By: Agari Umar-Farouq Monday, ACIBF
A BRIEF OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, March 17, 2026, Morocco were declared winners of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations after the Confederation of African Football (CAF) Appeal Board overturned the outcome of the final against Senegal, awarding the hosts a 3–0 victory following a controversial walk-off by the Senegalese team in application of Article 84 of the AFCON Regulations.
The ruling came after a protest by the Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football (FRMF), which the Appeal Board found to be valid. In its decision, CAF held that Senegal’s actions during the match amounted to a breach of tournament regulations, leading to the forfeiture of the final.
The controversy stemmed from a dramatic moment late in the game when Moroccan player Brahim Diaz went down in the penalty area. Although the referee initially waved play on, a VAR review resulted in a penalty being awarded to Morocco. The decision sparked outrage from the Senegal bench, prompting head coach Pape Thiaw to instruct his players to leave the pitch in protest.
CAF ruled that by abandoning the field of play, Senegal violated Articles 82 and 84 of the Africa Cup of Nations Regulations. As a result, the match was officially recorded as a 3–0 win in favour of Morocco, overturning the earlier decision of the CAF Disciplinary Board.
In a statement, CAF confirmed that the appeal by the Moroccan federation was upheld, the earlier disciplinary ruling set aside, and Senegal deemed to have forfeited the match due to the conduct of its team.
LEGAL EXAMINATION AND THE BIGGER PICTURE
Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON Regulations are quite direct and unambiguous and it states that if a team refuses to continue a match or leaves the field without the referee’s permission before full time, it is deemed to have forfeited, and the result is recorded as 3–0 against them. That provision sits at the heart of this controversy.
On January 18, following two rapid-fire decisions that went against Senegal, coach Pape Thiaw instructed his players to leave the pitch. Within roughly ninety seconds, a Senegal goal had been ruled out for a foul that appeared minimal on replay, and a VAR review had awarded Morocco a penalty. The team walked off. Only Sadio Mané remained and play was halted for about fifteen minutes.
The regulations do not create exceptions for temporary protests or delayed returns. The wording is clear: “leaving without the referee’s authorisation triggers a forfeit.” Senegal left without permission. Morocco relied on that wording and pursued the matter accordingly. On a strict reading of the rules, their position is compelling.
There is also a broader concern behind Morocco’s argument. If a team can walk off in protest, regroup, return, and still suffer no sporting consequence, what prevents others from doing the same in future tournaments? The rule exists to prevent precisely that kind of pressure on officials and disruption to competition integrity. That, however, is only one side of the story.
Senegal’s response begins with a well-established principle: qui approbat non reprobat, which means that, one cannot accept a situation and later challenge it. After Senegal returned, Morocco continued the match. They defended the penalty, played through extra time, and saw the game to its conclusion. By doing so, they arguably accepted the resumption as valid. It becomes difficult, then, to later argue that the match should be treated as abandoned when they actively participated in its completion. This inconsistency is unlikely to escape scrutiny at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Next is the issue of proportionality. The regulation in question was designed for clear cases of abandonment that has to do with teams that refuse to play or fail to return at all. This situation was different. Senegal left briefly, then came back. The match resumed, the penalty was taken, extra time was played, and a winner emerged through play.
Applying a rule meant for total withdrawal to a match that was ultimately completed raises serious questions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has repeatedly emphasised that sanctions must match the gravity of the conduct. Here, the game reached its natural conclusion. That fact carries significant weight.
There is also the role of the referee. Under Law 5.2 of the IFAB Laws of the Game, which states that the referee’s decision regarding facts connected with play are final. Referee Jean-Jacques Ndala chose to wait, allowed Senegal to return, and resumed the match. He oversaw the remainder of the game to its end.
The legal question is whether that decision, to restart and complete the match should be treated as final, or whether CAF can later override it administratively. The boundary between a referee’s authority and that of governing bodies remains unsettled in football law, and it is precisely the kind of grey area that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) often has to interpret.
Another key point lies within CAF itself. The Disciplinary Board initially imposed lighter sanctions and allowed the result to stand. The Appeal Board later overturned that position entirely. Two bodies, same facts, opposite conclusions.
That contradiction is more than procedural awkwardness. It signals genuine uncertainty in how the rules should apply in this situation. It strengthens Senegal’s argument that the decision was far from straightforward.
Complicating matters further, CAF also sanctioned Morocco’s federation for crowd-related misconduct, including laser interference and ball boy incidents that affected Senegal’s goalkeeper, Édouard Mendy. Senegal can argue that these factors contributed to the circumstances that led to the walk-off.
THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF AFRICAN FOOTBALL
Beyond the immediate dispute, the implications are significant. If a completed match, played to its conclusion and validated on the field can be overturned weeks later, it introduces uncertainty into every competition under CAF. Any team that experiences a protest or temporary walk-off now has a precedent to rely on. Results may no longer feel final at the final whistle. That is a troubling prospect for the stability of the game.
Senegal has already confirmed it will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), describing the ruling as fundamentally flawed. Given the conflicting decisions within CAF and the questions around proportionality and referee authority, the appeal is not without merit.
Ultimately, this case goes beyond one final. It raises a fundamental question: when a match is played, completed, and decided on the pitch, under what circumstances can that result be undone in a boardroom?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will have to provide that answer. And whatever it decides will shape not just this dispute, but the future balance between sporting outcomes and administrative power in football and most importantly, the future of African and global football as the template may not stay in Africa.
Agari Umar-Farouq Monday is currently a 400-level Law Student at the Prestigious Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. He’s a Sports and Tech Law Enthusiast and he passionately envisage the prospect of pursuing a career in Sports Law in the future. He can be contacted via WhatsApp on 09121925382 or Email at agariumarmonday247@gmail.com.