Two months after the 2025 AFCON final won on the field by Senegal against Morocco, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) caused a shockwave by taking the title away from the Lions of Teranga and awarding it to the Atlas Lions by default (3-0).

Senegal has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) , contesting a decision deemed disproportionate. Lawyers Tatiana Vassine (Paris Bar) and Kalukanda Mashata (Lubumbashi Bar) analyze the flaws in this unprecedented sanction.

1. A "baffling" and unprecedented decision

Experts say we are facing a situation almost never seen before in top-level football.

1. Extreme firmness: According to Mr. Mashata, the CAF wanted to make a strong impression by sanctioning behavior deemed incompatible with the ethics of a final.
2. A legal vacuum: Ms. Vassine emphasizes the rarity of the measure: "Apart from doping, we are very unaccustomed to this type of challenge to a sporting result." The annulment of a major title two months after the event remains, according to her, "legally perplexing."

2. The debate on articles 82 and 84: an error of interpretation?

The CAF bases its sanction on two pillars of its regulations: Article 82 (disciplinary breaches) and Article 84 (forfeit in case of refusal to play). However, the application of these articles is a subject of debate.

1. Strict interpretation: Mr. Mashata points out that a forfeit is normally reserved for teams that abandon the match or refuse to resume play.
2. The paradox of regulation time: If Senegal finished the match (including extra time), can a "refusal to play" really be invoked? This is where the problem lies for CAF: Article 84 seems difficult to apply to a match that went to its conclusion.

3. The central role of the referee: "The chief of police"

Senegal's main argument before the CAS will undoubtedly be based on the referee's handling of the incident in the final.

"The referee is the guarantor of the game. If he doesn't definitively stop the match, it means the conditions were right to continue." — Attorney Kalukanda Mashata

Two crucial questions will be put to the judges in Lausanne:

1. Can we talk about the team leaving if some players stayed on the pitch?
2. Was there tacit authorization from the referee for the resumption of play? If the referee allowed the match to finish, the CAF's administrative sanction directly contradicts the reality on the field.

4. What should one expect at the CAS?

The Court of Arbitration for Sport will not judge the quality of the game, but the legality and proportionality of the sanction.

1. The protection of the sporting result: The CAS usually favours the truth of the field, except in cases of proven serious misconduct (corruption, doping).
2. Proportionality control: Mr. Mashata believes that Senegal has strong arguments to demonstrate that withdrawing a title for a temporary incident, when the match has resumed, is an excessive penalty.

In summary

Friction point	CAF's argument	Legal dispute
Legal basis	Articles 82 and 84 (Refusal to play)	The match was played to the end, so there was no forfeit.
Authority	Disciplinary power after the fact	The referee immediately confirmed the end of the match.
Sanction	Title withdrawn (3-0)	Lack of proportionality in relation to the facts.