EXCLUSIVE: AFCON 2025 Final — Why CAF Sanctioned Senegal

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to begin examining an appeal filed by Senegal against the decision awarding Morocco the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final on a technicality.

At the centre of the case is a key document: the Confederation of African Football (CAF) Appeals Board ruling. The public statement was limited to the outcome, without disclosing the reasoning behind it. The parties have since been notified of the full decision, which will serve as the basis for the debate before CAS.

Even a temporary withdrawal from the field is sufficient to constitute an offence

If there is a difference in interpretation, the facts themselves are not disputed. They are established from the official match reports — the contents of which were revealed by Médias24 on March 24, 2026 — and underpin the Board’s reasoning.

In the 97th minute, after the penalty decision in favor of Morocco, "the Senegalese players and their technical staff headed towards the locker rooms on the instructions of the head coach," the Board notes, citing referee Jean-Jacques Ndala's report. The match was interrupted, only to resume a few minutes later.

It is this sequence that lies at the heart of the decision. The first point of contention concerns the nature of the withdrawal.

In the initial ruling, the Disciplinary Committee had held that Article 82 could apply only in cases of definitive abandonment. The Senegalese Football Federation (FSF) maintains the same interpretation, referring to a temporary interruption of the match.

The Appeals Board takes the opposite view. "The text of Article 82 does not require definitiveness," it states.

It adds that the article covers situations in which a team refuses to play or leaves the field before the end of the match without the referee’s permission. "It does not provide that a later return to the field would have the effect of regularising or erasing the offence once committed." The withdrawal, even if temporary, is sufficient to constitute an offence and trigger sanctions.

Arbitral decision and subsequent review

The FSF also argued that the referee’s decision to resume the match should preclude any subsequent sanctions. The Board draws a clear distinction. "The issue at hand is not a challenge to a factual decision within the field, but the legal consequence arising from that conduct."

The Board adds that while the referee makes decisions during the match, "the competence of disciplinary bodies remains," and that they "can sanction events occurring during the match." The resumption of play does not erase the legal consequences.

Morocco continued the match without waiving its rights

Regarding Morocco’s conduct, the Board also dismisses the FSF’s argument. "The right to protest is the mechanism provided to challenge the legal consequences of conduct during the match."

It adds: "Playing the match until the final whistle does not imply a waiver of the applicable rules."

The Board then turns to a more technical point in response to arguments based on precedent. The Senegalese Federation and the initial ruling had cited two decisions as comparable: CAS 2015/A/3874 Albania v Serbia, concerning a match interrupted amid unrest, and a CAF internal ruling in the Al Ahly v Zamalek DC23172 case.

Following that reasoning, the conclusion is clear. The Board considers that the established facts fall within the scope of Article 82 of the AFCON regulations and that the sanction provided for in Article 84 must be applied. "The provisions must be applied according to their ordinary meaning," it states.

With the score at 0-0 at the time of the interruption, the regulations provide for a forfeit. The match is therefore awarded to Morocco by a score of 3-0.

That decision — adopted by a majority — will now be examined by CAS. Senegal is expected to argue for a broader interpretation of the text, based on the course of the match and the referee’s role. Morocco, for its part, will rely on a literal interpretation already upheld by CAF.

The debate will unfold on that basis.

Finale CAN 2025 : voici notre analyse exclusive de la décision en appel