.Sports arbitration in Lausanne... Boubahi simplifies the reading of the defenses for the “Cannes Final” | Dimalions
Sports arbitration in Lausanne... Boubahi simplifies the reading of the defenses for the “Cannes Final”
3 months ago
sports
Sports arbitration in Lausanne... Boubahi simplifies the reading of the defenses for the “Cannes Final”
Hesspress Sports·
A lengthy analytical report written by Khalil Boubahi, a visiting professor at the Institute of Sports Professions in Kenitra and a member of the Sports Arbitration Chamber, concluded that “the Appellate Arbitration Body’s handling of the Senegalese Football Association’s appeal will not be an easy matter in light of the absence of relevant sports judicial precedents,” stressing that “there are a set of principles that the Sports Court has consistently established and affirmed in a group of its decisions, foremost of which is the protection of sports integrity and the application of justice in a way that contributes to the rule of law and regulations and the protection of... “Competitions.”
In his paper entitled: “The Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS) and the Bet on Achieving Sports Justice - A Legal Reading in the Course of Litigation Concerning the Appeal to the Appeals Committee’s Decision,” Boubahi asserted, the full text of which was reviewed by Hespress, that “the Senegalese University seeks, through this appeal, to annul the aforementioned decision and restore the championship title, in a case that has now reached the peak of the stages of sports litigation, so that the word of the Court of Arbitration for Sport becomes final and binding for all parties.”
This came as the corridors of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, witnessed a new chapter in the exciting sporting dispute surrounding the final of the African Cup of Nations “Morocco 2025”, while Khalil Boubahi presented an in-depth and academic legal analysis of the course of this case, far from emotions, anticipating the consequences of the final ruling of “TAS”.
In his reading, Boubahi explains that “the key to understanding this dispute lies in determining its precise legal nature, as it is classified as a disciplinary dispute related to ‘violating the competition’s regulations and not violating the seventeen laws of the game’.” He points out that sports disputes are divided into two categories: the first relates to violating the laws of the game, which is the responsibility of the referee as captain of the match, and the second relates to violating the rules and regulations that fall under the jurisdiction of judicial committees, such as the disciplinary committee and the appeals committee.
Accordingly, the same researcher believes that the Appeals Chamber at the Court of Arbitration for Sport “will consider the case as a final appeal to monitor the proper application of the regulations, and will not seek to reconcile the parties as is the case in ‘ordinary arbitration,’ which makes its mission focused on the legitimacy of the decision taken against the Senegalese team based on Articles 82 and 84 of the competition regulations.”
There are “formal gaps that may threaten the acceptance of the Senegalese appeal in the first place,” according to Boubahi, who considered that “the Senegalese Federation’s resort to the Court of Arbitration for Sport immediately upon reaching the operative part of the decision and without waiting for the reasoned decision (which includes the reasons) is considered a premature measure.”
The author of the paper relies on the rules that require waiting for the decision to initiate the appeal within a period of ten days, stressing that the judicial precedents in Al-Tas support this approach.
On the other hand, the researcher refutes the defenses of the Senegalese side regarding the violation of defense rights or the inefficiency of the appeals committee in the presence of a Tunisian member, explaining that Senegal was not a major party in the appeals stage after accepting the initial penalties, and that the reasons for defaming the members of the committee are not legally available, due to the lack of a personal interest for the aforementioned member.
Regarding the essence of the dispute, Khalil Boubahi points out that “there is a dispute over the applicable laws, as the Senegalese legal team is trying to give priority to the laws of the game and FIFA regulations.” He stressed that the legal logic imposes the supremacy of the “competition regulations” as a special text that comprehensively regulates the tournament.
The researcher responds to Senegal's adherence to Law No. 5, which gives the referee final authority over the events of the match, highlighting that the Appeals Committee's decision did not affect the referee's technical decisions, but rather punished a disciplinary violation represented by leaving the field.
The same analyst recorded that “the referee’s decisions regarding the facts are final but not absolute, as they are subject to the oversight of judicial bodies in cases of serious violations,” citing international precedents in which FIFA replayed matches due to technical errors or manipulation, which weakens Senegal’s argument for taking shelter behind the “final whistle.”
Boubahi believes that the crux of the case lies in Article 82 of the African Cup regulations, which punishes any team that leaves the field before the end of legal time without the referee’s permission with loss and exclusion. He states that “the Senegal players leaving the field in protest against a penalty kick is a documented material incident, and its legal effect does not erase the subsequent return to complete the match, because the violation was achieved by simply leaving without permission.”
The researcher rejects “interpretations that call for diligence regarding the duration of departure,” stressing the rule of “no diligence in the presence of the text,” as the text is clear and explicit and “does not require a broad interpretation,” which makes the Appeals Committee’s adaptation of the behavior of the Senegalese team “coincidentally correct from a purely legal standpoint.”
The same analysis addresses “Senegal’s argument that it is not permissible to punish an act twice,” which Dr. Bouhi refutes by explaining that “the first penalties were individual and collective disciplinary based on the referees’ reports, while the current penalty (the 3-0 defeat) is a sporting penalty resulting from a legal objection submitted by the Moroccan League based on a violation of a specific article in the competition regulations.”
Regarding the principle of “proportionality of the penalty,” the same analyst believes that “the arbitral tribunal will only verify whether the penalty is stipulated in the regulations, and since Article 84 automatically determines the penalty for violating Article 82, the scope for diligence in mitigating it appears very narrow, especially since the committed acts violated the principles of sports integrity in front of a global audience.”
Boubahi concluded his analytical article with “administrative and financial aspects,” noting that “the delivery of the cup and trophies to Senegal was an initial ceremonial measure subject to the outcome of the legal dispute.”
The sports arbitration specialist confirms that if Senegal's appeal is rejected, which is the most likely legal scenario according to his analysis, CAF will have all the means to force the Senegalese Federation to recover the cup, medals and financial grant to re-award them to the Moroccan national team as the official winner of the 2025 edition.
The same researcher stressed that “the position of CAF and the Moroccan League appears strong thanks to its reliance on explicit texts, in contrast to the weakness of the Senegalese defenses, which lack a solid legal basis in the face of the strict competition regulations.”
