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

On January 18, 2026, after an exceptionally dramatic final, the Senegalese national team triumphed over host nation Morocco in the African Cup of Nations (AFCON) final. The entire tournament, particularly the final match, was overshadowed by widespread skepticism concerning refereeing decisions and the broader governance of the Confederation of African Football (CAF). Some stakeholders accused CAF of bias towards the host team, prompting the governing body to issue a denial and reiterate its commitment to principles of fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to its regulations.

Against this backdrop of heightened tension, the final itself was marked by a series of contentious events. First, Senegal had a goal disallowed in the 92nd minute due to an action deemed irregular by the referee. Subsequently, Morocco was awarded a penalty in the 98th minute following a foul in the penalty area. In protest of this decision, members of the Senegalese team—including technical staff and players—refused to continue the match, left the field, and largely retired to their changing rooms. This withdrawal led to a suspension of play for nearly fifteen minutes. Despite this, Morocco missed the subsequent penalty, and Senegal managed to score in extra time, ultimately winning the final.

However, this form of protest against referee decisions appears to be inconsistent with the regulations of the African Cup of Nations. Specifically, Articles 82 and 84 stipulate that “if, for any reason, a team […] refuses to play or leaves the field before the end of the match without the referee’s authorization, it shall be considered to have lost” and “loses the match 3-0.” Acting on this, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation lodged a complaint with the CAF Disciplinary Jury to apply these articles. In a decision issued on January 28, 2026, ten days after the final, the Disciplinary Jury rejected the claim. The Moroccan Federation then appealed to the CAF Appeals Jury. The Appeals Jury’s decision was rendered on March 17, 2026, two months after the final match. In its ruling, the Appeals Jury determined that “the Senegalese Football Federation, through its team’s conduct, violated Article 82 of the African Cup of Nations Regulations.” Consequently, applying Article 84, it concluded that “the Senegal team is declared forfeit for this match, the result of which is recorded as 3-0 in favor of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation.” In response, Senegal has mounted a counter-attack by appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS).

What legal principles will the Court of Arbitration for Sport apply in this type of dispute? 

The appeal brought before the TAS operates within the regulatory framework established by CAF Statutes and the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration. As per Article 48.2 of the CAF Statutes, when confronted with a challenge to a CAF Appeals Jury decision, the TAS primarily applies the various rules set forth by CAF and FIFA, and subsidiarily, Swiss law. This principle is reinforced by Article R58 of the Arbitration Code. This approach was notably taken in a comparable case involving the South African Football Federation and CAF (CAS 2020/A/6907). In that instance, the Appeals Jury had deemed the withdrawal of the South African Futsal AFCON team a violation of Article 74 of the competition regulations. The TAS panel then stated that it would “therefore apply Article 74 of the Regulations” as it was the relevant provision. In the current dispute, the contested decision explicitly relies on Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON Regulations. It will thus be up to the TAS, which, in a communiqué on March 25, 2026, declared itself “perfectly equipped to resolve this type of dispute, with the assistance of specialized and independent arbitrators,” to determine if the Appeals Jury’s decision aligns with the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions. The TAS might also consider Articles 9 & 16 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code or Law 5 of the FIFA Laws of the Game, which address the finality of referee decisions and the consequences of team behavior on match abandonment, or other relevant provisions depending on the full reasoning of the Appeals Jury’s decision or the arguments put forth by the Senegalese Federation in its appeal brief.

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

Firstly, it’s crucial to note that under Article 48.7 of the CAF Statutes, an “appeal to the TAS does not have suspensive effect. The decisions subject to appeal remain enforceable until the final decision of the TAS.” Therefore, Senegal’s appeal will lead to a re-examination of the CAF Appeals Jury’s decision.

Procedurally, questions regarding the admissibility of the request may arise. Indeed, in its appeal, Senegal requested the suspension of the deadline for submitting its appeal brief until CAF’s reasoned decision has been formally notified. The dispute is currently still in a preliminary phase.

Substantively, Senegal’s appeal could focus on two primary legal arguments: first, the classification of the events under Articles 82 and 84; and second, the interplay between the authority of the referee’s decision, which is generally considered final, and the disciplinary sanctioning power of CAF bodies.

Regarding the first point, the TAS will need to determine whether the Senegalese team’s actions can legally be equated with a “refusal to play” or an abandonment of the field. This is a central issue, as these provisions prescribe an automatic sanction of forfeiture. Senegal will likely contend that the Appeals Jury applied an excessively broad interpretation of these terms, equating a temporary, protesting interruption with a definitive abandonment.

Concerning the second point, the appeal might draw upon principles from FIFA law to argue that the management of the incident primarily fell within the referee’s purview, as the sole authority competent to assess in real-time the continuity or interruption of the match. From this perspective, Senegal could argue that the *ex post facto* reclassification of the event as a forfeit by the CAF Appeals Jury undermines the logic of immediate game regulation and the legal certainty of the competition.

Ultimately, while Senegal’s appeal primarily challenges the Appeals Jury’s interpretation of Articles 82 and 84 and its alignment with FIFA legal principles, its outcome cannot be predetermined. It will depend on the discretionary judgment of the TAS, whose decision will be final. As it has done in previous cases, the TAS may either annul the CAF decision (CAS 2019/A/6483) or uphold it (CAS 2020/A/6907).