Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
Rabat – French news outlet L’Équipe once again leans toward strong language rather than clear analysis in its coverage of the AFCON Case.
By placing the 18 Senegalese supporters arrested in Rabat for acts of vandalism at the center of the Morocco-Senegal case, and by using terms such as “diplomatic blackmail” and “sports gangsterism,” the outlet shifts the focus away from the legal and sporting facts that define this case.
The legal core of the case
On January 18, during the AFCON 2025 final in Rabat, Senegal’s players left the pitch in protest after a late penalty decision. The interruption lasted around 14 minutes before play resumed, and Senegal went on to win 1-0 after extra time.
CAF later reviewed the situation. On March 17, its Appeals Board ruled that Senegal had effectively withdrawn from the match under Articles 82 and 84. The body overturned the on-field result and awarded Morocco a 3-0 win.
Senegal filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on March 25. That process now holds the final decision. The case will turn on rules, procedure, and evidence, not on public narratives that favor Morocco.
View this post on Instagram
The issue of the supporters remains serious, but it belongs to a different track. Moroccan authorities charged the 18 individuals with violence against police, damage to property, pitch invasion, and throwing objects.
A court issued first-instance convictions, and the group appealed. The appeal hearing, initially scheduled earlier, was moved to March 30 after the defense asked for more time to prepare.
It shows that a legal process is underway, with the right to defense and appeal. That is not the same as a political dispute. It is a judicial case handled through the courts.
Blurring two different issues
This is where L’Équipe’s approach raises questions. A media outlet has every right to report on arrests and trial conditions. That is part of its role. But once it links a criminal case to the broader AFCON dispute, it risks mixing two separate matters.
The CAS file will focus on whether CAF applied its regulations correctly. The supporters’ case will focus on alleged criminal acts and the decisions of Moroccan courts. Combining both may create a stronger headline, but it weakens the clarity of the discussion.
Morocco hosted AFCON 2025 under close international attention. Reports after the tournament pointed to strong organization, modern infrastructure, and smooth logistics across venues.
On January 18, during the final in Rabat, that system faced real pressure. After the VAR penalty decision and Senegal’s walk-off, tension rose inside the stadium, and some supporters tried to move toward the pitch.
The moment became not only a test of football, but also a test of security standards. Morocco passed that test by showing that discipline and calm can prevent disorder, even in volatile situations. Security forces contained the situation without escalation, focusing on control rather than force.
Morocco also worked with international partners to strengthen security measures during the competition, aiming to protect large crowds and ensure safe conditions.
This approach did not happen by chance. It came from deliberate planning. Abdellatif Hammouchi personally reviewed match protocols, with emphasis on layered deployment, surveillance, and coordinated command, in line with modern risk-based models used in major tournaments.
The preparation also drew international attention. In early January, U.S. FBI officials visited Rabat to observe match-day security, including the use of drones, high-definition cameras, command centers, and coordination with the African Security Cooperation Center.
These efforts reflect preparation and coordination, not the image of a host struggling to manage a major event.
A pattern in the narrative
Recent coverage adds to the concern. Only days earlier, a claim circulated suggesting Morocco had walked off the pitch during the 1976 AFCON match against Guinea. The idea spread quickly before being challenged by those who were actually there.
Ismael Sylla, a former Guinea international who played in that match, rejected the false story.
He said Morocco did not leave the pitch and that the game continued normally until the end. The Guinea Football Federation also denied the story.
L’Équipe had shared the claim before removing it. The reference disappeared without a clear correction or public explanation. That raises a simple question: when a major outlet publishes a weak or unsupported claim, is deleting it enough?
Le journal français L’Équipe a finalement supprimé la fausse information relayée par des réseaux sénégalais, sans toutefois présenter d’excuses au football marocain.
Ce manque de professionnalisme récurrent démontre une nouvelle fois que ce média privilégie le sensationnalisme à… https://t.co/jtKlTVwawi pic.twitter.com/Apt2gu70Av— Hatim el mourabit (@HatimelMourabit) March 21, 2026
This pattern matters. Once a narrative takes hold, even briefly, it becomes difficult to correct.
None of this suggests that the supporters’ case should avoid scrutiny. It should remain under close attention. But that scrutiny must rely on facts, not loaded language.
Morocco’s position in the AFCON case rests on a defined legal framework, supported by official reports and CAF’s decision. The final outcome now depends on CAS.
The debate around this case will continue. But if the goal is to understand it, the focus must stay on evidence and rules, not on narratives that blur the line between separate issues.
Read also: L’Equipe’s 1976 AFCON Claim Does Not Hold Up Against the Record
Rabat – French news outlet L’Équipe once again leans toward strong language rather than clear analysis in its coverage of the AFCON Case.
By placing the 18 Senegalese supporters arrested in Rabat for acts of vandalism at the center of the Morocco-Senegal case, and by using terms such as “diplomatic blackmail” and “sports gangsterism,” the outlet shifts the focus away from the legal and sporting facts that define this case.
The legal core of the case
On January 18, during the AFCON 2025 final in Rabat, Senegal’s players left the pitch in protest after a late penalty decision. The interruption lasted around 14 minutes before play resumed, and Senegal went on to win 1-0 after extra time.
CAF later reviewed the situation. On March 17, its Appeals Board ruled that Senegal had effectively withdrawn from the match under Articles 82 and 84. The body overturned the on-field result and awarded Morocco a 3-0 win.
Senegal filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on March 25. That process now holds the final decision. The case will turn on rules, procedure, and evidence, not on public narratives that favor Morocco.
The issue of the supporters remains serious, but it belongs to a different track. Moroccan authorities charged the 18 individuals with violence against police, damage to property, pitch invasion, and throwing objects.
A court issued first-instance convictions, and the group appealed. The appeal hearing, initially scheduled earlier, moved to March 30 after the defense asked for more time to prepare.
It shows that a legal process is underway, with the right to defense and appeal. That is not the same as a political dispute. It is a judicial case handled through the courts.
Blurring two different issues
This is where L’Équipe’s approach raises questions. A media outlet has every right to report on arrests and trial conditions. That is part of its role. But once it links a criminal case to the broader AFCON dispute, it risks mixing two separate matters.
The CAS file will focus on whether CAF applied its regulations correctly. The supporters’ case will focus on alleged criminal acts and the decisions of Moroccan courts. Combining both may create a stronger headline, but it weakens the clarity of the discussion.
Morocco hosted AFCON 2025 under close international attention. Reports after the tournament pointed to strong organization, modern infrastructure, and smooth logistics across venues.
On January 18, during the final in Rabat, that system faced real pressure. After the VAR penalty decision and Senegal’s walk-off, tension rose inside the stadium, and some supporters tried to move toward the pitch.
The moment became not only a test of football, but also a test of security standards. Morocco passed that test by showing that discipline and calm can prevent disorder, even in volatile situations. Security forces contained the situation without escalation, focusing on control rather than force.
Morocco also worked with international partners to strengthen security measures during the competition, aiming to protect large crowds and ensure safe conditions.
This approach did not happen by chance. It came from deliberate planning. Abdellatif Hammouchi personally reviewed match protocols, with emphasis on layered deployment, surveillance, and coordinated command, in line with modern risk-based models used in major tournaments.
The preparation also drew international attention. In early January, U.S. FBI officials visited Rabat to observe match-day security, including the use of drones, high-definition cameras, command centers, and coordination with the African Security Cooperation Center.
These efforts reflect preparation and coordination, not the image of a host struggling to manage a major event.
A pattern in the narrative
Recent coverage adds to the concern. Only days earlier, a claim circulated suggesting Morocco had walked off the pitch during the 1976 AFCON match against Guinea. The idea spread quickly before being challenged by those who were actually there.
Ismael Sylla, a former Guinea international who played in that match, rejected the false story.
He said Morocco did not leave the pitch and that the game continued normally until the end. The Guinea Football Federation also denied the story.
L’Équipe had shared the claim before removing it. The reference disappeared without a clear correction or public explanation. That raises a simple question: when a major outlet publishes a weak or unsupported claim, is deleting it enough?
This pattern matters. Once a narrative takes hold, even briefly, it becomes difficult to correct.
None of this suggests that the supporters’ case should avoid scrutiny. It should remain under close attention. But that scrutiny must rely on facts, not loaded language.
Morocco’s position in the AFCON case rests on a defined legal framework, supported by official reports and CAF’s decision. The final outcome now depends on CAS.
The debate around this case will continue. But if the goal is to understand it, the focus must stay on evidence and rules, not on narratives that blur the line between separate issues.
Read also: L’Equipe’s 1976 AFCON Claim Does Not Hold Up Against the Record
