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

The dramatic final of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations saw Senegal defeat Morocco, the host nation, in a thrilling encounter on January 18, 2026. However, the match was overshadowed by widespread criticism of refereeing decisions and concerns about CAAF governance, with allegations of bias in favor of the host team. These concerns prompted the CAF to issue a formal denial and reaffirm its commitment to fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to its regulations.

The final match was marred by a series of contentious incidents. Senegal’s legitimate goal at the 92nd minute was disallowed for an alleged infringement. Minutes later, a penalty was awarded to Morocco in the 98th minute following a challenge inside the penalty area. Protesting the decision, the Senegalese team—including players and technical staff—refused to continue, leaving the pitch and retreating to the locker rooms for nearly 15 minutes. Although Morocco missed the resulting penalty, Senegal scored during extra time and claimed victory in the final.

Nevertheless, the team’s protest against refereeing decisions was found to be inconsistent with the CAN regulations. According to Articles 82 and 84, any team that refuses to play or exits the field before the match’s conclusion without the referee’s permission is deemed to have forfeited the game and loses 3–0. The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) promptly filed a complaint with the CAF Disciplinary Jury, which initially rejected the claim. Morocco then appealed to the CAF Appeals Jury, which, on March 17, 2026, ruled that Senegal’s actions violated Article 82 of the CAN regulations. Consequently, the Appeals Jury declared Senegal to have forfeited the match, awarding Morocco a 3–0 victory. 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 in this dispute?

The appeal filed with the CAS is governed by the CAF Statutes and the Code of Sports Arbitration. Under Article 48.2 of the CAF Statutes, the CAS prioritizes CAF and FIFA regulations when reviewing decisions from the CAF Appeals Jury, with Swiss law applying as a secondary source. This principle was previously applied in a similar case involving the South African Football Association (CAS 2020/A/6907), where the CAS upheld the CAF Appeals Jury’s decision based on the relevant competition regulations.

In the present case, the CAS has indicated its readiness to examine whether the CAF Appeals Jury’s decision aligns with the letter and spirit of Articles 82 and 84 of the CAN regulations. The tribunal may also consider provisions from the FIFA Disciplinary Code (Articles 9 & 16) or the Laws of the Game (Law 5), which address the finality of referee decisions and the consequences of team behavior. The CAS’s decision will hinge on whether the Appeals Jury’s interpretation of the regulations was justified and whether the sanctions imposed were proportionate.

What outcomes can be expected from Senegal’s appeal in the coming weeks?

Under Article 48.7 of the CAF Statutes, an appeal to the CAS does not suspend the execution of the decision. Thus, the CAF’s ruling remains in force until the CAS issues a final verdict. Senegal’s appeal seeks a review of the CAF Appeals Jury’s decision, with potential outcomes hinging on procedural and substantive arguments.

Procedurally, the appeal may face scrutiny over the admissibility of the claim, particularly regarding the timeliness of the submission. Senegal has already requested a suspension of the deadline for filing its appeal brief until the full written decision from the CAF is provided.

Substantively, the appeal may focus on two key legal issues. First, it will challenge the classification of Senegal’s actions as a “refusal to play” or abandonment under Articles 82 and 84. Senegal is likely to argue that the CAF Appeals Jury misinterpreted these provisions by equating a temporary protest with a definitive forfeiture.

Second, the appeal may invoke FIFA principles to argue that the referee, as the sole authority in real-time match management, should have determined the continuation or termination of the game. Senegal could contend that the CAF Appeals Jury’s post-match ruling undermines the immediate regulatory logic of the competition and legal certainty.

Ultimately, the CAS’s decision will be definitive. While past rulings (e.g., CAS 2019/A/6483 and CAS 2020/A/6907) show the tribunal may either uphold or overturn the CAF’s decision, the outcome in this case remains uncertain. The CAS has emphasized its capacity to resolve such disputes with specialized and independent arbitrators.