The Confederation of African Football’s decision to strip Senegal of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations title and award it to Morocco two months after the final whistle is nothing short of catastrophic. This ruling, handed down by CAF’s appeal board on March 17, does not merely rewrite history – it fundamentally undermines the credibility of African football itself.
Let us be clear about what transpired. Senegal won the final on the pitch. Pape Gueye scored in extra time, and the Teranga Lions celebrated a legitimate second continental crown. The fact that Senegalese players briefly left the field after a contentious stoppage-time penalty was awarded to Morocco is undisputed.
But the punishment bears no relation to the infraction. Article 84 of the Afcon regulations, which allows for a match forfeiture, was designed for scenarios where a team refuses to play or abandons a match entirely. Senegal returned. Senegal won. And yet, CAF’s appeal board ruled that the team “forfeited” the final and recorded a 3-0 victory for Morocco.
The damage here extends far beyond Senegal’s dressing room. This decision tells every player, coach and supporter across the continent that the result on the pitch is no longer final. It creates a dangerous precedent where legal manoeuvring can overturn sporting achievement weeks after the fact.
Which brings us to the role of CAF president Patrice Motsepe. Could he have intervened? The answer is complex. Motsepe has, to his credit, established a clear separation between CAF’s executive arm and its judicial bodies. The appeal board is composed of independent legal professionals – including Nigerian High Court Justice Roli Daibo Harriman as president – and was designed to operate without political interference. Motsepe has emphasised this independence, noting that the disciplinary board and appeal board reached “totally different” decisions, which he argues proves they function autonomously.
If Motsepe had stepped in to overturn or pressure the appeal board, the outcry would have been immediate and justified. In this sense, Motsepe was trapped by the very structures he helped create.
But this defence only goes so far. Motsepe appointed the members of these boards. If they have produced a decision this manifestly unjust, the president bears responsibility for the quality of his appointments. Moreover, the perception that Motsepe is a “Morocco puppet”, a label that has followed him for years, has now been cemented in the minds of many. Whether fair or not, optics matter in leadership, and the optics here are devastating.
The appeal board’s ruling has also exposed troubling inconsistencies. While stripping Senegal of the title, the board simultaneously reduced sanctions against Morocco for ball boy misconduct and laser use by fans.
Senegal has rightly announced it will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and Motsepe deserves credit for welcoming the appeal and pledging to respect CAS’s decision. But the damage is done. African football has long battled a stigma of disorganisation and mistrust. This ruling inflames the stigma.
