Can 2025 football: why Senegal lost its title after a controversial caf ruling
A mere two months following the dramatic conclusion of the CAN 2025 final, played out on the pitch with a 1-0 scoreline, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) Appeals Jury overturned the result, awarding Morocco a 3-0 forfeit victory instead. The justification? Senegal’s temporary withdrawal from the field during the match.
While the CAF based its decision on Articles 82 and 84 of its regulations, this ruling starkly contrasts with the referee’s initial call to resume and conclude the game. How can such a legal reversal occur after a result was secured on the field? What does sports law say about this scenario? And what broader implications does this decision carry? In an exclusive African politics discussion with The Conversation Africa, legal expert Abdoulaye Sakho sheds light on these questions.
What legal grounds justified the CAF’s decision? What does the CAN regulation say about match withdrawals?
The CAF Appeals Jury’s ruling hinges on Chapter 35 of the CAN regulations, which addresses team withdrawals, specifically Articles 82 and 84. These provisions were invoked to declare Senegal’s forfeit in the final, transforming the 1-0 on-field win into a 3-0 legal victory for Morocco.
The crux of the matter lies in the jurisdictional qualification of Senegal’s actions. While some label it an “abandonment,” the CAF jury framed it as a “withdrawal” under its regulations. In sports law, such distinctions are critical, as they determine the applicable legal framework and the eventual outcome of disputes. Much like a doctor’s diagnosis dictates treatment, misclassifying an event can lead to unintended consequences.
Why did the CAF Appeals Jury disregard the referee’s decision to resume play?
The Appeals Jury’s motivations remain opaque, but its authority to act independently cannot be disputed. In this instance, it chose to overlook a pivotal factor: the referee’s decision to continue the match after Senegal’s temporary exit. This discretionary power raises questions about the interplay between on-field decisions and post-match legal rulings.
The referee’s role is underscored by IFAB Law 5, which grants them sweeping authority to enforce the Laws of the Game, including suspending, halting, or abandoning a match for violations or external interference. Crucially, no fixed time threshold dictates when a match should be deemed abandoned. The referee’s judgment is final—binding on all parties, a principle jurists refer to as erga omnes. Their decisions, including the validation of goals and match outcomes, are absolute:
« The referee’s decisions on matters in relation to the game are final, including the validation of a goal and the result of the match. The decisions of the referee and all match officials must always be respected. »
Has a similar case ever occurred in a CAN final before?
No documented precedent exists for such a ruling in a CAN final. The football world typically upholds on-field results, making this decision unprecedented in continental competitions. However, other high-profile cases highlight the complexities of match interruptions.
For instance, the controversial South Africa vs. Senegal 2018 World Cup qualifier was replayed after evidence emerged of match-fixing by a corrupt referee. Similarly, the 2019 CAF Champions League final between Wydad Casablanca and Espérance de Tunis saw Moroccan players refuse to resume play after a disallowed goal and VAR malfunction. The referee ultimately declared Wydad’s withdrawal, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the forfeit, citing abandonment under CAF’s disciplinary code. The key difference here? Senegal resumed play, while Wydad did not.
Can Senegal appeal the decision, and what are its prospects?
Absolutely. Senegal has already lodged an appeal, a standard recourse in sports law when a governing body issues a final ruling. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS) will review the case through a « declaration of appeal, » accompanied by a filing fee of 1,000 Swiss francs (~$1,279). The process involves written submissions, oral arguments, and a final ruling, expected within months.
Notably, the Senegalese Football Federation (FSF) has also requested a suspension of the CAF’s decision, allowing Senegal to retain its title until the TAS delivers its verdict. This case serves as a governance Africa and sports law masterclass, touching on regulatory interpretation, referee powers, jurisdictional composition, and procedural ethics like estoppel.
