Morocco’s position in the ongoing dispute over the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final appears to have strengthened following the emergence of two crucial details reported by Africa. Football. These developments, a leaked match coordinator’s report and comments from a senior CAF refereeing official, could significantly influence the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) decision regarding the match’s legitimacy.
The controversy centers on Senegal’s players walking off the pitch in protest during the closing stages of the match held in Rabat. If CAS deems these new pieces of evidence credible, they could determine whether Senegal violated CAF regulations and whether the match should have been halted instead of continuing into extra time.
Initially, Senegal secured a historic 1-0 victory over Morocco on January 18 after extra time. However, the match took a dramatic turn when Senegal’s players protested a penalty awarded to Morocco late in normal time. Although the players returned to the field, Brahim Diaz missed the penalty, and the game proceeded to extra time, where Senegal eventually scored.
Following the match, CAF ruled that Senegal had forfeited due to their actions, awarding Morocco a 3-0 win and the title. Senegal contested this decision, taking the matter to CAS and claiming it was unjust.
One pivotal piece of evidence is a leaked report by match general coordinator Khaled Lemkecher. The report describes Senegal’s protests escalating significantly after the penalty decision, stating that players effectively “abandoned the match” by going to their dressing room. Only Sadio Mané briefly remained on the pitch before urging his teammates to return.
Morocco may argue that this characterization supports their claim that a breach occurred before play resumed.
Another significant revelation came from an African Football report about a CAF Executive Committee meeting on February 13. Referees committee chairman, Olivier Safari, reportedly acknowledged that standard disciplinary actions were intentionally not enforced to preserve the match.
He stated, “Every Senegalese player who left should have been immediately cautioned upon returning to the pitch, but we gave instructions not to do so in order to preserve the match and avoid bringing it to a premature end.” This admission could become a central issue at CAS.
Morocco may argue that match officials deviated from normal procedures by allowing the game to continue despite circumstances that warranted its termination.
Additionally, the duration of Senegal’s protest, approximately 15 minutes, will likely be scrutinized. Morocco contends that such a prolonged absence constitutes grounds for abandonment under CAF regulations, asserting that the players’ eventual return does not negate their initial violation.
Both the coordinator’s report and Safari’s comments appear to bolster Morocco’s stance, framing the incident as abandonment and suggesting that enforcement of rules was intentionally relaxed. As discussions continue, these elements may play a decisive role in determining the outcome of this contentious dispute in African football.
Senegal, however, is unlikely to yield any ground. Their legal team is expected to argue that the referee never formally declared the match abandoned. Instead, play resumed, the penalty was executed, and the game concluded through extra time under proper officiating. This argument forms a key aspect of Senegal’s defense, the contest reached its conclusion on the field and under the oversight of match officials.
They may also contend that any procedural mistakes rest with the officials rather than the players, asserting that revoking their title after the match’s completion would be unfair. Senegal maintains that it remains the legitimate champion from a competitive standpoint.
While the newly revealed information does not guarantee a favorable ruling for Morocco, it significantly bolsters their case. The leaked report offers potential contemporaneous evidence of abandonment, while Safari’s purported comments raise questions about the consistency of officiating and decision-making.
CAS will ultimately need to decide whether the strict enforcement of CAF regulations takes precedence over the fact that the match was resumed and completed.
For Morocco, these latest developments could be pivotal. For Senegal, they introduce an additional layer of complexity to an already high-stakes appeal.
What started as a thrilling football final has now transformed into a significant legal dispute, one that could shape how similar situations are managed in the future.
By: Magdalene Agyeiwaa Sarpong