appeal

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing set to begin after Senegal stripped of Africa Cup of Nations title by CAF.

The long-running saga over the winner of this year’s Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title will move closer to resolution on Thursday when Senegal’s appeal, ⁠after being stripped of the title, is heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

Senegal are contesting the Confederation of African Football’s decision to declare Morocco champions, despite Senegal beating the hosts 1-0 after extra time ⁠in January’s final in Rabat.

Senegal walked off the pitch for 14 minutes after a penalty was awarded against them late in regulation time, with several players returning to the dressing room in protest before they resumed play.

Morocco failed to convert the spot kick, sending the match into extra time, where Senegal scored the winner to secure victory.

However, they were stripped ‌of the title two months later after CAF’s Appeal Board ruled that Senegal had forfeited the match by walking off the pitch, overturning the result and awarding a 3-0 victory to Morocco.

Senegal quickly followed with an appeal to CAS, which was lodged on March 25 but is only being heard on Thursday. Senegal want to be reinstated as winners, and a panel will listen to arguments from Senegal, Morocco and CAF.

“After the hearing, the panel will start its deliberations. At this stage, CAS cannot state when a final decision will ⁠be rendered but it will not be on the date of the hearing,” CAS ⁠said in a statement.

Three-man CAS panel to hear Senegal and CAF arguments

The panel will be presided over by French civil rights expert Gerald Simon, with assistance from Italian international law professor Luigi Fumagalli and Hamburg-based lawyer and professor of law at the University of Zurich, Ulrich Haas.

They are ⁠likely to hear arguments from Senegal that the Laws of the Game determine the referee’s decisions on incidents of play are final and cannot be challenged after the ⁠fact.

Also important is an interpretation of the articles of the tournament regulations on ⁠which CAF’s Appeals Board ruled in Morocco’s favour, which state that “if, for any reason whatsoever, a team refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered the loser and shall be eliminated for ‌good from the current competition.”

Senegal’s lawyers are expected to argue that the articles must be interpreted strictly and that a temporary departure from the field cannot be equated with abandoning the match, while Morocco are expected to ‌argue ‌for an opposing interpretation, according to which a team that leaves the field without the referee’s authorisation must be considered the loser and definitively eliminated from the competition, even if its departure was not permanent.

The hearing takes place behind closed doors.

Qualification for AFCON 2027 has already begun, with Senegal drawing the opening game of Patrick Vieira’s tenure as coach with Mozambique on September 25, before winning 1-0 in Ethiopia on September 29.

Morocco have won both of their opening games, beating Gabon and Lesotho.

A challenge to the decision to allow a controversial Orange Order parade to go down a predominantly nationalist road is being heard in court.

The deadlock over the proposed march in Portadown – opposed by residents of the Garvaghy Road – has lasted since last Sunday morning.

The stalemate has reopened what was once the most bitter parading dispute in Northern Ireland, with stand-offs in the mid-to-late 90s accompanied by riots, roadblocks and killings.

The fresh Court of Appeal application argues that the Parades Commission, the organisation that approved the march, had “materially misdirected itself” on the police assessment of the potential for disorder.

The application also said the commission had not given an “accurate representation” of PSNI evidence in its decision.

The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition (GRRC) and their legal representatives arrived at the court on Monday morning.

Loyalist activist Jamie Bryson, who has been acting as legal advisor to the Portadown District, Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Carla Lockhart and Orange Order legal representatives also arrived.

The hearing began in Belfast at about 10:30 BST.

Leicestershire have had eight points of their 27-point County Championship deduction reinstated but their Division One status remains in limbo.

The original penalty for breaching pitch regulations, relating to their win against Glamorgan in August, was announced on 16 September.

Leicestershire took 19 points from the match against Glamorgan – 16 for winning and three bonus points – which were removed but remain the subject of appeal.

The Cricket Discipline Panel (CDP) had applied an additional eight-point deduction, a further eight-point penalty suspended for a year, plus a £5,000 fine.

The latter two sanctions remain part of the amended decision but the eight-point deduction for this season has been waived because the docking of the 19 points for winning the game in question is considered punishment enough.

Without the 27 points being docked, Leicestershire would have finished two points above the relegation zone.

With the 19-point penalty currently in place, the Foxes are 17 points behind Essex and will be relegated if their appeal is unsuccessful.

The amended punishment comes after the Cricket Regulator raised with the CDP whether the 19-point penalty imposed, after its initial hearing, under the County Championship’s playing conditions had been taken into account when making its original decision.

A section of the County Championship’s playing conditions state that teams charged with producing a pitch rated as poor or below average, and the Cricket Discipline Panel (CDP) upholding the charge, would receive zero points from the fixture in question.

Leicestershire had already stated their intention to appeal against the panel’s decision and a statement by chief executive Emma White said the club’s position is “unchanged” by the amended decision.

More to follow.

Premier League clubs are seeking legal advice about compensation from Manchester City over the case.

One source, who held a senior executive position at two Premier League sides, said they expected clubs to submit individual compensation claims against Manchester City.

Another leading lawyer told the BBC that process could even be centralised by the league.

Premier League rules allow clubs to seek legal action against each other for compensation.

In June, Everton were told they must pay Burnley £35m after they broke PSR over a three-year period.

Burnley argued the breach impacted their chances of staying in the Premier League, and sought compensation for the losses associated with being relegated.

Everton are appealing, with sources previously saying they would “robustly and thoroughly” contest the ruling, but it provides an interesting backdrop to the Manchester City case.

There is uncertainty over a statute of limitations, which would set a cut-off point for claims.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur reportedly preserved their rights to claim compensation two years ago.

This is not just about Manchester United (twice) and Liverpool, who finished as runners-up to City in their title-winning seasons.

It is about those clubs who just missed out on the Champions League, or failed to make Europe, or even those who were relegated.

And it could even result in claims over the prize money for each Premier League place, or the potential commercial earnings lost by rival clubs.

Kieran Maguire, professor of football finance at the University of Liverpool, told BBC Sport it would be considered a “denial of an opportunity” by complainants.

Maguire explained that the “statute of limitations is not referenced” in the Premier League’s traditional handbook, though that could be subject to a legal challenge from City.

But what of the compensation? Just looking at Champions League qualifying could bring huge financial claims.

“The Champions League in those days was worth a minimum of £30m,” Maguire said. “I think by the time we got to 2018, it was probably worth £60m or £70m, and that’s in prize money.

“On top of that, you could claim for loss of gate receipts, loss of sponsor bonuses. This is highly unlikely, but it’s certainly being discussed.

“Players get bonuses for qualifying for the Champions League. Those bonuses, if you talk to people connected to the elite clubs, are normally in the region of 25%.

“An average salary in those days would probably, if you go back to 2012, be in the region of £80,000 or £90,000 a week. Twenty-five percent of that is four or five million pounds a year. That’s how the issues stack up.”

Points deductions, fines, and compensation claims.

This is an extremely messy situation for the Premier League, and it does not look like being resolved anytime soon.