The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) has until May 7 to present its legal defense before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the ongoing dispute surrounding the CAN 2025 final. This deadline marks the initial phase of the federation’s response to an appeal filed by the Senegalese Football Federation (FSF) against both the FRMF and the Confederation of African Football (CAF).
The CAS confirmed on March 25 that it had received the FSF’s appeal against the CAF and FRMF. Under standard arbitration procedures, the appellant has 20 days to submit its written arguments. The defending parties—here, the FRMF and CAF—then receive an equal amount of time to file their counterarguments.
The FSF had requested a suspension of proceedings, which has delayed the establishment of a precise timeline or the scheduling of a potential hearing at this stage.
Insiders report that the FRMF is preparing a robust and meticulously constructed legal dossier, built with confidence in the eventual outcome of the proceedings. Matthieu Reeb, CAS Secretary General, emphasized the tribunal’s capability to handle such disputes fairly: «The CAS is fully equipped to resolve this type of conflict, with access to specialized and independent arbitrators. We understand that teams and fans are eager for a swift resolution. We will ensure the process advances efficiently while upholding the right to a fair trial for all parties involved.»
Background of the dispute
The FSF is challenging the March 17 decision by the CAF Appeals Jury, which upheld a forfeit loss for Senegal in the CAN 2025 final. This ruling came after the FRMF filed an appeal based on Articles 82 and 84 of the competition’s regulations.
On January 18, during the final match, Senegalese players left the pitch for 16 minutes at the instruction of coach Pape Thiaw, protesting a penalty awarded to Morocco in stoppage time of the second half.
What’s next?
The FRMF’s legal team is working against the May 7 deadline to submit its defense. The CAS has not yet set a hearing date, as the FSF’s request for a procedural pause remains in effect. Once the FRMF files its response, the tribunal will determine the next steps, including potential timelines for additional filings or an eventual hearing.
