The Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS) will hear Senegal’s appeal in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday, in a case concerning the events at the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final between Morocco and Senegal.
The Senegalese Football Federation is challenging the CAF Appeals Committee decision which declared Senegal 3-0 losers and awarded the title to Morocco. Speaking to Africafoot, sports litigation expert Khalil Boubhi, a member of the Moroccan Sports Arbitration Chamber, outlined the legal arguments supporting the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) and CAF.
Boubhi said Senegal’s case faced significant procedural difficulties. He argued that the federation had appealed to the TAS after receiving only the operative part of the Appeals Committee’s decision, even though it had been given 10 days to request the written reasons. In his view, that made the appeal premature and potentially inadmissible under established TAS jurisprudence, citing the 2012/A/2961 case involving Khalid Adnane, Al Faisaly and the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
He also rejected Senegal’s claim that its defence rights had been breached. Senegal had previously stated in an official release that it accepted the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Disciplinary Committee and did not intend to challenge them. According to Boubhi, the FRMF was the party that brought the appeal, while Senegal was invited to take part by videoconference via Zoom to provide explanations and answer questions. He therefore considered the complaint legally unfounded.
The expert further said Senegal had not used the challenge procedure set out in Article 20 of the CAF Disciplinary Code when disputing the competence or impartiality of the Appeals Committee. He said there was no evidence of a personal interest or conflict involving Moez Ben Taher Nasri, president of the Tunisian Football Federation, who was a member of the committee.
On the substance of the case, Boubhi focused on Article 82 of the Africa Cup of Nations regulations. He said it clearly provides that a team which withdraws from the competition, refuses to play or leaves the pitch before the end of normal time without the referee’s authorisation or agreement is deemed to have lost and may be excluded.
He argued that Senegalese players’ return to the field did not remove the legal consequences of their initial departure towards the dressing rooms, following a decision made under the coach’s direction. Boubhi said the incident could be established from official evidence and that clear regulations must be applied strictly.
He cited FIFA precedents showing that match incidents can be reviewed in exceptional circumstances, including the replay of Senegal’s 2016 match against South Africa after referee Joseph Lamptey was found to have manipulated the game, and the 2005 Uzbekistan-Bahrain replay after a serious technical error by referee Toshimitsu Yoshida. He also referred to Article 11 of the disciplinary regulations.
Boubhi rejected Senegal’s claim of double punishment, saying individual disciplinary sanctions and the 3-0 forfeit arose from separate procedures. The latter followed an official reserve lodged by the FRMF under the competition rules.
He considered the sanction proportionate to events involving the Senegal coach, players and supporters at Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium in Rabat, arguing that the incident affected sporting integrity, discipline and fair play.
Finally, Articles 5 and 6 provide that the trophy and medals remain CAF property and are handed to the competition winners. If the TAS rejects Senegal’s appeal, Boubhi said CAF should formally request their return, along with the financial prize, so ceremonies can be arranged for Morocco. He stressed, however, that the final outcome depends on the TAS ruling.