By Habib Badjinri Touré, Senior Lecturer at Université Grenoble-Alpes, and Criss-Dess Dongar, PhD in Law at Université Jean-Moulin Lyon 3

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

The January 18, 2026 final of the African Cup of Nations saw Senegal triumph over host nation Morocco in a highly controversial match. The tournament, particularly its climax, was overshadowed by widespread allegations of referee bias and questionable governance within the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF). These accusations prompted the CAF to issue a formal denial, reaffirming its commitment to fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to its regulations.

The final match was marred by a series of contentious incidents. First, Senegal’s goal in the 92nd minute was controversially disallowed for an alleged infringement. Then, Morocco was awarded a penalty in the 98th minute following a challenge inside the box. In protest against the referee’s decisions, the Senegalese team — including players and coaching staff — abandoned the field, retreating to the locker rooms for nearly 15 minutes. The match resumed, Morocco missed the subsequent penalty, and Senegal eventually scored in extra time to win the game.

However, the team’s protest against the referee’s calls may have violated the CAF African Cup of Nations Regulations. According to Articles 82 and 84, “if any team refuses to play or leaves the field before the end of the match without the referee’s permission, it shall be considered to have forfeited the match and will lose 3-0.” Following Morocco’s complaint, the CAF’s Disciplinary Board initially dismissed the appeal on January 28, 2026. Morocco then escalated the case to the CAF Appeals Board, which on March 17, 2026, ruled that Senegal’s actions violated Article 82. As a result, the board declared Senegal forfeit, awarding Morocco a 3-0 win. Senegal has since appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On what grounds will the Court of Arbitration for Sport rule?

Senegal’s appeal falls under the legal framework of the CAF Statutes and the Code of Sports Arbitration. Under Article 48.2 of the CAF Statutes, the CAS prioritizes CAF and FIFA regulations and, if necessary, applies Swiss law. This principle was affirmed in a prior case involving the South African Football Association vs. CAF (CAS 2020/A/6907), where the CAS upheld the disciplinary decision based on the applicable regulations.

The CAS has stated it is fully equipped to resolve this dispute, with access to specialized and independent arbitrators. The tribunal will examine whether the CAF Appeals Board’s decision aligns with the letter and spirit of Articles 82 and 84. It may also consider FIFA’s Disciplinary Code (Articles 9 & 16) or the FIFA Laws of the Game (Law 5), which address the finality of referee decisions and the consequences of team behavior, such as match abandonment.

What can we expect from Senegal’s appeal in the coming weeks?

Under Article 48.7 of the CAF Statutes, appeals to the CAS do not suspend the enforcement of the original decision. Therefore, the CAS appeal will not halt the forfeiture ruling while deliberations continue.

Procedurally, the appeal may face scrutiny over its admissibility, particularly regarding timelines and notification requirements. Senegal has already requested an extension to file its appeal brief, citing the delayed receipt of the CAF’s reasoned decision.

Substantively, Senegal’s appeal may hinge on two key legal arguments. First, it could challenge the interpretation of Articles 82 and 84, arguing that the team’s temporary protest does not equate to a definitive refusal to play or forfeiture. Second, it may invoke FIFA’s principles to assert that the referee, as the on-field authority, should have managed the incident in real time, and that the CAF’s retrospective disqualification undermines the immediate regulation of the game and legal certainty.

The CAS has the discretion to either uphold or overturn the CAF’s decision. In past rulings — such as CAS 2019/A/6483 or CAS 2020/A/6907 — the tribunal has both annulled and confirmed disciplinary decisions. The outcome of this case remains uncertain and will depend on the CAS’s interpretation of the regulations and the facts presented.