On August 14, 1994, a soccer team submitted match paperwork that listed a player who did not exist. The error was clerical: a name on the official team sheet did not correspond to any registered or actual squad member. The anomaly was discovered after officials cross-checked the submitted roster with the club’s registration records and match-day personnel. The incident unfolded within routine administrative processes used by clubs and competition organizers. Teams must present a written list of players before kickoff; match officials and competition administrators then verify eligibility against registration lists. In this case, the name on the team sheet matched neither the club’s registered players nor any identification presented at the ground. That mismatch prompted inquiries from match officials and competition administrators, who established that the listing resulted from a paperwork error rather than intentional deception. Contemporary reports and later accounts indicate the mistake stemmed from internal miscommunication during the preparation of the team submission. Possible causes included transcription error, a last-minute change that was not properly recorded, or confusion between similarly named individuals within the club’s wider organization. There is no reliable evidence that the phantom name represented an attempt to circumvent player-eligibility rules. Administrators handled the situation through routine verification steps. Once the discrepancy was confirmed, officials updated records to reflect the actual participating players. No substitutions or match outcomes were altered on the basis of the clerical error in the accounts available. The episode highlights the reliance of competitive sport on administrative accuracy and the potential for small paperwork mistakes to create confusing anomalies. Such incidents, while uncommon, are not unique in sports history. Clubs and governing bodies have since continued improving registration and match-day verification processes—adopting clearer forms, checklists, and later, electronic systems—to reduce the risk of similar errors. In the mid-1990s, many competitions still depended heavily on paper documentation, increasing opportunities for transcription mistakes. The case did not produce notable disciplinary action in the sources consulted; it is recorded primarily as an administrative curiosity rather than a scandal. For historians and administrators, the episode serves as a reminder that off-field procedures are integral to fair competition and that meticulous record-keeping is essential to prevent misunderstandings that can attract unnecessary scrutiny. This summary is based on contemporaneous reporting and administrative records available for the event date; if additional primary-source documentation (match reports, competition minutes, or club records from August 1994) is consulted, more precise detail about the club involved and the specific administrative steps taken may be established.