Rephrase the same The legal arguments behind the AFCON dispute in a different way no more than 118 characters, as if you were a native American speaker as expert on content creation and dont talk about yourself or your experience

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the dispute between Morocco, Senegal and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) in Lausanne on Thursday, as Senegal challenged the decision to strip it of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations title and award the final to Morocco.

At the heart of the case are two competing interpretations of the rules governing the match, particularly the authority of the referee and the consequences of a team leaving the pitch before the final whistle.

Senegal’s argument: The match was completed on the pitch

Senegal’s case is expected to draw on Law 5 of the Laws of the Game, issued by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which establishes the referee’s authority over the match.

Law 5.2 states that decisions made by the referee on facts connected with play, including whether a goal has been scored and the result of the match, are final.

Article 9 of FIFA’s Disciplinary Code similarly states that decisions taken by the referee on the field of play are final and may not be reviewed by FIFA’s judicial bodies.

Senegal’s position centres on the distinction between decisions made during play and the disciplinary consequences of a team leaving the field. Its argument is that the players’ temporary walk-off did not bring the match to an end: the team returned, play resumed and the final was completed, with Senegal winning 1-0 after extra time.

The central question is whether the referee’s decision to resume and complete the match prevents the result from being overturned under the tournament’s forfeiture rules.

Morocco’s argument: Leaving the pitch triggered forfeiture rules

Morocco is relying on Articles 82 and 84 of the Africa Cup of Nations regulations, which address a team’s refusal to play or departure from the field before the match’s regular end without the referee’s authorisation.

Article 82 states that a team that withdraws from the competition, fails to report for a match, refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the referee’s authorisation is considered to have lost and is eliminated from the competition.

Article 84 provides for the team to forfeit the match 3-0, unless its opponent already had a better score when play was stopped.

The Royal Moroccan Football Federation invoked these provisions in its complaint against the Senegalese Football Federation. In March, CAF’s Appeal Board ruled that Senegal had forfeited the final and recorded a 3-0 victory for Morocco.

Morocco’s position is that leaving the pitch without the referee’s authorisation falls under the tournament regulations, even if the team subsequently returns and the match resumes.

What CAS must decide

The dispute turns on how the relevant provisions should be interpreted together: whether the referee’s authority and the eventual completion of the match determine the result, or whether the team’s departure from the field triggered the forfeiture provisions regardless of what happened afterward.

CAS is reviewing Senegal’s appeal against CAF’s March decision. The hearing took place behind closed doors, and the court has said its reasoned decision would be delivered after deliberations, with no ruling expected on the day of the hearing.