New AS Report Exposes What Happened in the 2025 AFCON Final

Rabat – A report published by Spanish outlet AS has added another layer to the ongoing dispute over the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final, shifting attention back to the sequence of events on the pitch and the decisions taken during the interruption that followed.

Nearly 80 days after the match, the outcome remains under legal review. Senegal lifted the trophy on the night, but CAF’s Appeal Board later ruled the match a forfeit, awarding Morocco a 3-0 win. The case now sits with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

What happened in Rabat

According to AS, the final turned-in stoppage time was when the referee awarded a penalty to Morocco in the 97th minute. The decision triggered a strong reaction from Senegal’s players and staff.

The report states that most of the Senegal squad promptly abandoned the pitch and headed straight for the dressing room, forcing a lengthy suspension while officials scrambled to restore order. That moment remains central to the case.

The interruption was neither brief nor limited to routine protests. It was a blatant walkout in the middle of active play, leaving the match in utter chaos.

Pre-match complaints and context

AS also details a string of complaints raised by Senegal in the days leading up to the final. These included travel arrangements to Rabat, accommodation conditions, and even allegations concerning training facilities

On the travel issue, the report notes that CAF had proposed alternative arrangements to prevent disruption. Sources cited by AS said Senegal chose to stick with the original plan, fully aware of potential complications.

The outlet also addresses claims of “espionage” at the Mohammed VI training complex. Senegal had argued that sharing the facility compromised tactical privacy.

But sources cited in the report describe Senegal’s scenario as unlikely, pointing to the vast scale of the Mohammed VI complex and the fact that multiple teams had used the same facilities without raising similar concerns.

The center features 14 soccer fields and a range of additional amenities, making the alleged scenario logistically implausible.

During the tournament, teams such as Cameroon shared the facilities with Morocco ahead of their quarter-final encounter without any incident. At the time, they did not file complaints or raise concerns about privacy.

On the contrary, they described the accommodations provided by the local federation as comfortable and satisfactory.

What the rules say

Article 82 states that a team that refuses to play or leaves the pitch without authorization is considered to have lost the match. Article 84 outlines the disciplinary consequences that follow.

The rules do not set a minimum duration, do not hinge on intent, and offer no mechanism to reverse the act once a team leaves the field.

That is why the sequence matters more than the surrounding context. Once players abandon the pitch, the regulations attach consequences to that action.

The AS report also cites information first published by the French newspaper Le Monde.

According to them, instructions were given during the interruption to avoid further bookings for Senegal players, which could have resulted in expulsions.

This detail matters. At least two Senegal players had already received yellow cards, and another booking would have forced them off the pitch. Instead, the decision was made to hold back, allowing the match to continue.

The legal question is not whether the match resumed, but whether the initial act of leaving the pitch falls under CAF’s disciplinary framework.

CAF’s Appeal Board answered that question by treating the incident as a withdrawal rather than a simple protest.

What comes next

The case now moves to CAS, where the focus will remain narrow.

CAS will not revisit the atmosphere of the match, the disputed penalty, or Senegal’s pre-match complaints. Its task is strictly to determine whether CAF correctly applied its regulations to the facts established in the report.

As things stand, both the documents and facts and the applicable rules favor Morocco