This is not the first time African qualification campaigns have spilled into courtrooms and committee rooms.

Such episodes often expose the tension between Fifa’s statutes, which prioritise sporting nationality as recognised by the governing body, and national laws which may impose stricter definitions of citizenship.

Past rulings suggest that Fifa tends to lean on its own regulations but each case rests on its own specific facts and documentation.

Fifa statutes set out the conditions under which a player may change the national association they represent.

Under these rules, a player may ask to change the association they represent only once and the process requires a written and substantiated request which must be approved by Fifa’s players’ status committee.

While Fifa requires a player to hold a passport for the new nation they wish to represent, it is possible for them to also hold another passport.

That discrepancy between domestic laws and Fifa’s eligibility framework may have fuelled the legal ambiguity upon which Nigeria’s hopes hinge.

The NFF argues that some Congolese players held European passports, a point not directly accounted for in Fifa’s eligibility checks, and contends that if those domestic laws were breached then the players should not have been cleared to participate.

The petition also suggested that Fifa may have been provided with incomplete or misleading documentation when eligibility approvals were sought for the players, a claim which, if upheld, could raise wider governance concerns.

With a decision expected from Fifa, a ruling in Nigeria’s favour could prompt closer scrutiny of player documentation for other African nations, with federations keen to avoid similar challenges.