Why did the CAF strip Senegal of its title?

The final of CAN 2025 between Senegal and Morocco was marred by controversy after Senegal walked off the pitch in protest. The match had already seen contentious refereeing decisions, including a disallowed Senegal goal in the 92nd minute and a questionable penalty awarded to Morocco in the 98th minute. The Senegalese players and staff abandoned the field, sparking a 15-minute suspension of play. Senegal later scored in extra time to claim victory, but the Royal Moroccan Football Federation filed a protest with the CAF Disciplinary Jury.

On January 28, 2026, the Disciplinary Jury rejected the appeal, but the Moroccan Federation appealed to the CAF Appeals Jury. On March 17, 2026, the Appeals Jury ruled that Senegal had violated CAN 2025 regulations by refusing to continue the match, declaring them forfeit and awarding the title to Morocco with a 3-0 scoreline. Senegal has since appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS).

How will the TAS handle Senegal’s appeal?

The TAS will review Senegal’s appeal under the CAF Statutes and the Code of Sports Arbitration. The court will prioritize CAF and FIFA regulations, with Swiss law as a fallback. The decision hinges on whether Senegal’s actions constituted a refusal to play or abandonment, as defined in CAN 2025 regulations.

Senegal may argue that the Appeals Jury misinterpreted the rules, while Morocco will likely defend the decision. The TAS could also consider FIFA’s disciplinary code and the Laws of the Game, which emphasize the finality of referees’ decisions and the consequences of team behavior on match continuation.

What’s next for Senegal’s legal challenge?

Senegal’s appeal does not suspend the CAF’s decision, meaning Morocco remains the official title holder until the TAS rules. The legal process is still in its early stages, with procedural questions—such as the timely submission of Senegal’s appeal—potentially at play.

The appeal may focus on two key arguments: first, whether Senegal’s actions truly amounted to a refusal to play under the regulations, and second, whether the CAF overstepped by retroactively penalizing the team for protesting refereeing decisions. Senegal could also argue that the referee should have managed the incident in real time rather than allowing a later disciplinary ruling.

The TAS’s decision will be final, either upholding the CAF’s ruling or overturning it—a precedent it has set in similar cases. The outcome remains uncertain, but the legal battle highlights broader issues of fairness and governance in African football.