Employment Law In Professional Football: A Case Review Of Chineme & Anor v. Nasarawa United Football Club Ltd & ORS Suit No. NICN/ABJ/375/2020

Factual Background:

The case of Chineme & Anor v. Nasarawa United Football Club Ltd & Ors arose from the tragic death of professional footballer, Martins Chineme, during a Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL) match between Nasarawa United Football Club (1st Defendant) and Katsina United Football Club on 8th March, 2020 at the Lafia City Stadium. The Claimants, Mr. Anthony Chineme and Mr. Michael Chineme, are the surviving brothers of the deceased and brought the action as next-of-kin.

The deceased had been employed by the 1st Defendant (Nasarawa United Football Club) as a professional footballer for approximately three years before his death, in circumstances that later gave rise to significant employment law issues within Nigerian professional football. Their case was that the 1st Defendant, along with the 2nd Defendant (League Management Company Ltd), the 3rd Defendant (Nigeria Football Federation), and the 4th Defendant (Mr. Christian Mbah, the Match Commissioner), were collectively negligent in their duties owed to the deceased player, and that such negligence contributed directly to his death.

Issue For Determination:

The Court distilled a lone issue for determination, namely:

Whether the Claimants have established a case of negligence against the Defendants to be entitled to the claims against them.

Claimants’ Arguments:

The Claimants, through their evidence, contended that the defendants owed the deceased player a duty of care arising from his employment contract, the NPFL Framework Rules, Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) Club Licensing Regulations, and FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. They argued that the defendants collectively breached this duty by failing to conduct a complete Pre-Competition Medical Assessment (PCMA) on the deceased, including the mandatory echocardiography examination; negligently certifying the deceased medically fit when red flags existed; failing to provide qualified medical personnel and functional emergency equipment on the pitch on the day of the match; and failing to procure a life insurance policy in favour of the deceased as required by law.

The Claimants relied on several pieces of evidence, most notably, the NFF Investigative Committee Report (Exhibit 1) and the testimony of CW1, a medical practitioner, who opined that the deceased ought not to have been certified fit given signs of cardiac-related concerns, and that the absence of immediate resuscitation capacity contributed to the player’s death.

1st Defendant’s Arguments:

The 1st Defendant maintained that all required pre-competition medical examinations were conducted, that the deceased had been duly certified medically fit, and that the medical personnel from both Nasarawa United and Katsina United, as well as the Red Cross, attended to the deceased on the pitch before he was conveyed to the hospital. It further argued that the death was not caused by any negligence on its part, and that the family’s refusal to permit an autopsy prevented a definitive determination of the cause of death. The 1st Defendant also argued that, having paid burial support and outstanding salaries to the deceased’s family, the remaining claims were frivolous.

Decision Of The Court:

The Court, having considered the totality of evidence, resolved the lone issue in favour of the Claimants and entered judgment accordingly. The following findings and holdings were made:

Evidential findings:

The Court discountenanced Exhibit 1 (the NFF Report) on the basis that it was unsigned by any member of the committee and was a photocopy of a public document, neither certified nor admissible as secondary evidence under Sections 87, 89, and 90 of the Evidence Act 2011. The Court held that the testimonies of CW1 and CW2 were hearsay evidence under Section 37 of the Evidence Act and thus inadmissible, given that neither witness was personally present at the Lafia City Stadium on 8th March, 2020, and both admitted reliance on media reports and second-hand information.

Despite the above evidentiary findings, the Court found that the Claimants had nonetheless established negligence. The Court drew from admissions made by the 1st Defendant’s own witnesses (DW1 and DW2) under cross-examination which established that the mandatory echocardiography fields in the medical attestation forms (Exhibits D3A and D3B) were left incomplete; the 1st Defendant could not confirm the presence of medical personnel or equipment on the pitch on the day in question; and the ambulance battery had failed, requiring recourse to the Governor’s fleet.

The Court further held, drawing on the NFF Club Licensing Regulations (Exhibit 16), that each player must undergo a yearly medical examination including cardiovascular screening, and that the PCMA form is a mandatory document before a player is allowed to compete. The 1st Defendant had, in breach of Exhibit 17 (NPFL Rules, Clauses 12.1-12.7.10), failed to provide a team doctor, crowd doctor, qualified physiotherapist, and a fully functioning insured ambulance on the day of the match. These breaches were held to be unchallenged, and the Court found the evidence of the Claimants credible and reliable in that regard.

The Court also drew a significant inference from the fact that the 1st Defendant had been fined N6,000,000.00 by the 2nd Defendant (League Management Company) in connection with the death of the deceased player, holding that the 1st Defendant could not have been penalised for nothing. The Court applied the principle of negligence as stated in JWAN v. Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd (2021) 10 NWLR (PT.1785) 449 and F.M.H v. C.S.A Ltd (2009) 9 NWLR (PT.1145) 193, and found that the defendants had failed to accord the deceased player the duty of care owed to him, contributing to his eventual death.

With respect to the 2nd to 4th Defendants, the Court held that, as governing and supervisory bodies, they owed the deceased a duty of care to ensure the 1st Defendant complied with club licensing and NPFL requirements before the match was permitted to proceed. Their failure to enforce compliance made them equally liable in negligence.

The Court awarded the Claimants N600,000.00 as an insurance benefit. Declarations of negligence were granted against all four Defendants, and N10,000,000.00 was awarded as general damages, and N1,000,000.00 was awarded as litigation costs.

This judgment is a significant development in Nigerian sports law jurisprudence, touching on regulatory compliance in professional football, the legal significance of player employment contracts, and the jurisdictional positioning of the National Industrial Court in resolving sports-related employment disputes. The following commentary examines these themes in turn.

1. Regulatory and Legal Compliance in Sports: The Standard Set for Clubs and Governing Bodies.

This case establishes a clear judicial precedent that football clubs and their governing bodies in Nigeria are legally bound not merely by contractual obligations but by the full gamut of regulatory instruments that govern professional football, including the NPFL Framework Rules, NFF Club Licensing Regulations, and FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. The Court’s findings make plain that these instruments are not aspirational guidelines; they are enforceable legal standards, breach of which can give rise to actionable negligence.

For clubs and governing bodies across Nigeria, the practical implications are significant. The judgment demands that clubs maintain contemporaneous, properly completed documentation of all pre-season and pre-competition assessments for every registered player.

This case also reinforces the importance of the League Management Company’s role as a compliance gatekeeper. The fact that the 1st Defendant was fined N6,000,00 by the LMC in connection with the incident, while simultaneously denying negligence in court, was not lost on the Court. The judgment treats that penalty as circumstantial evidence of liability; a position that has significant implications for how clubs approach internal governance and how governing bodies document their disciplinary proceedings.

2. Employment Law in Sports and Legal Liability.

The employment contract between the professional footballer and his club occupies a central role in this judgment. The Court relied extensively on the deceased’s NPFL Player Contract to determine the scope of the club’s obligations and the quantum of the insurance benefit due to the deceased’s family. This signals that player contracts are not merely administrative documents; they are living legal instruments whose provisions are enforceable before the courts and which serve as the primary reference point for the allocation of rights and responsibilities between clubs and players.

The Court’s finding that the 1st Defendant failed to procure insurance cover in breach of these clauses resulted in a concrete damages award directly computed from the salary stated in the contract itself. This aspect of the judgment reinforces a broader principle that the protections afforded to employees by statute are not removed or diminished simply because the employer-employee relationship exists within the sports industry. Professional footballers are workers, and their contracts must be read in conjunction with applicable labour legislation

The judgment ultimately affirms that player contracts, when properly read alongside regulatory instruments and applicable statutes, define a comprehensive framework of club obligations that are legally enforceable. Clubs that treat these documents as mere formalities do so at considerable legal and financial risk.

3. Recourse to the National Industrial Court (NICN) in Football Disputes

In the world of football, disputes commonly arise over contract breaches, unpaid wages, wrongful terminations, and player welfare issues. Traditionally, many of these matters are first channeled through internal mechanisms such as club disciplinary panels, the LMC structures, the NFF Arbitration Committee, Players’ Status Chamber, or FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber for international elements. These bodies often prioritize speed, confidentiality, and the preservation of sporting relationships.

FIFA’s statutes strongly encourage the resolution of disputes within the football ecosystem through arbitration rather than the ordinary courts. Article 59 of the FIFA Statutes provides in relevant part:

“2. Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations. Recourse to ordinary courts of law for all types of provisional measures is also prohibited.

3. The associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the association or disputes affecting leagues, members of leagues, clubs, members of clubs, players, officials, and other association officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIFA regulations or binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration…”

This framework allows football to self-regulate efficiently when disputes arise between parties within the football ecosystem.

However, recourse to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), as in this case, becomes necessary and appropriate when the dispute involves parties or issues outside the strict football ecosystem, particularly where third parties such as next-of-kin, dependents, or estates seek remedies. As the deceased player’s estate and dependents are not direct “members” of the football ecosystem in the same contractual sense, they had clear legal standing to approach the NICN, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction over labour, employment, and workplace safety matters under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

This judicial pathway strengthens accountability in Nigerian football without necessarily violating FIFA’s self-regulation principles, as it is underpinned by binding national legal provisions on employment and fundamental rights.

Conclusion

The judgment in Chineme & Anor v. Nasarawa United Football Club Ltd & Ors is a landmark in Nigerian sports and employment law jurisprudence. It establishes, with clarity, that professional football clubs bear legally enforceable obligations to their players that extend well beyond the payment of salaries, encompassing medical welfare, insurance coverage, and the provision of a safe working environment in compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. It further holds that governing bodies that approve matches to proceed without verifying compliance with mandatory safety standards are not mere bystanders; they are co-authors of the resulting harm.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.