AFCON 2025 — The CAF Appeals Jury Decision and the Berkane Precedent: A Legal Reading, Sober and Decisive
The decision of the Appeals Jury of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to strip Senegal of a victory earned on the pitch and award the Africa Cup of Nations to Morocco by administrative decision (on a “green table”) appears, upon examination, vitiated by manifest illegality, devoid of any persuasive legal basis and, as such, destined for clear annulment by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
This is not a mere disagreement over interpretation, nor a debatable exercise of discretion. The reasoning adopted reflects a fundamental error in legal classification and collides head‑on with the core principles of sports law—legality, proportionality, legal certainty, and the stability of competitions. By persisting in such a logic, CAF risks opening an institutional breach whose consequences could be lasting—not only for the outcome of a tournament, but for the credibility of the continental sporting order itself.
1) A Regulatory Basis Invoked… but Misapplied
In an attempt to justify its decision, CAF has taken refuge in Chapter 35 of its regulations, devoted to “Withdrawals,” and more specifically in Articles 82 and 84. These provisions govern exceptional situations in which a team withdraws from a match, triggering the most severe sanction: a forfeit defeat.
But their application is anything but automatic. They are subject to strict and cumulative conditions, namely:
- the withdrawal must be definitive,
- it must occur before the match has been completed, and
- above all, it must be formally recorded by the referee, through a clear, explicit, and unequivocal refusal to resume play.
In the situation described, none of these requirements is satisfied.
2) The Central Defect: Confusing a Temporary Interruption with a Definitive Withdrawal
The crux of the matter lies in a confusion—indeed, an assimilation—that is legally untenable: CAF has treated a temporary interruption as though it were a definitive withdrawal.
This distinction is essential. A withdrawal presupposes a collective, clear, and irreversible intention not to continue the match. An interruption—even if accompanied by protest—does not automatically produce the same legal consequences.
The facts, as reported, are unequivocal: while certain Senegalese players may have briefly left the field to express their disagreement, not all did—and more importantly, all players returned, play resumed on the referee’s instruction, and the match ran its natural course to its conclusion. Senegal won on the field.
In law, such a scenario amounts—at most—to an incident potentially warranting disciplinary sanctions, but cannot be elevated to an abandonment within the meaning of the regulatory provisions governing withdrawal.
3) The Determining Element: The Referee Never Recorded a Definitive Refusal
One fact eliminates any ambiguity: the referee never recorded a definitive refusal to resume the match, a condition expressly required by Chapter 35. On the contrary, the referee ordered play to restart, thereby confirming that the conditions for continuation were met.
In the legal architecture of football—as framed by the Laws of the Game and by FIFA’s normative order—the referee is the sole master of the field. The referee’s decisions are not incidental; they carry decisive legal consequences. They structure the classification of events and define the framework within which disciplinary bodies may subsequently exercise their authority.
4) Alignment with CAS Case Law: A Forfeit Is Not a Retrospective Legal Fiction
This reading is fully supported by the consistent jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. CAS recalls, with rigor, that the qualification of an abandonment leading to a forfeit is strictly circumscribed and may be retained only in the presence of cumulative elements, namely:
- a clear refusal to play,
- a failure to return to the field, and
- a definitive impossibility of continuing the match.
Absent these, no abandonment in the legal sense can be established.
Here, there was neither a definitive refusal, nor an absence of return, nor an impossibility to continue. On the contrary, the match resumed and concluded normally. CAS case law is consistent on a cardinal point: it protects the result obtained on the pitch, requires indisputable proof of a definitive abandonment, and rejects opportunistic ex post reclassifications designed to rewrite the outcome of a match.
5) The “Purging” Effect of Completion: A Finished Match Is Not Easily Erased
Furthermore, the resumption and completion of the match produce a decisive legal effect: they neutralize the initial incident. Once the match has been completed and the result secured on the field, it cannot be erased retroactively through a contested reclassification.
This principle is rooted in a fundamental requirement of legal certainty: competitions cannot function if results remain perpetually revisable on the basis of an elastic reading of notions as grave as “withdrawal.”
6) An Institutional Contradiction: From Discipline to Total Reversal of the Result
Another factor deepens the decision’s fragility: CAF reportedly initially imposed proportionate disciplinary sanctions (suspensions, fines, collective measures). In doing so, CAF effectively acknowledged that the facts fell within the framework of a valid match and amounted to a disciplinary breach.
To subsequently reverse course and convert a sporting victory into an administrative defeat reflects a manifest contradiction, bordering on an abuse of power, and is difficult to defend under principles of coherence, proportionality, and equal treatment.
7) A Nearly Unprecedented Anomaly: Reclassifying a Completed Match as a Forfeit
The decision is all the more shocking because it is, in practice, almost without precedent in world football. Forfeits do exist, of course, but they typically arise when the match was not played or could not be completed. To reclassify—after the fact—a match that was completed and validated by the referee as a forfeit constitutes a major legal anomaly, directly contrary to the fundamental principle of stability in sporting results.
8) Beyond Law: A Question of Integrity and Trust
Beyond legal technique, this case raises a more serious question: the integrity of African football. By seeking to rewrite a match played and won on the pitch, CAF weakens its own credibility and inevitably fuels a climate of suspicion surrounding its governance.
Such a drift fosters the perception that extra‑sporting considerations may interfere with the work of the institutions—and that is precisely what sports law, by its very philosophy, aims to prevent.
Legal Convergence with RS Berkane v. USM Alger (2024): A Structuring Precedent
This analysis examines the convergence between the CAS decision in RS Berkane v. USM Alger (2024) and the pending dispute between the Senegalese Football Federation and CAF regarding AFCON 2025. The question is the extent to which the jurisprudence developed in the former may serve as a decisive reference in the latter, in light of jurisprudential coherence, legal certainty, and proportionality.
I. The Berkane Case: Qualifying the Violation While Preserving Sporting Effects
CAF then awarded RS Berkane two forfeit victories (3–0), qualifying the club for the final.
- A clear legal qualification: recognition of a political representation and invalidation of CAF’s prior approval, based on the principle of neutrality.
- A limitation of consequences: despite the violation, CAS refused to rewrite the competition retroactively; RS Berkane’s qualification was maintained and no replay was ordered.
II. The Doctrine of Non‑Retroactive Correction: Legality and Legal Certainty
- legality (correcting the violation), and
- legal certainty (preserving the stability of results).
III. The Senegal–CAF Dispute: Structural Analogies
B. Three major convergences
- challenge of a confederation act before CAS;
- allegation of misclassification attributable to CAF;
- the same tension between legal correction and sporting stability.
IV. Applying the Berkane Precedent: A Scenario of Coherence
If CAS applies the logic already established:
- annulment of CAF’s irregular decision,
- restoration of Senegal’s title as a consequence of correcting the administrative act, and
- preservation of sporting results, consistent with the stability principle.
Conversely, an unreasoned departure would expose CAS to criticism for inconsistency, at significant symbolic cost.
V. Equal Treatment: The Strategic Pivot
The principle of equal treatment requires that analogous situations receive comparable responses unless objectively justified. Any difference in remedy, absent adequate reasoning, would weaken the normative force of jurisprudence and introduce structural uncertainty into the African sporting order.
VI. Institutional Implications
A coherent decision would strengthen:
- CAS’s role as guarantor of legal coherence,
- the requirement that CAF apply its rules rigorously and proportionately, and
- the stabilization of competitions.
An incoherent solution, by contrast, would invite multiplying disputes and a lasting crisis of trust.
Conclusion
The Berkane jurisprudence has already established a clear doctrine: finding an irregularity and annulling an administrative decision does not necessarily entail rewriting sporting results. Rooted in proportionality and legal certainty, that doctrine should, by coherence, inform analogous disputes.
The Senegal–CAF case goes far beyond a title: it tests the coherence of international sports justice and CAS’s capacity to remain the demanding guardian of a sporting rule of law in Africa.
The forthcoming decision will not be a mere award: it may become a foundational act for African football law.
Comments
Post a Comment