CAS weighs Morocco, Senegal AFCON 2025 title dispute

A hearing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) began Thursday morning in Lausanne, Switzerland. The tribunal is set to rule on one of the most contentious cases in the history of the Africa Cup of Nations. The dispute centers on the final of the 2025 edition, involving Morocco and Senegal, which has now reached its decisive stage.

Conflicting legal interpretations emerge

The court faces two fundamentally different legal readings of events during the final. The Moroccan side relies on Articles 82 and 84 of the tournament regulations. Conversely, Senegal maintains that the match result was settled on the pitch. This argument rests on the fact that Congolese referee Jean-Jacques Ndala allowed his players to return to the field. He then resumed play until the end, with the "Lions of Teranga" winning 1-0 after extra time.

The core issue in Lausanne involves determining the legal impact of Senegal’s temporary walk-off. Players left the field in protest against officiating decisions before returning to complete the match. Subsequently, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) Appeals Committee annulled the result. They declared Senegal forfeited and awarded Morocco a 3-0 victory.

Senegal defends referee authority

Senegal is expected to anchor its defense in Law 5 of the IFAB Laws of the Game. This law establishes the referee’s power to manage the match and declares their decisions on facts of play final. The Senegalese position asserts that Referee Ndala permitted the return to the pitch after the withdrawal period. He then managed the remainder of the game until the final whistle, confirming the 1-0 win.

This raises a critical question regarding administrative authority: If the referee authorized the resumption and oversaw the conclusion, does a governing body have the power to overturn the result he validated? Sports lawyer Pius Ndobouokou told SABC network that players returned, the match continued, and the referee ended it. He argued that the CAF Appeals Committee lacked the jurisdiction to reverse an on-field decision made by the official.

The Senegalese defense, led by Spanish lawyer Juan de Dios Crespo-Perez, may also highlight the absence of specific rules governing a team that temporarily leaves the field and then returns to finish the match. During the announcement of the appeal to CAS, Crespo-Perez described re-adjudicating a completed match as "unprecedented." He suggested the case could extend beyond African football to challenge the future foundations of the sport's regulations.

Additionally, Senegal may distinguish this incident from previous cases where teams refused to continue permanently, such as the 2019 Champions League final second leg between Espérance de Tunis and Wydad Casablanca. They emphasize that their players actually returned and resumed play.

Morocco demands strict regulation application

In contrast, Morocco’s defense depends on a literal interpretation of Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON regulations. These articles state that a team is considered defeated if it refuses to play or leaves the field before the match ends without the referee’s permission. Such violations can lead to a 3-0 forfeiture ruling and potential exclusion depending on circumstances.

Rabat argues that the breach occurred the moment Senegalese players exited the pitch. Therefore, their subsequent return does not erase the violation that had already taken place. Fouzi Lekjaa, president of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation, reinforced this view in statements to Jeune Afrique magazine. He claimed that football rules and legal frameworks governing the match were "obstructed and violated" by the opponent.

Lekjaa added that FIFA modified its regulations following the incident. Under new rules, a player leaving the field without permission faces a red card sanction. He viewed this change as supporting the Moroccan perspective. Another specific point cited by Morocco is that the number of Senegalese players on the field dropped to just three at one stage. Laws require a minimum of seven players for either team to continue a match.

Based on these facts, Morocco’s legal team may argue that the infraction was fully realized before any return. Consequently, the later resumption of play cannot nullify the actions committed during the interruption.

Balancing sanctions and sporting integrity

The case reaches its most sensitive point here. The issue extends beyond whether Senegal breached regulations; it concerns the appropriate penalty for such a breach. While Senegal did leave the field, the match resumed, continued to the final whistle, and produced a winner on the pitch.

The sports court must therefore balance the principle of strict regulatory enforcement against the principles of proportionality in sanctions and the preservation of sporting integrity. The pivotal question remains: Does an unauthorized exit automatically trigger Articles 82 and 84, annulling the result even if the team returns, plays under the referee’s management, and wins? Or do the return and resumption alter the legal outcome?

Prior to the hearing, public statements highlighted the divide. In March, Senegalese goalkeeper Edouard Mendy stated, "We know how we won the Africa Cup of Nations, and we know what happened on one night in February in Morocco." Meanwhile, Walid Regragui, the former coach of the Moroccan national team, asserted in media comments: "For me, I am the African champion, whether some like it or not."

Beyond these exchanges, the battle in Lausanne will focus primarily on regulatory interpretation, the limits of refereeing authority, and the feasibility of overturning a result finalized on the field.