The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the unjust decision by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to strip Senegal of a hard-fought victory and retrospectively award the AFCON 2025 to Morocco.
This decision represents a dangerous overreach by CAF and a fundamental misapplication of its own regulations. CAF rules are clear that where a team refuses to continue play, withdraws, or abandons a match without the referee’s authorisation, sanctions may follow, including forfeiture. However, in this case, the match was neither abandoned nor suspended by the referee. The authority to stop or suspend a match lies solely with the referee once the game has commenced, and no such decision was taken.
On the contrary, the referee allowed the match to continue, indicating that whatever protests or disruptions occurred did not meet the threshold required to stop proceedings. Morocco also continued to participate fully in the match, including taking a penalty, which they missed. The game proceeded to its natural conclusion, with Senegal securing victory in open play. To later reinterpret events as though the match had been illegitimate is not only inconsistent, but a deliberate distortion of both the laws of the game and CAF’s own statutes. The EFF rejects the absurdity of allowing teams to rewrite results through boardroom manoeuvres after failing to secure victory on the pitch. Such actions erode public trust in African football institutions and reduce the game to a playground of political and financial influence rather than fair competition.
This incident raises serious and long-standing concerns about the disproportionate influence of Morocco within CAF structures. The EFF has consistently observed a troubling pattern in which major football events on the continent are repeatedly hosted in Morocco, raising legitimate questions about the role of financial power in shaping CAF decisions.
We further caution that this influence cannot be separated from Morocco’s broader geopolitical agenda, particularly its ongoing efforts to secure support from African nations regarding their occupation of Western Sahara. The use of economic leverage, including investment in sport, to influence both football governance and foreign policy positions of African states is deeply concerning and must be confronted.
The EFF also notes the conduct of Morocco throughout the tournament and particularly in the final. Numerous teams faced logistical and environmental challenges that raise serious questions about fairness and neutrality. These include the allocation of substandard or strategically inconvenient accommodation for visiting teams, inconsistent or inadequate transport arrangements to training facilities and match venues, and general organisational hostility that created an uneven playing field. Even more disturbing was their conduct at match venues, including incidents where ball boys removed items like goalkeepers towels, to frustrate opposing teams.
Such contradictions further reinforce the perception that decisions within CAF are no longer grounded in objective standards, but are influenced by political considerations and favouritism. The EFF, therefore, stands firmly with Senegal and its football authorities in their decision to challenge this injustice at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). We support all efforts to ensure that justice is served and that the integrity of the game is restored.
The EFF has been involved in campaigns to support small-scale farmers and cooperatives.
dropkick
All four innings of a test on the same day – The 2000 Lord\’s Test between England and West Indies saw all the four innings being played on the same day. This feat was repeated 11 years later in the famous Cape Town Test where South Africa bowled out Australia for 47.
Free Ham
The term “wicket” is used multiple times in cricket. Getting a wicket is dismissing a batsman. Losing a wicket is getting dismissed. A bowler who dismisses a batsman is said to take a wicket. Sometimes, a cricket pitch is called a wicket, although this is considered incorrect by the Laws of Cricket. Regardless, it is still being used, especially by commentators.