When the final whistle sounded in Rabat and Senegal lifted the TotalEnergies AFCON 2025 trophy, the football was over but for the Confederation of African Football (CAF), a far more complex process had only just begun.
What unfolded at the Stade Prince Moulay Abdellah during and after the final between hosts Morocco and Senegal has now become one of the most legally sensitive moments in modern AFCON history.
Behind closed doors, CAF is now dealing with one of the most complex disciplinary and governance situations in AFCON history, involving a stoppage-time VAR decision, a temporary walk-off by the defending champions, crowd disorder, security failures, alleged external interference, and post-match statements that questioned the credibility of African football’s flagship event.
This is no longer a story driven by emotion or outrage. It is one governed by CAF statutes, disciplinary codes, safety regulations, and legal risk management, with one overriding concern: how to enforce discipline without exposing CAF to appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) or undermining the legitimacy of its flagship event.
From a CAF governance and regulations lens, this is how the chaos unfolded and how CAF is expected to respond.
AFCON 2025 Final: How the VAR Controversy Unfolded in Rabat
The AFCON 2025 final between hosts Morocco and defending champions Senegal was goalless deep into stoppage time.
Tension was already high following Senegal’s pre-match complaints about Morocco’s “gamesmanship” and perceived crowd influence.
Inside Stade Prince Moulay Abdellah, the atmosphere was volatile as the clock ticked toward penalties.
The Incident That Triggered VAR
In the sixth minute of stoppage time, Morocco forward, Brahim Díaz drove into the Senegal penalty area. Defender El Hadji Malick Diouf made contact from behind, placing both hands on Díaz. The Moroccan forward went down.
Referee Jean-Jacques Ndala initially waved play on. Seconds later, VAR intervened.
After a pitch-side review, Ndala ruled that Diouf’s contact constituted a foul inside the box. Penalty to Morocco.
That decision detonated the final.
The Walk-Off and the Breakdown
Senegal Leave the Pitch
Furious Senegal players surrounded the referee. Moments later, head coach Pape Thiaw instructed his players to leave the pitch. Substitutes and technical staff followed.
It was unclear whether the action was:
- a security precaution, or
- an active protest against the VAR decision.
Either way, the match was suspended for approximately 14 minutes, pushing the final to the brink of abandonment.
Crowd Disorder and Security Failures
As play stopped, the situation inside the stadium deteriorated rapidly:
- Senegal supporters attempted to climb advertising hoardings
- Objects were thrown onto the pitch
- Electronic boards were damaged
- Riot police were deployed late
- A steward was injured and stretchered off
- Disorder spilled into media areas, with reports of clashes in the press tribune
For several minutes, AFCON 2025 final was on the verge of collapse.
Mané, the Missed Penalty, and the Turning Point
Senegal captain, Sadio Mané went into the dressing room and convinced his teammates to return. Senegal resumed play under protest.
During the prolonged delay:
- Édouard Mendy was booked for interfering with the penalty spot
- Arguments broke out between Ismael Saibari and Abdoulaye Seck
When order was restored, Brahim Díaz finally stepped up, more than ten minutes after the penalty was awarded.
He attempted a panenka. Mendy saved.
Momentum swung instantly.
In extra time, Pape Gueye struck a thunderous winner. Senegal defended resolutely and claimed a 1–0 victory, lifting their second AFCON title in five years.
CAF DISCIPLINARY: Who Faces Sanctions After the Chaotic AFCON 2025 Final?
Behind the scenes, CAF is now reviewing reports from match officials, security officers, competition delegates, and video footage.
Multiple regulatory breaches are under assessment.
1. Senegal Leaving the Pitch: Protest or Refusal to Play?
Relevant CAF Law
- CAF Disciplinary Code (CDC) Article 82:- Refusal to continue a match
- CAF CDC Article 83:- Disruption of a match
- CAF Competition Regulations Article 38:- Obligation to complete matches
Legal Threshold
For severe sanctions such as forfeiture or suspension, CAF must prove:
- Intentional refusal to continue the match
- No overriding security justification
- Failure to resume play
That threshold is not met.
Senegal returned to the pitch, completed the match, and cited security concerns amid visible crowd unrest, a major mitigating factor under CAF jurisprudence.
Likely Interpretation
- Article 82: Not applicable
- Article 83: Applicable
Probable Sanctions
- Official reprimand
- Moderate fine
- Possible suspended touchline warning for Thiaw
2. Crowd Disorder and Stadium Security: Morocco’s Biggest Exposure
Relevant CAF Law
- CAF CDC Article 67(1):- Failure to maintain order and security
- CAF Safety and Security Regulations Article 17:- Strict liability of host association
- CAF Competition Regulations Article 82:- Host responsibilities
Key Legal Principle: Strict Liability
CAF operates strict liability. It does not matter which supporters caused the disorder. If disorder occurs, the host association is responsible.
Probable Sanctions
- Substantial financial fines
- Official warning or probation
- Partial stadium closure for future CAF matches
- Mandatory security audit for future hosting rights
3. Player Conduct: No Retrospective Bans Expected
Relevant CAF Law
- CAF CDC Article 47:- Unsporting behaviour
- CAF CDC Article 48:- Violent conduct
- CAF CDC Article 56:- Improper conduct by team officials
No red cards were issued. The referee managed incidents in real time.
CAF rarely imposes retrospective bans unless violent conduct was missed and clearly documented. That standard is unlikely to be met here.
4. Ball Attendants and Alleged External Interference
Relevant CAF Law
- CAF Competition Regulations Article 61:- Ball attendants under LOC authority
- CAF CDC Article 46:- Unfair play
CAF treats these as organisational failures, not sporting offences, unless manipulation is proven and the likely response is: internal warnings, administrative fines, and revised protocols, not public disciplinary charges.
5. Walid Regragui’s Statements: Free Speech vs Disrepute
Relevant CAF Law
- CAF CDC Article 49:- Offensive or damaging statements
- CAF CDC Article 72:- Bringing the game into disrepute
Regragui described the match as “shameful for Africa” and accused Senegal’s coach of lacking class.
Probable sanction: warning or fine. CAF historically avoids suspensions for post-match comments alone.
6. Refereeing and VAR: Why There Will Be No Charges
Under CAF Refereeing Regulations and the IFAB VAR Protocol:
- Errors in judgment are not disciplinary offences
- Referees are assessed internally, not through judicial bodies
Any action will be administrative and confidential.
What CAF Is Really Trying to Protect
CAF’s disciplinary strategy is driven by three priorities:
- Protecting tournament integrity
- Avoiding CAS exposure
- Preserving host federation relationships
That means:
- No replay
- No title controversy
- No ruling that suggests the final was illegitimate
Final Legal Verdict
- Senegal’s title is untouchable
- Morocco faces the heaviest sanctions as host
- Pape Thiaw likely reprimanded, not punished
- Walid Regragui likely fined, not suspended
The AFCON 2025 final will be remembered for chaos on the pitch. But behind the scenes, CAF’s legal machinery is working toward a single outcome:
Contain the damage. Protect the trophy. Reform quietly.
