On Thursday morning, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, commenced a hearing that could potentially resolve one of the most contentious issues in the history of the Africa Cup of Nations. The dispute centers around the 2025 final between Morocco and Senegal, which has reached a critical juncture.
The court is faced with two fundamentally different legal interpretations of the events that transpired during the final. The Moroccan side cites Articles 82 and 84 of the tournament regulations, while Senegal maintains that the match's outcome was already determined on the field when Congolese referee Jean-Jacques Ndala allowed their players to return to the pitch and continued the match to its conclusion, ultimately leading to a 1-0 victory for the "Lions of Teranga" after extra time.
The key issue under deliberation in Lausanne revolves around the legal implications of Senegalese players leaving the field in protest against the officiating and subsequently returning to complete the match. Notably, the Appeals Committee of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) later annulled the result, declaring Senegal the loser by default and awarding Morocco a 3-0 victory.
Senegal's goalkeeper Edouard Mendy remarked in March, "We know how we won the Africa Cup of Nations, and we remember what happened on that February night in Morocco." Meanwhile, former Moroccan national team coach Walid Rekik stated publicly, "To me, I am the African champion, whether some like it or not." However, beyond the exchanged statements, the real battle in Lausanne will fundamentally focus on the interpretation of regulations, the limits of the referee's authority, and the feasibility of overturning the result of a match that was completed on the field.
The African sports network Afrik Foot outlines the arguments from both sides that are expected to be presented in today's session.
Senegal Stands Firm on Referee Authority
Senegal is anticipated to emphasize Article 5 of the Laws of the Game, set forth by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), as a cornerstone of its defense. This article underscores the referee's authority in managing the match and the finality of their decisions concerning incidents during play. Senegal contends that referee Jean-Jacques Ndala permitted their players to return to the field after a withdrawal period, then resumed the match and managed the remaining time until he blew the final whistle, declaring Senegal the winner 1-0 after extra time.
This raises a crucial question in Senegal's argument: If the referee allowed the match to resume and oversaw its conclusion, does any administrative body have the jurisdiction to annul the result acknowledged by the referee? Sports law attorney Biyos Ndoubouko stated in an interview with SABC that Senegal's players "returned to the field, the match continued, and then the referee blew the final whistle," asserting that the CAF Appeals Committee could not overturn the decision made by the referee on the field.
Senegal's argument extends beyond the referee's authority, as their legal team, led by Spanish attorney Juan de Dios Crespo-Pérez, may also argue the absence of a clear provision governing the situation of a team temporarily leaving the field and then returning to complete the match. Crespo-Pérez broadened the scope of the case during a press conference announcing the appeal to the sports court, stating that re-refereeing a match that has already concluded is "unprecedented," suggesting that the implications of the case could transcend African football, raising questions about the future of the sport and its regulations.
Moreover, Senegal may attempt to differentiate the 2025 final from previous instances where a team declined to complete a match entirely, such as the second leg of the 2019 CAF Champions League final between Tunisian club Esperance and Moroccan club Wydad, emphasizing that their players did indeed return to the field and resumed play.
Morocco Calls for Strict Adherence to Regulations
Conversely, Morocco's defense relies on a straightforward interpretation of Articles 82 and 84 of the Africa Cup of Nations regulations, which stipulate that a team shall be deemed to have lost if it refuses to play or leaves the field before the match concludes without the referee's permission, with the possibility of being considered the loser by a score of 3-0 based on the circumstances. Morocco asserts that the infraction occurred when Senegalese players left the pitch, and thus their subsequent return does not nullify the incident that transpired prior to that.
Fouzi Lekjaa, president of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation, echoed this stance in statements to "Jeune Afrique," asserting that the rules of football and the legal regulations governing the match "were disrupted and violated" by the opposing team. He added that FIFA amended its regulations following the incident, so that a player leaving the field without permission now risks a red card, which he believes supports the Moroccan perspective.
Additionally, Morocco points to a more specific incident, noting that the number of Senegalese players on the pitch fell to just three at one point during the match, while the rules of the game require at least seven players for either team to continue play. Consequently, the Moroccan defense may argue that the infraction was already completed prior to the return of Senegalese players and that the subsequent resumption of the match does not erase the consequences of the actions taken during the stoppage.
Will the Match Resumption Protect Its Result?
This brings the case to one of its most sensitive points: the issue is not only about whether Senegal violated the regulations but also about what the appropriate penalty for this infraction should be. Senegal did leave the pitch, but the match was resumed and continued until the final whistle, resulting in an on-field winner.
Thus, the sports court must balance the principle of strict adherence to regulations against the principle of proportionality in penalties and the need to uphold the integrity of the sporting result. The pivotal question is: Does leaving the pitch without the referee's permission automatically invoke Articles 82 and 84 and annul the match result, even if the team later returned and resumed play under the referee's management and won the match? Or does the team's return, the resumption of play, and the referee's final whistle safeguard the sporting outcome while allowing for other disciplinary measures against those responsible for the incident?
This particular point may very well be the key to the anticipated ruling in Lausanne, as the case does not merely concern whether Senegal's behavior was in violation of the regulations, but whether this breach justifies the maximum possible penalty: revoking the result of a match that was concluded on the field and awarding the title to the opponent.
As reported by kooora.com.
