As the contract saga involving former Yanga striker Bernard Morisson continued, Yanga officials appeared unfazed—perhaps because they believed they were on the right side of the case.
They maintained that the Ghanaian player had a valid contract, and therefore there was no basis for nullifying his registration with Yanga. Confident in their position, they chose to wait for the final decision.
However, the ruling came as a shock. The case they expected to be decided was not even considered. Instead, members of the Legal and Players’ Status Committee focused on identifying flaws in a contract that the case itself claimed did not exist.
As a result, the committee ended up divided, failing to reach a unified decision. Some members even breached ethical standards by publicly discussing internal deliberations before an official ruling was issued.
The outcome exposed serious weaknesses within the committee, which is tasked with ensuring legal order in football and protecting players’ rights. It was claimed that a flaw in one part of the contract rendered it invalid, ultimately declaring Morisson a free agent.
A similar situation is now unfolding with Yanga midfielder Mohamed Damaro. The player, originally from Guinea, applied for Tanzanian citizenship and was granted nationality alongside three other players.
At the time, he was playing for Singida Black Stars before being signed by Yanga during the mid-season transfer window. However, his status as a Tanzanian is now being questioned by Simba, who argue that transfer system records still list him as a Guinean, and are pushing for matches he played in to be nullified.
The current situation closely resembles the Morisson saga. Yanga remain calm, believing that all arguments challenging Damaro’s citizenship and eligibility lack merit.
Various analysts and commentators have argued that Damaro is playing in violation of FIFA regulations, which outline procedures for players changing nationality and eligibility to represent a new country.
They also claim that despite his registration with Singida Black Stars and now Yanga, his details in the transfer system still identify him as a Guinean, effectively making him Yanga’s 13th foreign player—exceeding the allowed limit of 12.
However, these analysts have not pointed to any specific FIFA regulation governing players who change nationality and play at club level in their new country.
Most of them cite FIFA rules regarding switching associations, which apply to international representation, not club football. FIFA does not regulate citizenship itself but rather governs its member associations.
When a player applies to switch associations, it means they are seeking approval to represent a different national team—not to play club football in a new country.
This is where, whether intentionally or out of misunderstanding, many analysts are distorting the debate or attempting to create the impression that Damaro’s registration is problematic.
FIFA regulations focus on a player’s eligibility for national teams, including heritage, residency requirements, and other criteria. They do not impose such conditions on players participating in club competitions within a country.
Even the involvement of football bodies is often misunderstood. The Legal and Players’ Status Committee, as defined in FIFA regulations, primarily assesses eligibility for national team representation—not club participation.
Therefore, much of the ongoing debate appears to ignore the full scope of these regulations, leading to misleading conclusions about Damaro’s case. The fact that FIFA’s system still lists him as a Guinean is not directly relevant to domestic competitions. It would only matter if he were to be called up for the national team—a scenario unlikely due to age eligibility limits.
As seen in the Morisson case, decision-making bodies have at times been inconsistent. For instance, the CAF Appeals Board once controversially awarded Morocco a title off the pitch after Senegal had won it on the field.
In Morisson’s case, the issue was not contract flaws but whether a contract existed at all. Yet the ruling introduced a new matter that had not been presented before the committee.
Although Yanga remain confident that Damaro’s case is straightforward, there are concerns that authorities could once again deliver an unexpected decision, similar to the Morisson saga.
Any controversial ruling could risk further disruption, potentially requiring intervention at the highest level, as seen last season when President Samia Suluhu Hassan stepped in.
It is crucial for football authorities to respect the rules they have established. Propaganda and unnecessary pressure should not be used to force conclusions where no real issue exists.
Focus should remain on the game itself, rather than off-field politics.
By Angetile Osiah, Mwanaspoti
