Key developments in the CAN 2025 final controversy

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) made a landmark decision on March 17, invalidating Senegal’s victory in the CAN 2025 final against Morocco (1-0 a.e.t.) on January 18. The Lions of Teranga have been handed a 3-0 forfeit win, effectively awarding the title to Morocco despite their loss on the pitch.

• The CAF Appeal Board ruled that Senegal’s walk-off protest during the match violated tournament regulations.
• The Senegalese Football Federation has 10 days to file an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
• Morocco’s football federation accepted the decision while emphasizing their focus on regulatory compliance.

What triggered the CAF’s decision?

During added time in the final, Morocco was awarded a penalty after a contentious foul. In protest, most Senegalese players left the field, leading to a 20-minute delay as their supporters invaded the pitch. The match resumed chaotically before Pape Gueye scored in extra time to give Senegal the win. The Moroccan federation immediately filed a complaint, citing match abandonment as grounds for disqualification.

The CAF Appeal Board concluded that Senegal’s actions fell under Articles 82 and 84 of the CAN regulations, which mandate a forfeiture and 3-0 victory for the opposing team in such cases. These articles state:

• “Any team leaving the field before the match ends without referee permission is declared loser and eliminated.”
• “Teams violating these provisions are disqualified and lose by 3-0.”

Reaction from both federations

Senegalese players reacted with disbelief online, with midfielder Pape Demba Diop calling the decision “insane” and teammate Moussa Niakhaté urging followers to “come get them” for the trophy. The Moroccan federation, while acknowledging the ruling, reiterated that their protest was about regulatory compliance, not contesting sporting performance.

With the CAS appeal deadline approaching, football authorities in Dakar are expected to challenge the decision. The unprecedented ruling has sparked debates about fairness and the interpretation of match abandonment rules in high-stakes tournaments.