CAF Strips Senegal of Africa Cup Title: Are Referees’ Decisions on Matters of Fact Still Protected?

In a spectacular turn of events, the CAF Appeal Board stripped the previous Africa Cup winner Senegal of its title. In doing so, the sports tribunal of the African football association overrides the discretionary decision of the referee. The officiating team led by Congolese referee Jean-Jacques Ndala had decided during the final not to classify the match as abandoned or forfeited after the Senegalese team collectively left the pitch. This decision has now been revised by the CAF Appeal Board. The ruling thus joins a series of interventions by sports arbitration bodies into the authority of referees. The case evokes memories of the decision by the DFB Federal Court following the re-evaluation of the Bundesliga match between 1. FC Union Berlin and VfL Bochum.

Controversial Final Match

On January 18 of this year, Senegal defeated Morocco in a controversial final (1–0 after extra time). Shortly before the end of regular time, referee Jean-Jacques Ndala awarded Morocco a disputed penalty after consulting the video assistant referee. The Senegalese national team then left the pitch collectively in protest on instructions from their head coach Pape Thiaw. Some players, led by captain Sadio Mané, remained on the field and brought their teammates back after an interruption of almost twenty minutes. Penalty taker Brahim Díaz failed against Senegalese goalkeeper Édouard Mendy, and Senegal ultimately secured victory through a goal by Pape Gueye in extra time.

Appeal and Decision on Complaint

The Moroccan Football Federation subsequently lodged an appeal against the match result. On January 29, the CAF Disciplinary Board ruled at first instance and rejected the appeal. It found that the conduct of the Senegalese team did not violate Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON competition regulations. The Moroccan federation then appealed this decision to the CAF Appeal Board.

On March 17, the CAF Appeal Board ruled on various legal remedies, sanctions, and complaints related to the final, including the appeal (press release of the decision). It declared the appeal admissible and well-founded. The decision of the CAF Disciplinary Board was overturned. The Appeal Board held that the conduct of the Senegalese team fell within the scope of Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON regulations: the team’s behavior constituted a violation of Article 82. According to Article 84, the match was therefore to be declared lost for Senegal. Consequently, the result was recorded as a 3–0 victory for Morocco. The Senegalese federation then announced an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which represents the final instance in sports arbitration—at least where no EU law is involved.

Is the Decision Justifiable?

The CAF Appeal Board’s decision triggered controversial reactions worldwide. But is it fundamentally defensible under the rules of the game? As always, a look at the regulations helps clarify the legal position:

Article 82 of the CAF rules applies when a team withdraws from an ongoing competition, fails to appear for a match, refuses to play, or leaves the field before the end of regular playing time without the referee’s permission. In such a case, the team is to be treated as having lost and is excluded from the tournament. In legal terms, this is a conditional rule: “if [condition], then [legal consequence].” The consequences are mandatory and leave no discretion regarding sanctions—what administrative lawyers would call a “bound decision.”

Who Was Responsible for the Decision?

However, the regulations leave two key questions unanswered: who must make this decision, and when? A systematic interpretation suggests two possible authorities: the organizing committee or the referee.

The organizing committee’s competence would follow from Article 4.2.3, which assigns it responsibility for decisions on appeals. However, such decisions are based on the referee’s match report, meaning the committee can only act retrospectively.

The referee’s authority arises indirectly via a general reference: under Article 16.9, all matches must be played in accordance with the “Laws of the Game” (IFAB rules). Rule 5.1 states: “Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.” Rule 5.3 specifies that the referee may stop, suspend, or abandon the match for any offences or because of outside interference. Abandonment is the ultima ratio and should only occur after all reasonable means to continue the match have been exhausted.

In the absence of any other allocation in the CAF rules, the referee is therefore responsible—at least on the field—for decisions regarding exclusion and automatic defeat.

Was Abandonment of the Match Possible?

Under football rules, a match may be abandoned not only under Article 82 but also due to external interference. Unwritten, abandonment may also follow from Rule 3.1: if one or more players deliberately leave the field, the match cannot be resumed if a team has fewer than seven players. In such a case, only suspension or abandonment remains possible.

In the Africa Cup final, fewer than seven Senegalese players were clearly on the field after most had left. For this reason alone, the referee could have abandoned the match.

However, applying Article 82 raises another question: does it suffice if most players leave the field, or must “the team” mean the entire team? Given the severity of the mandatory consequence, proportionality suggests that the entire team must leave. “A team” means the team as a whole—not eight out of eleven players or a majority. The rules already provide for abandonment in such cases, but this remains within the referee’s discretion.

The CAF Appeal Board took a different view, holding that the departure of the overwhelming majority of players already fulfils Article 82. The Senegalese federation intends to challenge this before the CAS. A key argument will likely be Rule 5.2 of the IFAB Laws: referees decide to the best of their knowledge and judgment, and their decisions on facts are final—including decisions on goals and match results. This should also include the decision whether or not to abandon a match.

Are Decisions on Matters of Fact Still Protected?

This is where things become more complex: decisions under Article 82 would generally also qualify as factual decisions by the referee. In such cases, the referee assesses facts perceived and subsumes them under the rules, enjoying a margin of judgment. Unlike in administrative law, this margin is not subject to subsequent review, as stated in Rule 5.2.

In the final, the referee appears to have exercised exactly this discretion: he determined that Senegal had not definitively or completely left the field and therefore did not consider Article 82 fulfilled.

Interestingly, the CAF Appeal Board may have bypassed Article 44.1 of the CAF rules. While appeals against decisions of the CAF Disciplinary Board are possible, this does not apply to decisions declared final. However, this “finality” concerns decisions of the Disciplinary Board—not the referee’s factual decisions under Rule 5.2. Crucially, the CAS proceedings will depend on what the referee recorded in his match report.

The CAF Appeal Board replaced the referee’s assessment with its own and retrospectively treated the match as abandoned. This recalls the Bundesliga match between Union Berlin and Bochum in December 2024. After a lighter was thrown at the Bochum goalkeeper, the match was interrupted and later finished without attacking play (“non-aggression pact”). It was subsequently re-evaluated as a “de facto abandonment” and awarded 2–0 to Bochum instead of 1–1. In that case, sports jurisdiction went even further by replacing not only the referee’s judgment but also his exercised discretion.

Conclusion

In the interest of sporting integrity and the protection of referees’ factual decisions, it is to be hoped that the Senegalese federation succeeds before the CAS. A continental final should not be decided retrospectively by a disciplinary body—this would contradict the spirit of competition. Moreover, the re-evaluation of matches at will, as seen in the Bochum case, should not be perpetuated.

In both cases, the final decisions—revising the results—did not align with substantive justice. Finally, the CAF Appeal Board’s ruling significantly weakens the position of referees within the framework of the rules of the game. The CAS should counteract this and uphold the original match result.