A new legal argument has emerged following the controversial ruling of the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) 2025 final, potentially casting doubt on the decision to award the title to Morocco national football team.
The Confederation of African Football (CAF) based its ruling on Articles 82 to 84 of its competition regulations, which outline sanctions including forfeiture and disqualification in cases where teams fail to complete fixtures.
However, there seems to be a competing principle within the Laws of the Game; the authority and finality of decisions made by the referee.
Central to this argument is Rule 5.2, which states that decisions made by the referee on matters connected to play, including goals and the final result, are definitive and must be respected.
Referee’s role under scrutiny
The controversy focuses on the actions of referee Jean-Jacques Ngambo Ndala during the final in Rabat. Despite disruptions that ultimately led to Senegal being sanctioned, the referee did not abandon the match. Instead, play was allowed to continue until full time, effectively confirming an on-field result.
This has become a central pillar in a potential appeal by Senegal national football team. The argument questions whether CAF can later overturn a result that was completed and validated by the match official.
Critics argue that once the referee exercised his authority and allowed the game to conclude, Rule 5.2 should take precedence over administrative decisions taken after the match.
Comparisons with past controversy
The situation has drawn parallels with the 2019 CAF Champions League final involving Espérance Sportive de Tunis and Wydad AC.
In that case, referee Bakary Gassama awarded the match to Espérance after Wydad refused to continue playing. CAF’s executive committee, then led by Ahmad Ahmad, later ordered a replay — a decision that proved controversial.
The ruling was subsequently overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which sided with Espérance. The decision reinforced the expectation that CAF must act in line with both its own regulations and the Laws of the Game.
Legal questions emerge
A similar legal confrontation may now be developing. CAF maintains that its regulations require strict enforcement, with forfeiture resulting in a 3–0 loss and disqualification.
However, opposing voices argue that such rules cannot supersede the authority of the referee once a match has been completed.
This raises key questions that could ultimately be decided by CAS, including whether administrative regulations take precedence over a referee’s final decision, or whether Rule 5.2 protects the result recorded on the pitch.
Implications for both teams
For Senegal, the argument could underpin a formal appeal aimed at reinstating them as champions based on the referee’s confirmation of the match outcome.
For Morocco, CAF’s ruling remains in force, affirming their title under the governing body’s disciplinary framework.
Wider impact on African football
Beyond the immediate dispute over the trophy, the case is shaping into a broader examination of governance within African football.
If the matter proceeds to CAS, it could once again highlight tensions between regulatory enforcement and the authority of match officials, an issue that has surfaced in previous CAF decisions.
With legal precedent, competition rules and referee authority now intersecting, the final outcome of AFCON 2025 may ultimately depend not only on events on the pitch, but also on how the rules are interpreted off it.
