Samuel Eto’o is back under governance pressure in Cameroon football after former FECAFOOT officials questioned the handling of €567,570 linked to Cameroon’s 2023 friendly against Russia.
The Times reported that it had reviewed invoices and contracts requesting two payments, €455,056 and €112,514 into an account held by Eto’o at Qatar National Bank in Doha. The newspaper said the money was connected to the match fee for Cameroon’s friendly against Russia in Moscow in October 2023.
The report does not establish that Eto’o stole or misappropriated the funds.
Instead, the pressure centres on questions raised by former Cameroon Football Federation officials over where the money ultimately went and whether it was subsequently recorded in FECAFOOT’s accounts.
Former FECAFOOT executive committee member Guibai Gatama told The Times that, to his knowledge, there was no accounting or banking evidence showing the money was later transferred into an official federation account.
He also said he had submitted a complaint to FIFA’s ethics committee more than a year ago.
The Times further reported that former FECAFOOT vice-president Henry Njalla Quan Junior had previously filed a separate complaint concerning Eto’o’s conduct.
FIFA told the newspaper that its president, Gianni Infantino, has no influence over the governing body’s independent judicial structures and cautioned against using scrutiny to amplify unsupported allegations.
Eto’o and FECAFOOT had not responded to The Times’ requests for comment when the report was published. FECAFOOT had also not published a response to the specific allegations on its official website at the time of publication.
That leaves the central question unresolved
Eto’o remains one of the most powerful figures in African football. The former Barcelona, Inter Milan and Chelsea striker leads FECAFOOT and remains one of the continent’s most recognisable football personalities.
That profile raises the stakes around any dispute involving federation-linked money.
The issue is not whether allegation should be treated as conviction. It should not.
The issue is whether FECAFOOT can provide a clear accounting trail for money linked to an international fixture when former officials are publicly demanding answers.
Until that trail is established or the allegations are rebutted with documentary evidence — the pressure will remain on Eto’o and FECAFOOT to answer the €567,570 question.
