AFCON 25:Two Cases, Two Rules:The Schizophrenia of CAF, Lord of Contradictory Decisions

 

By C J N and Vincent Oghenerukevwe 

African football’s governing body, Confederation of African Football, is once again under intense scrutiny following its controversial decision to strip Senegal of their AFCON title 58 days after they were crowned champions.

The ruling, which has sparked outrage across the continent, has reignited long-standing concerns about inconsistency in CAF’s disciplinary decisions concerns now being amplified by a strikingly similar case from 2024 involving Moroccan side RS Berkane.

In the earlier incident during the 2023/24 CAF Confederation Cup, RS Berkane of Morocco reportedly refused to take to the pitch against Algeria’s USM Algiers, remaining in the dressing room amid tensions surrounding their match. In what many observers described as a surprising move, CAF initially awarded a 3-0 victory to the Moroccan club.

The decision raised eyebrows at the time, as it appeared to contradict standard disciplinary expectations in football, where refusal to play typically attracts sanctions against the offending team. Critics argued that the ruling set a dangerous precedent and questioned the impartiality of CAF’s decision-making process.

However, the matter did not end there. The Court of Arbitration for Sport—the highest authority for resolving sports disputes globally—later intervened and overturned the decision. In its findings, CAS upheld an appeal by the Algerian Football Federation, effectively nullifying CAF’s earlier stance and reinforcing the principle of neutrality and adherence to established regulations.

Fast forward to 2026, and CAF finds itself at the center of another storm. This time, Senegal has been sanctioned for actions during the AFCON final, leading to the unprecedented decision to revoke their title weeks after their victory. While CAF maintains that its ruling aligns with tournament regulations, critics argue that the governing body has once again demonstrated a lack of consistency.

Observers note the contrast: in one case, a team that refused to play was initially rewarded; in another, a national team faces severe punishment after the fact. For many, this inconsistency fuels perceptions of bias and undermines confidence in CAF’s disciplinary framework.

Football stakeholders across Africa are now calling for greater transparency, uniform application of rules, and reforms that will restore credibility to the continent’s football governance.

As the dust settles, one thing is clear: CAF’s handling of disciplinary matters is under the microscope like never before. And unless addressed, these recurring controversies risk eroding trust in African football’s highest authority.