Super Eagles: Why Nigeria, not DR Congo should have qualified for the 2026 World Cup

The Super Eagles failed to qualify for the 2026 FIFA World Cup after losing to DR Congo on penalties, but an investigation has revealed that Nigeria should have advanced to the tournament.

Frank Onyeka gave Nigeria an early lead before Meschack Elia equalised, with DR Congo eventually winning 4-3 in the shootout to secure Africa’s place in the intercontinental playoff.

The NFF challenged the eligibility of several Congolese players, petitioning FIFA days after the defeat. The governing body rejected the complaint, prompting the Federation to appeal.

Super Eagles: Why Nigeria should’ve edged DR Congo to World Cup spot

An investigation into FIFA by The New York Times has sparked talks about the decision the football governing body made to pass DR Congo on to the International play-offs that they won against Jamaica.

The main issue is Lionel Mpasi. According to the documents reviewed, it was discovered in March 2026 that the DR Congo goalkeeper failed to complete his change of international association from France.

The 32-year-old had represented France at youth level, including at the 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup.

Yet, Mpasi has gone on to feature in over 30 games for DR Congo, playing in several World Cup qualifiers, including the playoff against Nigeria.

That is crucial because FIFA’s officials concluded that Article 19 of the disciplinary code could apply.

Under that provision, a team found to have fielded an ineligible player after a valid complaint can be sanctioned with a forfeit defeat and a fine.

FIFA officials drew up possible penalty options, including awarding the match to Nigeria, imposing fines, replacing Congo with Nigeria in the playoff against Jamaica, or doing nothing on the grounds that Nigeria had filed its complaint late, the documents show.

Ultimately, they chose to do nothing, rejecting Nigeria’s appeal, and DR Congo went on to play at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

In other words, this was not a question of whether Mpasi had completed some administrative paperwork.

The internal assessment suggested that his participation could have had consequences for the entire qualification process.

FIFA lawyers even concluded that the issue could alter which team reached the African playoff stage, with Burkina Faso potentially benefiting from sanctions further back in the qualification chain.

This meant the ripple effect wouldn’t have been to Nigeria’s good alone, but every game Mpasi featured in would have come into consideration.

The Super Eagles had already done the difficult part by reaching the African playoff final. What might have changed is that they might have had to play whoever came out on top after the games Mpasi featured in were dealt with.

FIFA’s timing was another problem

Nigeria’s strongest argument is not that the Super Eagles were better than DR Congo, but that the rules should have been applied before DR Congo went on with the Jamaica game.

The findings emerged before DR Congo faced Jamaica in the intercontinental playoff. FIFA lawyers identified Mpasi’s eligibility problem on March 9 and 10, just weeks before that match.

Yet, no sanction was imposed, and DR Congo went on to beat Jamaica and qualify for the World Cup.

FIFA has maintained that its judicial bodies are autonomous and that Nigeria’s complaint was ultimately declared inadmissible on procedural grounds. The governing body has also rejected suggestions that Gianni Infantino personally intervened in the process.

But that does not erase the central question raised by the latest investigation: if FIFA’s lawyers concluded that Mpasi was ineligible, why were DR Congo allowed to continue on a qualification path that ultimately took it to the World Cup?