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

why did the caf strip Senegal of its 2025 can title?

The January 18, 2026 final between Senegal and Morocco, the host nation, ended in victory for the Teranga Lions after extra time. However, the match was marred by contentious refereeing decisions, with widespread allegations of bias against Senegal. These accusations prompted the CAF to issue a statement emphasizing its commitment to fairness and transparency, though they did little to quell the controversy surrounding the officiating.

The final itself unfolded in dramatic fashion. Senegal had a goal disallowed in the 92nd minute for an alleged infringement. Then, in the 98th minute, Morocco was awarded a penalty following a challenge inside the box. Protesting this decision, Senegal’s players and coaching staff abandoned the pitch and retreated to the locker rooms, delaying the match by nearly 15 minutes. Despite missing the subsequent penalty, Senegal rallied to score in extra time and claimed the trophy.

Yet, the team’s walkout contravened the CAF Africa Cup of Nations Regulations. Articles 82 and 84 state that any team refusing to play or leaving the field before the match concludes without referee approval is deemed to have forfeited the game, resulting in a 3-0 loss. The Royal Moroccan Football Federation promptly filed a complaint with the CAF Disciplinary Board, which initially dismissed the claim. Morocco then escalated the matter to the CAF Appeals Board, which ruled on March 17, 2026, that Senegal had violated Article 82 by withdrawing from the match. Consequently, the Appeals Board declared Senegal’s forfeiture, awarding Morocco a 3-0 victory. Senegal responded by filing an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 25, 2026.

how will the court of arbitration for sport rule on the case?

The CAS appeal hinges on the interpretation of CAF and FIFA regulations. Under Article 48.2 of the CAF Statutes, the CAS prioritizes CAF and FIFA rules when reviewing appeals against CAF decisions, with Swiss law as a fallback. This approach was affirmed in a prior case involving the South African Football Association (CAS 2020/A/6907), where the CAS applied the relevant competition regulations to resolve the dispute.

In this instance, the CAS must assess whether the Appeals Board’s decision aligns with the text and intent of Articles 82 and 84. The panel may also consider FIFA’s Disciplinary Code (Articles 9 & 16) or the Laws of the Game (Law 5), which govern the definitive nature of refereeing decisions and the consequences of team behavior on match continuity. The CAS has confirmed its readiness to adjudicate, stating in a March 25, 2026 press release that it is fully equipped to handle sports-related disputes with specialized, independent arbitrators.

what can Senegal expect from its cas appeal?

According to CAF Statutes Article 48.7, CAS appeals do not suspend the enforcement of the original decision, meaning the title remains with Morocco pending the CAS ruling. Senegal’s appeal will focus on two key legal arguments: the interpretation of the forfeiture clauses and the interplay between referee authority and CAF disciplinary powers.

First, Senegal may argue that the Appeals Board misapplied Articles 82 and 84 by equating a temporary, protest-driven exit with a definitive forfeiture. The team’s actions, they might contend, were a reaction to perceived injustice rather than an abandonment of the match.

Second, Senegal could invoke FIFA principles to assert that the referee, as the on-field authority, should have determined whether the interruption warranted match abandonment. Redefining the incident as a forfeiture after the fact, they may argue, undermines the immediate regulatory role of referees and introduces legal uncertainty into the competition.

The outcome remains uncertain. The CAS has previously both overturned (CAS 2019/A/6483) and upheld (CAS 2020/A/6907) similar rulings, leaving Senegal’s prospects dependent on the panel’s discretion. The decision will be final and binding once rendered.