Senegal v Morocco: six key issues facing the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Senegal, Morocco and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) will appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS) in Lausanne on Thursday, nine months after the controversial CAN 2025 final. Senegal are appealing against the decision to strip them of the title and award Morocco a 3-0 victory by forfeit.

The CAF appeal jury applied Articles 82 and 84 of the competition regulations in March. However, Senegal had returned to the pitch after leaving it, completed the match and won in extra time. The TAS will not issue its ruling on Thursday, but six central questions will shape the case.

Did Senegal actually forfeit the match?

Article 82 applies to a team that “refuses to play or leaves the field before the end of the match without the referee’s permission”.

Sports lawyer Romain Bizzini, speaking to Marca, believes the regulations do not clearly cover a team leaving the pitch but later returning. “Articles 82 and 84 do not cover the case where a team leaves the field without authorisation, but does not definitively interrupt the match, which is then restarted,” he said.

Amir N’Gazi also believes the meaning of “refusal to play” can be challenged because Senegal eventually resumed the game. However, he told Sportnewsafrica that the departure of most of the players was literally a “leaving the field” under the regulations. The key dispute, therefore, is the legal effect of the departure after play resumed.

What weight should be given to the restart?

The match was suspended for several minutes before continuing under referee Jean-Jacques Ndala. It then reached its conclusion, with Senegal winning on the pitch.

South African sports lawyer Pius Ndubuokwu told SABC that sequence of events was decisive. “If the referee had refused to let them return to the field, we would not be here. But they returned, the match continued and the referee blew the final whistle,” he said.

Ndubuokwu believes CAF’s appeal committee misread the facts and no longer had the authority to overturn the result once the match had been completed.

Does the 2019 precedent apply?

The 2019 African Champions League final between Esperance de Tunis and Wydad Casablanca is likely to be discussed. Ndubuokwu, however, points to a crucial difference: Wydad ultimately refused to resume the match, whereas Senegal returned to play in 2025.

Would a forfeit be proportionate?

Even if Senegal breached the regulations, the TAS must decide whether awarding a 3-0 forfeit was an appropriate punishment.

“The proportionality of sanctions is central to TAS case law,” N’Gazi said. He believes the tribunal could conclude that a forfeit was excessive if other disciplinary measures could punish Senegal without overturning the sporting result.

Which interpretation will prevail?

Bizzini argues that a strict reading of Article 82 should lead to CAF’s decision being upheld and described Senegal’s chances as “quite weak”.

Ndubuokwu takes the opposite view, saying the appeal jury failed to account properly for the restart and the referee’s role. “I am convinced that the decision will be overturned by the TAS,” he said.

Could the final be replayed?

A replay is considered extremely unlikely. Bizzini says CAF’s regulations do not appear to provide for that outcome, while Ndubuokwu regards it as ruled out.

The TAS must ultimately decide whether the victory belongs legally to Morocco because of the CAF forfeit, or to Senegal because the final resumed and was completed.