Many lovers of the beautiful game were shocked when the Senegal national football team, the Teranga Lions, walked off the field of play during stoppage time of the AFCON final after the Atlas Lions of Morocco were awarded a penalty. This came only moments after what appeared to be a trophy-winning Senegalese goal was ruled out. The sequence of events—an overturned goal followed almost immediately by a late penalty decision—created an atmosphere of intense tension and disbelief.
According to the Senegal national team coach, the decision to leave the pitch was not intended to violate the principles of the game. Rather, as he explained, “I simply tried to protect my players from injustice. What some may perceive as a violation of the rules is nothing more than an emotional reaction to the bias of the situation.” The team remained off the pitch for approximately fifteen to sixteen minutes before returning to complete the match.
Reacting to the walk-off, FIFA President Gianni Infantino condemned the actions of the Senegalese players, coaching staff, and fans as unacceptable and called on the disciplinary body of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to take immediate and appropriate measures. “We must always respect the decisions taken by the match officials on and off the field of play,” Infantino insisted, adding that “teams must compete on the pitch and within the Laws of the Game, because anything less puts the very essence of football at risk.”
The Moroccan Football Federation has since indicated its intention to pursue legal action against CAF and FIFA, arguing that the extended stoppage “significantly impacted the normal flow of the match and the players’ performance.”
As we await the final verdict of CAF’s disciplinary committee, three points strike me as especially important.
In football, as in life, the winner is not always the best team. When rules are fairly applied and all factors align in their proper rhythm and rhyme, the best teams usually prevail—but not always.”
First: the racialized framing of African football
Some international commentators seized on the walk-off and the subsequent disturbances among sections of Senegalese and Moroccan supporters to advance a deeply racialized narrative about African peoples and cultures. While Infantino rightly focused on the conduct of players, coaches, and fans, other reactions went much further, excoriating Africa itself through a jaundiced lens turning a behavioral reaction into a structural racist condemnation of African cultures, values and society. These perspectives reinforced long-standing stereotypes that portray African public life as inherently chaotic and incapable of self-regulation.
Latifa Babas’s reflection on why the AFCON final turned into a social media hate storm is instructive precisely because it refuses this reduction. She reminds us that football in Africa is one of the most powerful spaces of shared belonging, where national pride, historical memory, and popular emotion converge. Because the game carries such symbolic weight, moments of controversy are magnified far beyond the pitch. What followed the walk-off, in her view, was not merely a failure of crowd control, but a failure of interpretation: a complex sporting incident was quickly translated—especially online—into a moral narrative that portrayed African football as inherently volatile.
Babas also draws attention to the role of digital platforms in intensifying this distortion. Social media did not simply report events; it reframed them through emotionally charged images, selective video clips, and inflammatory commentary that hardened identities and fueled antagonism between fan communities. The violence and verbal abuse that followed were therefore not spontaneous eruptions of so-called “African chaos,” but products of a global media ecosystem that thrives on outrage and simplification. A game that ordinarily serves as a unifying force across linguistic, ethnic, and national divides in Africa was temporarily hijacked by narratives that reward polarization.
Some international commentators seized on the walk-off and the subsequent disturbances among sections of Senegalese and Moroccan supporters to advance a deeply racialized narrative about African peoples and cultures.”
Seen through this lens, the AFCON episode, Babas proposes, invites a broader sociological reflection, illuminated by Norbert Elias and Eric Dunning’s work Sport and Civilization. Elias and Dunning remind us that modern sport is part of a long civilizing process through which societies learn to channel aggression, rivalry, and collective emotion into regulated forms. Football does not eliminate conflict; it stages it within rules, institutions, and shared expectations. When those structures are strained by controversial officiating, weak trust in institutions, or inflammatory media framing tensions can spill over, not because a society is uncivilized, but because the delicate balance between emotion and regulation has been disrupted.
From this perspective, what unfolded at AFCON is not uniquely African. Temporary or permanent abandonment of matches, crowd violence, and protests against referees have occurred repeatedly in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, often in leagues held up as models of footballing “maturity.” The difference lies less in behavior than in interpretation. In African contexts, breakdowns are too quickly read as evidence of cultural incapacity, while similar incidents elsewhere are framed as crises of governance, officiating, or fan management.
Babas’s insight helps reframe the question. The issue is not whether African football has reached maturity, it already is, through professional leagues, formal governance, and increasingly sophisticated regulatory and security systems. The real challenge is how global football institutions, media, and digital platforms interpret and respond to moments of rupture. As the world prepares for the next World Cup, the lesson from AFCON is not a warning about Africa, but a reminder that the beautiful game everywhere depends on trust in institutions, responsible media narratives, and sustained investment in the social infrastructure that allows passion to unite rather than divide.
Second: refereeing and the “common-sense rule”
The second issue concerns the application of the laws of the game by referees. Overall, the standard of refereeing at the last AFCON was high and compares favorably with officiating elsewhere. Yet refereeing is not only about technical correctness; it also involves judgment.
When I was an active referee, there was an unspoken principle no one formally taught us—what might be called the “common-sense rule.” In the stoppage time of a major final, awarding a soft penalty to the host nation is fraught with consequences. Yes, the Senegalese defender made contact with the Moroccan player in the penalty area. But the Moroccan player was already going to ground, and the pull was not significant enough to prevent him from reaching the ball especially since the Senegalese defender, who was taller, was already well positioned to head it clear.
This decision came shortly after Senegal had a goal disallowed for what many observers also considered a soft foul. CAF must reflect seriously on how rigid, almost robotic applications of the laws of the game can end up shaping outcomes rather than safeguarding fairness. Similar concerns arose earlier in the tournament, including during the semi-final between Nigeria and Morocco. Referees must be empowered not only to apply the law, but to interpret it with wisdom, proportion, and sensitivity to context.
Finally: should Senegal be punished?
Yes!!! Senegal should face sanctions. Discipline is part of sport, as it is part of life. But Senegal should not be stripped of its title. The match was not abandoned; the team returned after fifteen to sixteen minutes and completed the game.
Senegal also owes much to its iconic player, Sadio Mané, whose intervention persuaded his teammates to return to the field—a sterling display of leadership and sportsmanship. A leader is one who influences others to act in ways that advance the collective good and to embrace an ethical stance consistent with justice and the highest standards of society.
In football, as in life, the winner is not always the best team. When rules are fairly applied and all factors align in their proper rhythm and rhyme, the best teams usually prevail—but not always. Tactics, technique, and skill converge to win matches, yet sometimes they fail to align. That is the beauty and the tragedy of the game.
What should never happen, however, is for refereeing decisions to so distort the contest that they become the dominant story. The AFCON final was not ultimately marred by a Senegalese team that reacted emotionally to a late penalty awarded to the host nation. It was marred by officiating decisions whose rigid interpretation of the laws created the perfect alchemy for protest and disruption.
CAF must therefore tread carefully. Any sanctions imposed on Senegal should not undermine its preparation for the forthcoming World Cup. Senegal is Africa’s best team, and Africa cannot afford to shoot itself in the foot—by repeating, at an institutional level, the same error committed on the pitch: applying the law without prudence and mercy, and thereby inviting an almost Oedipal fate of self-inflicted harm.