Understanding the CAF’s decision to declare Senegal forfeit and grant the title to Morocco

On January 18, 2026, the Senegalese national team emerged victorious against host nation Morocco in a particularly dramatic Africa Cup of Nations final. The entire tournament, and especially the final match, was overshadowed by a pervasive atmosphere of skepticism concerning the officiating and, more broadly, the governance of the Confederation of African Football (CAF). Some stakeholders accused the organization of favoritism towards the home team. These accusations prompted the CAF’s governing body to issue a denial, reaffirming its commitment to principles of fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to its regulations.

It was within this highly charged environment that the final witnessed 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 within the penalty area. In protest against this refereeing decision, members of the Senegalese team, including both coaching staff and players, declined to continue the match, exited the field, and largely returned to their changing rooms. This withdrawal led to a suspension of the game for approximately fifteen minutes. Morocco ultimately missed the ensuing penalty, but Senegal managed to score during extra time and secure victory in the final.

However, this form of protest against referee decisions appears inconsistent with the Regulations of the Africa 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 regulatory end of the match without the referee’s authorization, it shall be considered a loser” and “loses the match 3-0.” Acting on this, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation lodged a complaint with the CAF Disciplinary Jury to invoke these articles. In a decision dated January 28, 2026, ten days after the final, the Disciplinary Jury rejected the claim, prompting the Moroccan Federation to appeal to the CAF Appeal Jury. The Appeal Jury’s ruling was then issued on March 17, 2026, two months after the final match. In its decision, the Appeal Jury concluded that “the Senegalese Football Federation, through its team’s conduct, violated Article 82 of the Africa Cup of Nations Regulations.” Consequently, applying Article 84, it declared that “the Senegal team is forfeited from this match, with the result recorded as 3-0 in favor of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation.” In response, Senegal decided to counter-appeal by referring the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS).

The legal framework for the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ruling in sports disputes 

The appeal brought before the TAS operates within the regulatory framework established by the CAF Statutes and the Code of Sports Arbitration. According to Article 48.2 of the CAF Statutes, when confronted with a challenge to a decision by the CAF Appeal Jury, the TAS primarily applies the various rules set forth by CAF and FIFA, and subsidiarily, Swiss law. This principle is further reinforced by Article R58 of the Arbitration Code. This approach was evident in a comparable case involving the South African Football Association against CAF (CAS 2020/A/6907). In that instance, the Appeal Jury had deemed the South African team’s withdrawal from the Futsal CAN a breach of Article 74 of the competition’s regulations. The TAS panel then stated that it “would therefore apply Article 74 of the Regulations” given its direct relevance. In the present dispute, the contested decision explicitly relies on Articles 82 and 84 of the CAN Regulations. It will therefore be incumbent upon 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 ascertain whether the Appeal Jury’s decision conforms to both the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions. The TAS could also draw upon Articles 9 & 16 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code or Law 5 of the FIFA Laws of the Game, which pertain to the definitive nature of referee decisions and the implications of a team’s conduct on a match’s definitive stoppage, or other relevant provisions depending on the complete reasoning of the Appeal Jury’s decision or the arguments put forth by the Senegalese Federation in its submission.

Anticipating the outcome of Senegal’s appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport

It is crucial to note from the outset that, pursuant to 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.” Consequently, Senegal’s appeal will lead to a re-examination of the CAF Appeal Jury’s decision.

Formally, procedural questions may first arise, particularly regarding the admissibility criteria for the request. Indeed, in its appeal, Senegal requested a suspension of the deadline for submitting its appeal brief until CAF’s reasoned decision is officially communicated. Thus, the dispute remains in a preliminary phase.

Substantively, the Senegalese appeal could revolve around two key legal arguments: firstly, the classification of the events in light of Articles 82 and 84, and secondly, 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 ascertain whether the Senegalese team’s actions can legally be equated to a “refusal to play” or an abandonment of the field. This is a central issue, given that these provisions stipulate an automatic sanction of forfeiture. Senegal will likely contend that the Appeal Jury’s interpretation of these concepts was excessively broad, conflating a temporary, protest-driven interruption with a definitive abandonment.

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

Ultimately, while Senegal’s appeal primarily challenges the Appeal 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 assessment of the TAS, whose decision will be final. The TAS may, as it has done previously, either annul the CAF decision (CAS 2019/A/6483) or uphold it (CAS 2020/A/6907).