between FIFA president Gianni Infantino and Véron Mosengo-Omba, president of the DR Congo Football Federation.

According to The Washington Post, Mosengo-Omba is a longstanding associate of Infantino. The two studied at university in Switzerland and later worked together at UEFA and FIFA.

That relationship has inevitably attracted scrutiny following the revelation that FIFA officials considered possible sanctions against DR Congo.

However, FIFA has rejected suggestions that Infantino influenced the decision, insisting that its disciplinary bodies are independent and make decisions according to the applicable regulations and the facts of each case.

There is currently no established evidence that Infantino personally intervened in the Mpasi matter.

The issue, therefore, is not whether a relationship existed—it did—but whether that relationship had any bearing on the handling of the eligibility case.

That question remains unanswered.

The real issue is no longer Nigeria’s late protest

The March 17 Sports Village Square report established an important fact: Nigeria’s original protest was not entertained because it failed to meet FIFA’s procedural requirements.

That remains the case.

But the new revelations introduce a separate and potentially more consequential issue.

If Nigeria’s complaint could not be heard because it was submitted late and the required fee was not paid, what happened when FIFA itself subsequently discovered the alleged eligibility violation?

Was FIFA entitled to investigate independently? Did its disciplinary officials establish that Mpasi was ineligible?

If they did, why was no sporting sanction imposed? Why was Nigeria’s possible replacement of DR Congo in the Jamaica playoff considered and ultimately rejected?

And why was Mpasi subsequently permitted to play at the World Cup? Those are now the questions at the heart of the controversy.

Nigeria’s failure to qualify cannot simply be attributed to the NFF’s procedural error, just as it would be premature to claim that Nigeria would certainly have qualified had FIFA acted differently.

The Super Eagles still lost the playoff to DR Congo. But the latest revelations suggest that the question of Nigeria’s World Cup fate may not have ended with that penalty shootout.

It may instead have continued inside FIFA’s disciplinary machinery, where officials were reportedly confronted with evidence concerning the eligibility of a player who had participated in the match that eliminated Nigeria.

For Nigerian football, that is the issue that now demands answers.

Join the Sports Village Square channel on WhatsApp: Sports Village Square – WhatsApp channel

Akor Adams struck in added time as Nigeria fought back from two goals down to secure a dramatic 3-3 draw against Russia in an international friendly at the Nizhny Novgorod Stadium on Tuesday.

The result was the second successive draw between the two countries, following their 1-1 stalemate in last year’s meeting.

Nigeria, depleted by a series of player withdrawals, produced an uneven performance, with a dangerous attack repeatedly undermined by defensive errors.

Kelechi Iheanacho, Osayande Edokpolor and Adams scored for the Super Eagles, while Lechi Sadulaev, Matvey Kislyak and Aleksey Miranchuk were on target for Russia.

Head coach Eric Chelle handed international debuts to seven players, including Aderemi Adeoye of NPFL side Ikorodu City FC, as he dealt with the weakened squad.

Nigeria made the brighter start and took the lead in the 10th minute when Iheanacho fired a precise effort from the edge of the penalty area.

The goal extended Iheanacho’s scoring run to 10 consecutive matches, matching the record recently set by fellow Nigerian striker Paul Onuachu during his spell with Turkish club Trabzonspor.

Russia responded after Nigeria gifted them an opening. Emmanuel Fernandez was dispossessed deep inside his own half, allowing Kislyak to release Sadulaev, who calmly finished to restore parity.

The hosts then completed the turnaround just before half-time. Kislyak reacted quickest to a deflected cross and side-footed the ball into the far corner to put Russia 2-1 ahead.

Nigeria returned from the interval with greater urgency but was punished again in the 54th minute. A quick exchange of passes opened up the Super Eagles defence before Miranchuk slipped his effort underneath goalkeeper James to extend Russia’s lead to 3-1.

Chelle responded with a series of substitutions as Nigeria chased a way back into the contest.

The changes eventually paid dividends when Edokpolor’s effort took a deflection and found the net, reducing the deficit to 3-2.

With defeat seemingly imminent, Nigeria produced one final attacking surge, and Adams completed the comeback in added time, firing home to earn the Super Eagles a share of the spoils.

The draw prevented Nigeria from suffering a second consecutive defeat under Chelle, although the three goals conceded represented the first time the Super Eagles had shipped three goals in successive matches during his tenure.

Despite the defensive frailties, Nigeria’s late recovery ensured that the Super Eagles maintained their unbeaten record against Russia across their two most recent meetings.

Join the Sports Village Square channel on WhatsApp: Sports Village Square – WhatsApp channel

• Summary

• Plans for World Cup stadium in NEOM set to be scrapped, sources say
• MEED lists NEOM Stadium as on hold, expected cost $2.5 billion
• World Cup is marquee event for Riyadh’s ambitious agenda
• Kingdom under pressure amid Iran war

 

Saudi Arabia is quietly shelving plans to build one of ​its most ambitious stadiums for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, two sources familiar with the matter said, after delays and downscaling ‌of the futuristic development housing it.

The NEOM Stadium was billed as an elevated arena in a glitzy 100-mile (160-km) steel and glass structure known as The Line, in turn part of the broader development known as NEOM.

NEOM was introduced about a decade ago as a centrepiece of de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030, an ambitious plan to diversify ​the economy and cut reliance on oil.

Yasir Al-Rumayyan, governor of NEOM’s owner the Public Investment Fund, confirmed in April that The Line was no longer ​a priority, and said it was not vital before 2030, the original delivery target for its first phase. He denied ⁠any projects had been cancelled.

However, according to two sources, plans to build the NEOM Stadium have now been shelved indefinitely.

NEOM and the Saudi government media ​office did not reply to requests for comment, while Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Sports redirected questions to the World Cup 2034 Hosting Higher Authority.

The Authority said “substantial delivery” ​of construction milestones for the event was already taking place, but did not address questions around the NEOM Stadium and costs. It shared images of some of the other stadiums under construction.

RIYADH DEVELOPING 15 VENUES FOR 2034 WORLD CUP

The 2034 World Cup is seen as a marquee event for Saudi Arabia, which under the Vision 2030 programme has invested heavily in ​sports via wealth fund PIF. The tournament will be the first time a single nation hosts the expanded 48-team format.

Riyadh is working to build or ​renovate 15 venues across five cities, as well as dozens of training facilities.

MEED Projects, a Dubai-based construction industry market intelligence platform whose team of analysts tracks tenders and projects in ‌the region, ⁠puts the total value of the projects at $22.7 billion in data shared with Reuters.

According to MEED, NEOM’s stadium is expected to cost $2.5 billion. It lists the projected 46,000-seat stadium in its data as “on hold”.

The stadium has no listed completion date, according to the data, which describes the remaining stadiums and facilities as in various stages of development, with completion expected between 2026 and 2033.

Saudi Arabia is under increasing pressure from the Iran war, which has led to heavy disruptions to ​energy shipments and damage to critical infrastructure, ​with the kingdom facing attacks ⁠from the Iran-backed Houthis.

Last week, the Ministry of Finance said it expected a fiscal deficit this year wider than previously projected and a real GDP contraction of 3.6% following a drop in oil activities.

PIVOT FROM GIGA-PROJECTS

The geographic distribution of the stadiums ​adds to the challenge of delivering the projects, a third source said. That could further be compounded by some ​projects set to host ⁠stadiums being delayed or downsized, such as The Line or Riyadh’s New Murabba development, the source added.

In January Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia has suspended construction of The Mukaab, a colossal cube-shaped skyscraper at the centre of the New Murabba.

Reuters also reported last year that the PIF was pivoting from its focus on costly giga-projects to endeavours ⁠with more ​immediate financial returns, a strategy later articulated by Saudi officials.

Still, other projects for the World Cup ​are progressing. The Aramco Stadium in the eastern city of Al Khobar is set to be completed by the end of this year and host its first game in January, for which tickets are ​on sale.

Work on other planned stadiums is going ahead, a fourth source said.

 

–Reuters

Join the Sports Village Square Channel: https://www.whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vaz7mEIGk1FxU8YIXb0H