What Does CAF’s Rulebook Really Say? Inside the AFCON Title Controversy

What Does CAF’s Rulebook Really Say? Inside the AFCON Title Controversy

The decision by the Confederation of African Football to strip Senegal of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations title and award it to Morocco has shifted the outcome of the tournament from the pitch to the rulebook, raising questions about timing, officiating, and consistency.

Senegal had won the final 1-0 after extra time in Rabat. The match turned in stoppage time when the referee awarded a penalty to Morocco. Senegal players protested and briefly left the pitch. They later returned, the match was completed, and Senegal were declared winners.

EDITOR’S PICKS

Two months later, CAF overturned that result.

At the centre of the ruling is Article 82 of CAF’s regulations. The provision states that a team that leaves the field without the referee’s permission is considered to have ended the match prematurely. If the team fails to return within a “reasonable amount of time,” the match is abandoned and awarded as a 3-0 loss.

CAF concluded that Senegal’s walkout fell within this provision and applied the forfeiture rule.

The key issue is the referee’s decision during the match. Under Law 5 of the Laws of the Game, the referee has full authority to decide whether to suspend, continue, or abandon a game. In CAF competitions, about 15 minutes is generally treated as a reasonable waiting period, though this is not fixed in the law.

In this case, the referee did not abandon the match. Senegal returned to the pitch and play resumed. That decision indicates the referee judged the protest to have been resolved within an acceptable timeframe. By allowing the game to continue, the official effectively ruled that the conditions for forfeiture had not been met at that moment.

CAF’s later decision creates a direct conflict between in-match authority and post-match interpretation. The regulations were enforced after the fact, not at the point of incident.

The delay in the ruling is another issue. The Appeals Board decision came nearly two months after the final. Such timelines are typically linked to internal processes that include referee reports, match commissioner findings, video review, and legal interpretation. However, CAF has not provided a detailed timeline explaining why the decision was not made earlier, especially given the clarity of the incident.

The controversy has also been shaped by perceptions of officiating during the tournament. There were complaints from sections of fans and analysts that key decisions favoured Morocco, particularly as hosts. The penalty that triggered the final incident remains central to those concerns. CAF has not issued any finding supporting claims of bias and has maintained that its ruling was based strictly on its regulations.

The case also highlights a procedural gap. If a walkout meets the threshold for forfeiture, enforcement is expected during the match through the referee’s authority. If it does not, applying the same rule after full-time raises questions about consistency in application.

Senegal’s authorities have rejected the ruling and taken the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, where the interpretation of Article 82 and the referee’s discretion under Law 5 are expected to be tested.