By Habib Badjinri Touré, Lecturer at Grenoble-Alpes University, and Criss-Dess Dongar, PhD in Law at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University

Why did the CAF declare Senegal forfeited and award the title to Morocco?

The January 18, 2026, CAN 2025 final between Senegal and Morocco, the host nation, was marred by controversy. Senegal claimed victory in a tightly contested match, but allegations of biased refereeing and questionable governance by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) cast a shadow over the tournament. Accusations of favoritism toward the host team prompted the CAF to issue statements reaffirming its commitment to fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to its regulations.

The final match itself was a flashpoint. Senegal’s equalizing goal in the 92nd minute was disallowed for an alleged offside, while Morocco was awarded a controversial penalty in the 98th minute. Protesting these decisions, the Senegalese team and staff abandoned the field, refusing to resume play. The match was suspended for nearly 15 minutes, during which Morocco missed the penalty, but Senegal later scored in extra time to win the match.

However, the CAF’s regulations state that if a team “refuses to play or leaves the field without the referee’s permission before the match concludes, it will be declared forfeited and lose 3-0.” The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) promptly filed a complaint with the CAF’s Disciplinary Jury. On January 28, 2026, the jury rejected the appeal, prompting the FRMF to appeal to the CAF’s Appeals Jury. Their decision, issued on March 17, 2026, ruled that Senegal’s actions violated Article 82 of the CAN regulations, declaring Senegal forfeited and awarding the match to Morocco 3-0. Senegal responded by filing an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

What legal grounds will the Court of Arbitration for Sport consider?

The CAS appeal centers on the CAF’s statutes and the Code of Sports Arbitration. Under Article 48.2 of the CAF statutes, the CAS prioritizes CAF and FIFA rules, with Swiss law as a secondary reference. This approach mirrors past rulings, such as the 2020 case involving the South African Football Association, where the CAS deferred to the relevant competition regulations.

In this instance, the Appeals Jury’s decision hinges on Articles 82 and 84 of the CAN regulations. The CAS will assess whether the jury’s interpretation aligns with the letter and spirit of these provisions. Additional legal frameworks, such as FIFA’s Disciplinary Code (Articles 9 & 16) and the Laws of the Game (Law 5), may also come into play, particularly regarding the finality of referee decisions and the consequences of team behavior on match continuity.

What can Senegal expect from its appeal?

Under Article 48.7 of the CAF statutes, appeals to the CAS do not suspend the original decision, meaning the forfeiture remains in effect until the CAS rules. Senegal’s appeal will focus on two key legal arguments: the interpretation of the facts under Articles 82 and 84 and the interplay between referee authority and CAF disciplinary powers.

First, Senegal may argue that the Appeals Jury’s interpretation of “refusing to play” or “leaving the field” was overly broad, conflating a temporary protest with an outright abandonment. Second, the appeal could challenge the jury’s post-match reclassification of the incident, asserting that the referee, not the CAF, should have managed the disruption in real time.

The CAS’s decision will be definitive, either upholding or overturning the CAF’s ruling. Past rulings, such as CAS 2019/A/6483 (annulment) and CAS 2020/A/6907 (upholding), demonstrate the tribunal’s discretionary power. The outcome remains uncertain, but the legal battle underscores broader questions about fairness, authority, and accountability in African football.