Think Forward.

Enseignement supérieur au Maroc : entre scandales de diplômes et défi de l’intégrité scientifique 2770

Aziz Daouda, 9 mon.
Le récent scandale des diplômes monnayés à l’Université Ibn Zohr d’Agadir n’est pas un simple fait divers, mais le symptôme d’une crise systémique qui mine la crédibilité de l’enseignement supérieur marocain et, plus largement, la confiance envers les institutions publiques. L’arrestation d’un enseignant de droit, soupçonné d’avoir délivré des diplômes contre rémunération, a mis en lumière l’existence d’un réseau structuré de fraude académique, révélant de graves lacunes dans les mécanismes de contrôle et d’évaluation. Ce phénomène, même s'il était isolé, a un impact profond sur la qualité et la réputation des diplômes marocains. Il porte atteinte à la qualité de la formation universitaire, remet en cause l’intégrité des procédures d’évaluation, fragilise l’autorité pédagogique des enseignants et discrédite les diplômes marocains, tant sur le plan national qu’international. Les conséquences sont multiples allant de la perte de confiance des employeurs dans la valeur des diplômes, à la diminution de la mobilité internationale des étudiants marocains et bien sur à l'affaiblissement de la réputation des universités marocaines dans les classements mondiaux. En contrepartie, les réactions ont été virulentes face à la gravité de l’affaire. L’Instance Nationale de la Probité, de la Prévention et de la Lutte contre la Corruption (INPPLC) est intervenue, lançant une action civile pour défendre l’intérêt public malgré l’ouverture d’une enquête judiciaire. Le scandale a également été évoqué au Parlement, soulignant l’ampleur de la crise et l’exigence d’une réponse forte pour restaurer la confiance des citoyens dans les institutions académiques et judiciaires. Ce scandale confirme ce qui se disait déjà dans les milieux étudiants à propos des inscriptions et diplômes obtenus contre argent, voire en échange de faveurs sexuelles. La situation est aujourd’hui aggravée par un problème structurel récemment révélé en matière de recherche scientifique. Ce scandale n’est ni isolé ni inédit. Il s’inscrit dans un contexte plus large de crise de l’intégrité scientifique, comme l’a révélé l’Indice d’intégrité de la recherche scientifique 2025. Cet indice, axé sur la qualité et l’éthique des publications, a tiré la sonnette d’alarme pour dix universités marocaines, épinglées pour des publications entachées d’erreurs méthodologiques ou de plagiat, et retirées des bases de données internationales. Le classement de l’intégrité scientifique 2025 dresse un état des lieux alarmant : - **Ibn Tofail de Kénitra** est en liste rouge : sur 2 154 publications, 165 ont été retirées. - **Ibn Zohr d’Agadir** figure en liste orange : sur 1 912 publications, 96 ont été retirées. - **Hassan II de Casablanca** est également en liste orange avec 202 publications retirées sur 3 668. - **Mohammed V de Rabat** est aussi en liste orange avec 253 articles retirés sur 4 544. - **Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah de Fès** figure aussi dans cette liste orange avec 191 titres retirés. - Les universités **Abdelmalek Essaadi, Sultan Moulay Slimane, Moulay Ismail, Mohammed VI Polytechnique** et **Cadi Ayyad** sont placées en liste jaune, c’est-à-dire sous surveillance. Ce classement met en évidence un risque élevé ou très élevé de non-respect des normes d’intégrité académique dans plusieurs établissements publics marocains, ce qui nuit à la réputation du pays dans la région MENA. Le Maroc se classant troisième en termes de nombre d’universités concernées, derrière l’Arabie saoudite et l’Égypte. *Il faut souligner que ce ne sont pas les murs de ces institutions qui sont mis à l’index ou causent un tort aussi scandaleux, mais bien des humains et pas n’importe lesquels. Il s'agit de ceux supposés former les élites nationales, faire avancer le pays et assurer son avenir. Disons vite: pas tous, car dans nos universités il y aussi de très grands enseignants et chercheurs, compétentes et intègres qui sont les premiers à souffrir de cette situation.* Cela signifie que même à ce niveau où la probité doit être déterminante, où seule la compétence doit primer, des pratiques inadmissibles existent probablement dans les recrutements des chercheurs, dans le contrôle de leur travail par leurs pairs, ou encore par les institutions qui les emploient. **Cette crise, qui écorne l’image du pays, exige des mesures structurelles et urgentes. Sans aller jusqu’à réclamer des sanctions immédiates, rétrogradations ou licenciements des enseignants impliqués, il est impératif de renforcer en priorité les contrôles internes, de garantir l’autonomie des cellules d’intégrité scientifique dans chaque université et de former les enseignants-chercheurs et les étudiants à l’éthique de la recherche et à la détection des fraudes, en leur rappelant qu’ils sont surveillés à l’international et que le plagiat ou la manipulation de résultats ne peuvent échapper à la vigilance des autorités compétentes.** Enfin il est impératif et urgent de mettre en place un observatoire national indépendant pour assurer un suivi transparent et pérenne des pratiques académiques. Nos universitaires doivent intégrer que la valorisation de l’intégrité dans les classements et la reconnaissance des universités est une nécessité absolue. Pour cela, ils ont le devoir de privilégier la qualité sur la quantité des publications. La multiplication des scandales en milieu universitaire n’est que la partie visible d’un malaise plus profond dans la gestion, les cursus et le fondement même de l’enseignement universitaire au Maroc. C’est ce qui engendre tant de dysfonctionnements qu’il faut attaquer de façon frontale et sans concession. Relever le défi de l’intégrité académique est aujourd’hui une condition sine qua non pour garantir la crédibilité, l’attractivité et la compétitivité de l’université marocaine à l’échelle mondiale, avec tout ce que cela peut avoir comme impact sur le devenir du pays. C’est là la véritable mission de Si Azzedine El Midaoui, ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche scientifique et de l’Innovation, qui connaît bien les arcanes de l’université marocaine pour y avoir exercé à tous les niveaux.
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


9100

33.0

African Football: Between Emotional Populism and Institutional Order.. 52

Aziz Daouda, 33 min.
- Politics - Sports -
3.3 min read.
The CAF dealt the Senegal national football team an implacable administrative defeat, awarding a default victory to the Moroccan national team in the 2025 AFCON final. This sanction, rooted in the CAF's disciplinary regulations, punishes any abandonment of the pitch, even if temporary. At one point in the match, the Senegalese coach consciously decided to have his players leave the field. Only one remained on the pitch. Under football rules, a match requires at least seven players on the field to continue to its conclusion. Despite winning after a rollercoaster extra time, the team paid the price for blatant indiscipline: unleashed supporters, partial pitch invasion, assaults and injuries, prolonged interruption during which the players returned to the locker rooms on their coach's dramatic order. Forget the simplistic narrative of a "Morocco vs. Senegal" clash that some, particularly on the Senegalese side, push to imply political motives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The affair stems from an initial clash between the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) and the CAF. The FRMF asked the CAF to apply its own rules and those of FIFA, questioning their non-enforcement. Recall that the Moroccan national team strictly followed the referee's directives, even resuming play alone on the pitch for 14 minutes while the Senegalese headed to the locker rooms. The question, then, is: why did the referee refrain from applying the rules? The answer lies in the CAF's backrooms. A "CAF official" allegedly ordered the referee to flout the rules and not sanction the team that left the pitch. The FRMF took the matter to the CAF's bodies, which referred it to its Disciplinary Committee, normally chaired by a Senegalese. For convenience's sake, this committee rejected the FRMF's request. Far from giving up, surprised by the decision, the FRMF appealed. In appeal, it is not members who decide, but independent judges selected across the continent. The ruling was unequivocal: applying the rules, the Moroccan national team is declared the 2025 AFCON winner. The dispute between the FRMF and the CAF thus ended. Up to this point, the matter is purely sporting. The Senegalese Football Federation (FSF), unhappy with the Appeal Jury's ruling and defending the on-pitch result, refers the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Senegal does not merely contest the decision: it launches a frontal assault on regulatory sovereignty, legally demanding an international corruption probe into the bodies. It is the Senegalese government that responds to the CAF and escalates the case. To prove corruption, it will need to identify the corrupted party and the corrupter... Through its decision, the CAF prioritized law over on-pitch emotion—an emotion unfortunately fueled off-pitch by the stupidity of those who, for a few more followers or AdSense dollars, spread indescribable hatred between two brotherly peoples. This is not a Senegal-Morocco issue, but a sporting one between the FRMF and the CAF, and between the FSF and the CAF. Some reminders are in order for the instigators on both sides, without defending the CAF and its bodies, which will answer the corruption accusations. The CAF's regulatory fortress rests on three impregnable pillars, bolstered by these regulation excerpts: **WITHDRAWALS** **ARTICLE 82** If, for any reason, a team withdraws from the competition or fails to appear for a match, or refuses to play or leaves the pitch before the regulatory end of the match without the referee's authorization, it will be deemed to have lost and will be definitively eliminated from the ongoing competition. The same applies to teams previously disqualified by CAF decision. **ARTICLE 84** The team that breaches the provisions of Articles 82 and 83 will be definitively excluded from the competition. It loses the match 3-0. If the opposing team was leading by a more favorable score at the time of the match stoppage, that score will be maintained. Additional measures may be taken by the Organizing Committee. The three pillars underpinning the decision are thus: **Absolute compliance**: Article 82 defines any team withdrawal as abandonment, triggering automatic forfeit. The 14 Senegalese minutes fall squarely under it, without ambiguity. **Mechanical proportionality**: The sanction is not discretionary; it flows verbatim from the texts and is validated by CAS jurisprudence. **Institutional primacy**: The referee tolerated a de facto resumption under pressure, but the CAF holds the power to rule on discipline. What will the CAS say if it is indeed seized by the Senegalese side? Conservative by nature, the CAS never positions itself as a sports judge; it upholds bodies when rules are clear. As an inflexible guardian of stability, it will reject any Senegalese "symbolic legitimacy." To prevail, Senegal must outmaneuver: invoke a resumption invalidating the abandonment, a "disproportionate" sanction, or the "spirit of the game." Fragile ploy: the CAS has systematically dismissed such escapes when texts are explicit. Several African federations, including the FRMF in the 2015 AFCON affair, as well as various clubs and CAF-affiliated associations, have appealed to the CAS against sanctions for forfeits, withdrawals, or regulatory breaches. In these cases, the CAS has consistently favored a strict reading of applicable regulations, dismissing arguments based on force majeure or mitigating circumstances when texts provided for automatic sanctions. The affair's outcome will inevitably be the CAF's victory, confirming the Appeal Jury's judgment. The Senegalese forfeit will be upheld, the title confirmed for Morocco. Jurisprudence will emerge strengthened by the triumph of law, shielding future competitions from chaos. One slim surprise remains possible: a replay or revision if the CAS rules the abandonment was not definitive. But will it risk unprecedented instability by overriding such clear rules? This is not a matter of interpretation, but of pure rule application. The CAS will crown the CAF, exposing Senegal's precarious position. Far from a bilateral duel, this crisis pits rule respect against populist temptation. Law will prevail: the CAF will reaffirm its sovereignty, for an African football governed by legislation, not emotional riots. The 2025 AFCON, not confiscated, will mark the consolidation of a continental legal order.

Oil Taxation, Aid Efficiency, and Social Justice: What Strategy for Morocco Facing Energy Shocks? 677

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
- Politics - Business -
2.8 min read.
When the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, global energy markets were brutally disrupted. The barrel price crossed historic thresholds, triggering an immediate surge in pump prices in net importer countries like Morocco. In response, the government opted for direct aid to transporters to contain inflation and prevent pass-through to goods and services prices. However, the experience revealed its limits. Despite the subsidies, transport prices did indeed rise, pulling up the cost of all products and services in their wake. This gap between intention and reality raises a central question: how to effectively cushion an energy shock in a liberalized economy without widening inequalities or fueling rents? The decision to specifically aid transporters rested on the implicit assumption that they would act as shock absorbers, absorbing part of the increase. Yet, in a market with tight margins and fierce competition, it is economically rational for operators to pass on costs to fares, despite public support. Several factors explain this relative failure: - Lack of binding mechanisms. No strict obligation prevented pass-through to final prices. - Windfall effect. Some companies received aid without altering their pricing policy. - Targeting difficulties. Aid benefited a specific segment without ensuring a broad, lasting impact on the economy. This observation is all the more troubling since Morocco remains heavily dependent on refined product imports following the closure of the Samir refinery. Today, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz are reigniting fears of a new oil shock. This maritime corridor, through which about 20% of global oil transits, is a critical chokepoint in worldwide energy supply. Any disruption sends prices soaring and, mechanically, pump prices in Morocco. States worldwide have adopted varied strategies, with mixed results: - Price caps. Effectiveness is immediate, with tariff shields on electricity and gas, sometimes paired with fuel caps. These measures contain short-term inflation at the cost of very high budgetary expense, disincentives to energy sobriety, and windfalls for the wealthiest consumers. - Direct transfers. A social but imperfect response. Some countries issued energy checks or lump-sum aid to households. Politically popular, these tools are often criticized for their inflationary nature, lack of precise targeting, and risk of fostering dependence on one-off aid. - Tax modulation, a structural lever. Several states, like Austria, Spain, Italy, or Japan, chose to temporarily cut fuel taxes to limit pump price hikes. This approach directly affects the final price paid by all consumers, without intermediaries. It relies on principles of readability and shared effort between the state and users. In Morocco's case, a significant portion of the pump price consists of taxes—such as TIC and VAT—which heavily influence the per-liter price and give the state major leverage in price formation. Temporarily reducing these taxes would establish an explicit shock-sharing mechanism between the state and citizens, rather than concentrating aid on one sector. This option offers several advantages: - Universality: it benefits everyone, from truck drivers to salaried workers using their car for commuting. - Transparency: the reduction is immediately visible at the pump, boosting trust and the readability of public action. - Economic efficiency: it directly lowers fuel costs. - Social justice: by forgoing part of the fiscal rent on a now-essential product, the state clearly shoulders its share of the effort. Targeted and temporary reduction of oil taxation thus emerges as the most effective and democratic solution to cushion an energy quake. This path is not new in Moroccan debate, as evidenced by the widespread support via the Compensation Fund, phased out from 2015 onward. Lightening fuel costs through subsidies has already been implemented without achieving the theoretically expected results. Need we remind? Any tax reduction, if enacted, cannot be unlimited or permanent but must be strictly time-bound, calibrated to budgetary capacity, and linked to broader hydrocarbon market reform (competition, margins, strategic storage, reopening or alternative to national refining capacity). In other words, tax modulation should not be a short-term reflex but the tool of a comprehensive energy security strategy. Morocco faces a strategic choice: persist with one-off aid to transporters or embrace shock-sharing via taxation. If it chooses the latter and loses short-term revenue, it will gain in social cohesion and economic predictability, with three key lessons: - Prioritize direct mechanisms via taxation, a key pump price component, as the most effective tool for rapid, universal, and democratic action. - Avoid market distortions. Targeted aid without strict controls produces opposite effects; it fuels rents without protecting the end consumer. - Think long-term. Energy issues cannot be divorced from industrial sovereignty (refining, storage) and state budgetary resilience. Beyond conjunctural management, it is a true social contract around energy that must be rethought. In a country where the car is both a work tool, a means of access to essential services, and a vector of mobility, fuel price is a deeply political issue at the intersection of social justice and budgetary sustainability. Rather than multiplying one-off devices for a single sector, Morocco would benefit from a more systemic approach based on fiscal transparency, equity, and economic efficiency. Fuel tax modulation, as a universal and immediate lever, better meets democratic demands. It is a more credible response to current shocks and those to come.

The Strategic Prudence of Gulf Monarchies: A Vital Calculus in the Face of Iran and American Uncertainties... 680

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
- World Politics - Business -
2.6 min read.
The Gulf monarchies: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or Kuwait, embody a glaring strategic vulnerability. Their shallow territorial depth and narrow demographics expose vital infrastructure: airports, ports, refineries, gas terminals, headquarters of major companies, to rapid strikes by potential enemies from the region and beyond. Iran, for instance, with its arsenal of ballistic missiles, drones, and asymmetric naval forces, coupled with the belligerent philosophy of its regime, could paralyze them in the blink of an eye. The 2019 attack on Aramco's oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais provides irrefutable proof: Saudi production had then plummeted by half. To the Saudis' surprise, the Americans remained evasive and barely retaliated, at least not in a clear and direct manner. For Riyadh, this silence was a telling signal: allies are no longer infallible. Signed agreements can remain dead letters at the whim of one party, depending of course on the interests of the moment and changing circumstances. A growing, though undeclared, distrust of Washington had then taken hold. Commitments, agreements, and promises only bind those who believe in them. Over the past two decades, trust in the United States among Gulf capitals has eroded a little more each day. The 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, the lack of a strong response after the 2019 attacks, and the Afghan chaos of 2021 have ingrained a lesson that those concerned have fully internalized: Washington disengages when the cost rises. This uncertainty thus encourages prudence in the face of open war with Tehran. It will likely be the case again today, as the specter of a long and destructive war occupies all minds. The risks of a prolonged conflict are more than probable. A direct confrontation would quickly degenerate into a prolonged regional conflict, akin to the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which killed over a million people and ruined both belligerents. Today, the stakes would be worse: destruction of energy infrastructure, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, collapse of foreign investments, and capital flight from the area. Gulf leaders, haunted by these scenarios, prioritize stability and intelligently bow their heads. For a long time, they have chosen to prioritize economic development, a choice now put to a severe test. The monarchies have pivoted toward transforming their respective economies: Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, diversification in the UAE, Qatari global investments, and other manifestations of universal scope. This requires confidence, for it must not be forgotten that these economies fundamentally rest on trust. A prolonged war would threaten tourism, megaprojects like NEOM or smart cities. For the Gulf monarchies, the doctrine is clear: regional stability trumps ideological confrontations. This shift is embodied in the China-mediated reconciliation of 2023 between Riyadh and Tehran, aimed at reducing tensions and sparing Gulf territories, which refuse to become indirect battlefields. Today, though threatened, bombed, and provoked, the Gulf monarchies intelligently demonstrate their refusal to be dragged into a conflict they did not choose. At least for now, as everything could tip at any moment. Despite discreet security cooperations, Gulf countries refuse to be drawn into a conflict for Israel's benefit. The latter enjoys military and nuclear superiority, but Iranian retaliations strike primarily, and above all, Arab bases, economic, and civilian infrastructure. The costs fall on the Arabs, not Tel Aviv. The leaders of the countries concerned have learned the lesson. They have seen what became of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where proxy wars between powers left states bloodless, highlighting the fatal traps that ignition inevitably brings. In these dynamics, Morocco, a strategic ally and highly regarded voice among Gulf countries, emerges as a de-escalation actor. Under King Mohammed VI's impetus, Morocco's moderating voice advocates regional stability, diplomatic solutions, and South-South cooperation to foster political reconstruction and economic exchanges. It is in this context that one must appreciate His Majesty's permanent contacts with the sultans and emirs of the region. This is indeed a lucid calculus, as Morocco is one of the rare countries in the region to have voluntarily severed all ties with the Mullahs long ago. The prudence of Gulf states transcends mere distrust of the United States. It stems from a perspicacious calculus that factors in vulnerability to Iran, uncertain American reliability, the risk of a ruinous war, and the primacy of development. Their mantra? Avoid at all costs becoming the theater of confrontations between regional powers and distant others. This is how their reserve and refusal to retaliate impulsively must be understood. Having nerves on edge is not what's needed. However, things could change if Iran does not come to its senses and leaves a region that, even ideologically hostile, will never go so far as to attack it alone. It lacks the means without potential allies and has no interest in doing so with others' help. Such a situation would be ruinous for the entire region, including Iran, an outcome no one should wish for, apparently.

Africa Cup of Nations 2025: When the Victim Becomes the Culprit... 1385

Aziz Daouda, 6 d.
- Politics - Sports -
2.6 min read.
The reaction of Tunisian Hatem Trabelsi, former defender for Ajax Amsterdam and Manchester City, and a beIN consultant for several years, to the CAF Appeal Jury's decision, widely shared on social media, goes beyond mere sports commentary. It subtly reveals the narrative tensions, divergent perceptions, and symbolic stakes surrounding Morocco's successes in African football today. In his statement, Hatem Trabelsi highlights a classic phenomenon in African competitions under the Confederation of African Football (CAF): suspicion and discredit. Whatever the outcome, Morocco's victory seemed destined for contestation. If Brahim Díaz had scored, some would have cried arbitral error; if the Moroccan win had been decisive, it would have been labeled a "setup"; arising from a regulatory decision after the opponent's withdrawal, it becomes "proof of corruption." This critical lens isn't based solely on facts, but on a structural distrust of African sports institutions and their governance. It's the daily sport of Africans: nothing is accepted without suspicion, without accusations of corruption. Even presidential elections rarely escape it. The controversy actually exposes the narrative fractures generated by any decision, even the fairest. Over the past decade, Morocco has established itself as a central player in continental football. The kingdom has massively invested in infrastructure, training, and sports diplomacy. The results speak for themselves: Historic semi-final at the FIFA World Cup 2022. Multiplication of youth category titles. Regular hosting of African competitions. Growing appeal to binational players, like Brahim Díaz and many others. Morocco did it for itself, while naively believing it was good to share the benefits with the continent. Did the continent really want it? This rise fits into a broader soft power strategy, where sport becomes a lever for regional and international influence. But Morocco, the new power in African football, disturbs. Its success breeds jealousy and contestation. Trabelsi's point underscores an observed reality: success invites contestation. In an African football landscape historically marked by fluctuating balances between Egypt, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Senegal, the emergence of a structured, high-performing Morocco has sparked resistance. The Moroccan national team embodies a new dominance, built on sporting talent as much as organizational rigor, a transformation aligned with the country's overall trajectory. This fuels suspicious discourse, especially when refereeing or administrative decisions seem to favor it, rightly or wrongly. In the background, the controversy points to a deeper issue: the CAF's credibility. Recurrent accusations of favoritism, "backroom deals," or opaque governance don't target just Morocco, but the entire system. It's the narrative cultivated by one or two African countries to which nothing succeeds. As the African is too often consigned to the role of perennial victim, this discourse finds fertile ground to impose itself as reality. In this context, every decision becomes controversial, amplified by social media, press, and statements from governments, federations, or opportunists seeking visibility. Victimization, a recurrent sentiment in Africa, turns the slightest incident, or any decision, into a prism of suspicion. Trabelsi's outburst isn't just support for Morocco; he himself knows the kingdom doesn't need it. It highlights a battle of narratives around contemporary African football: between sporting merit and political suspicions, national pride and regional solidarities. Morocco, the rising power, finds itself at the heart of these tensions. As often in sports history, success is measured not only in trophies, but in the ability to impose a legitimate narrative. The real challenge for African football isn't designating a winner, but restoring collective trust in the rules of the game. Beyond the match, a battle of narratives is underway, where institutional credibility is the Gordian knot. The bad faith of some is evident. In a barely veiled attempt to poison relations between two peoples bound by centuries of brotherhood, a certain gaucho-Parisian press has launched a sordid discredit campaign, exploiting the weakness of the Moroccan national narrative, not for lack of content or relevance, but for its naivety in believing that good faith always prevails. Recent history proves otherwise. Those who long tormented Morocco for reclaiming part of its territory are the same ones howling on their sets or blackening paper, fueling a narrative aimed at harming the kingdom and sowing doubt about everything it undertakes. This won't stop; preparation is needed, especially after the 2026 World Cup. This is how to interpret Trabelsi's just and inspired words: it's time to build a Moroccan national narrative on national soil, without waiting for others, from abroad, to impose it through hatred and discredit. Today, Morocco outpaces its closest neighbors, which bothers them, enrages them, even drives them mad. The truth is they're profound hypogiaphobes, dreading their responsibilities to their own peoples. As for the 2025 AFCON, in two months, no one will talk about it anymore. It will boil down to a second well-deserved star on the Moroccan jersey, a sign that the CAF has come to its senses and will now apply its own rules.

CAF: The End of Ambiguities, Return of the Rules... 2219

Aziz Daouda, 12 d.
- Sports -
1.7 min read.
The recent decision by the CAF Appeal Jury marks a major turning point in African football governance. Beyond the specific case of the 2025 AFCON final between Morocco and Senegal, a profound institutional evolution seems to be taking shape: that of a CAF finally aligned, without complacency, with FIFA's normative standards. **A Legally Grounded and Assumed Decision** In its official statement, the Appeal Jury annulled the first-instance decision and declared Senegal forfeit, in strict application of articles 82 and 84 of the competition regulations. The match is thus homologated with a 3-0 score in favor of Morocco. The central point is crystal clear: the Senegalese team's behavior, particularly leaving the pitch without authorization, constitutes a clear violation of the disciplinary rules. These provisions allow no political or emotional interpretation: they mechanically impose the forfeit sanction. By validating this strict reading, the CAF breaks with a long-criticized practice: a sometimes hesitant, even accommodating, management of contentious situations. **The End of a Culture of Exception** For years, African football has suffered from a structural ailment: inconsistency in applying regulations. Some decisions seemed driven more by political balances than by the letter of the law. Yet, in this case, the Appeal Jury did exactly the opposite: It acknowledged the rules violation; it legally reclassified the facts; and it automatically applied the prescribed sanction. This triad is precisely what underpins the credibility of major international sports institutions, starting with FIFA. This is therefore not just a sporting decision: it is an assertion of authority. A strong signal for African football governance. This decision comes at a time when the CAF is under increasing scrutiny, particularly after several disputes brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which have sometimes highlighted inconsistencies or weaknesses in rule application. By returning to a strict reading of its own texts, the CAF sends several messages: To federations: regulations are non-negotiable. To players and staff: anti-sportsmanlike behavior will have immediate consequences. To the international community: African football fully embraces the global rule of law in sport. **A Balanced and Credible Decision** Notably, the Appeal Jury did not limit itself to ruling in Morocco's favor. It also confirmed certain responsibilities on the Moroccan side, particularly regarding peripheral incidents (ball boys, laser use), while adjusting the sanctions. This point is essential: it bolsters the decision's credibility. Strong sports justice is not partisan justice, but coherent justice. **Towards a New Era of Rigor?** This verdict could set a precedent. It reminds us that African football can no longer afford ambiguities at a time when economic stakes are exploding, international visibility is growing, and governance standards are becoming universal. Alignment with FIFA rules is not an option: it is a necessity for the credibility of African competitions. A truly salutary break. By strictly applying its regulations, without yielding to pressure or political considerations, the CAF sends a long-awaited signal. This is not simply one team's victory over another. It is the victory of law over arbitrariness. And perhaps, finally, the beginning of a stronger, fairer, and more respected CAF.