The long-running dispute over the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations title is set to enter another decisive stage as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) prepares to hear Senegal’s challenge against the decision that handed the trophy to Morocco.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 8, in Lausanne, Switzerland, with representatives of Senegal, Morocco and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) expected to present their arguments before the sports arbitration body. The proceedings will be held behind closed doors.
The controversy dates back to the AFCON final played in Rabat on January 18, when Senegal initially defeated hosts Morocco 1-0 after extra time.
Pape Gueye scored the decisive goal in extra time after Senegal had survived a late scare when Morocco were awarded a penalty. Morocco’s Brahim Diaz failed to convert the spot kick, allowing the match to continue into extra time, where Senegal eventually secured the victory.
However, the final became the centre of a major disciplinary dispute after Senegalese players temporarily left the pitch following the penalty decision.
Several Senegal players headed towards the dressing room in protest before eventually returning to complete the match. The incident later became the foundation of Morocco’s appeal to CAF.
Two months after the final, CAF’s Appeal Board overturned the earlier outcome and ruled that Senegal had forfeited the match. The governing body recorded the final as a 3-0 victory for Morocco, effectively making the Atlas Lions the official AFCON champions.
Senegal rejected the decision and took the matter to CAS.
The Senegalese Football Federation registered its appeal on March 25, asking CAS to overturn CAF’s ruling and restore Senegal as the winners of the tournament.
Senegal and Morocco Present Different Interpretations
At the heart of the case is the interpretation of CAF’s tournament regulations and what constitutes abandoning a match.
Senegal is expected to argue that the players’ departure was temporary and should not be treated as a decision to abandon the final. Its legal team is also expected to rely on the principle that decisions made by the referee during a match should not subsequently be overturned through disciplinary interpretation of events on the field.
Morocco, on the other hand, is expected to defend CAF’s decision by arguing that Senegal violated the competition regulations when players left the pitch without the referee’s permission.
CAF’s Appeal Board relied on regulations stating that a team can be considered to have forfeited a match if it leaves the field before the end of the game without authorisation.
That difference in interpretation will be central to CAS’s consideration of the case.
Three-Member Panel to Examine the Dispute
A three-member CAS panel will oversee the proceedings.
The panel will be chaired by French civil rights expert Professor Gerald Simon, alongside Italian international law professor Luigi Fumagalli and German lawyer and University of Zurich professor Ulrich Haas.
CAS has made it clear that Thursday’s hearing will not produce an immediate verdict. After listening to the arguments, the panel will deliberate before issuing its decision at a later date.
The arbitration body has not announced when its final ruling will be delivered.
Senegal Seeks to Regain Trophy
For Senegal, the CAS case represents an opportunity to overturn a decision that dramatically changed the official outcome of a final the team had originally won on the pitch.
The Teranga Lions had celebrated their second AFCON triumph after beating Morocco in extra time, only for the CAF appeals process to subsequently reverse the result.
Morocco, meanwhile, continues to be recognised by CAF as the tournament winner following the Appeal Board ruling.
The CAS decision could therefore settle one of the most contentious episodes in recent African football and determine whether Senegal’s on-field victory is restored or Morocco retains the title awarded to it by CAF.
The case is being closely watched across African football, with the final ruling likely to have implications beyond the two national teams because it will also clarify how competition regulations should be applied when a team temporarily leaves the pitch during a major tournament final.
