The Africa Cup of Nations final was a tense one, posing security challenges for the host country, as protests by Senegalese supporters against a late penalty awarded to Morocco escalated into a violent attempt to storm the pitch. Although longer and more serious, this incident was not the first of its kind during the tournament, but the second. Earlier, during the Algeria–Nigeria quarterfinal match in Marrakech, Algerian fans also tried to force their way onto the field after their team lost to the Super Eagles. DR ‹ › What do these two incidents tell us about the security approach applied by Morocco during this AFCON, its limitations, and the lessons it offers for Morocco's future hosting projects? To better understand these dynamics, Yabiladi spoke with Abderrahim Bourkia, Professor of the Sociology of Sport and Media at the Institute of Sport Sciences at Hassan I University of Settat, and President of the Moroccan Association of Sociology of Sport (MASS). What do you think of the security arrangements implemented by Morocco during AFCON, and did they reveal any limitations? We adopted a soft security approach, which is often used during major international events in Europe and North America. It is characterized by a limited visible presence inside stadiums, reliance on stewards and private security staff, and delayed police intervention as a last resort to avoid escalation. It worked well throughout most matches, which demonstrates the effectiveness of this system. However, during the Algeria–Nigeria match, things became more complicated. The model becomes fragile when spectators shift from passive supporters to emotionally or politically charged actors. This is exactly what happened again during the final. Supporters turned into actors. They changed roles and became what they perceived as patriotic fighters, defending identity and opposing alleged injustice. From a sociological and security-oriented perspective, these incidents raise important questions about the effectiveness and limits of the security protocol adopted. In Africa, and in many so-called third-world contexts—if we accept that term—crowds can sometimes shift from supporting and cheering to using violence as a tool to change outcomes. This results from the interaction of social, collective, and symbolic factors, combined with the presence of malicious actors seeking to exploit tension and create chaos. These individuals aim to disrupt matches, often amplified by media and digital incitement through rumors or distorted images. We observed that police intervention came only when the situation was close to spiraling out of control, after several stewards were pushed or assaulted, with one sustaining serious injuries. Was police intervention considered a last resort in these circumstances? Yes, of course. When supporters collectively construct a shared definition of the situation that legitimizes confrontation or pressure on the game, their behavior shifts from spontaneous emotional expression to coordinated collective action aimed at assaulting and entering the pitch. Once the usual regulatory mechanisms exercised by stewards prove insufficient, coercive authority becomes the final resource to re-establish order in accordance with international standards. Police intervention emerges as the only response to the redefinition of the situation itself, with the aim of restoring boundaries, normative expectations, and preventing further escalation. For most of the tournament, these weaknesses did not visibly affect the competition. The organization appeared stable, and no major incidents occurred. However, during the most critical moment—the final, especially after the penalty—when certain protagonists appeared and troublemakers sought to destroy the festive atmosphere, the absence of well-trained and clearly instructed personnel became evident. Do you think there is a different security approach applied during international competitions of this scale compared to domestic matches, such as Botola games, where police intervention might typically be faster or more direct? Yes, and the distinction is subtle but decisive. First, the audience is not the same, nor are the intentions. In Botola matches, the context is already well known from a security perspective, and past experience has led security forces to adopt preventive intervention rather than waiting for escalation. This explains why intervention is faster and more direct in the national league. During Algeria–Nigeria and the final of the AFCON, collective actions differed significantly. The actors were engaged differently. This distinction becomes even more significant when we observe the premeditated nature of actions carried out by certain groups of supporters whose objective was not merely to express discontent, but to deliberately disrupt the event itself. In such cases, incidents cannot be interpreted as spontaneous emotional outbursts, but rather as calculated strategies aimed at undermining the smooth running, and symbolic legitimacy, of the competition. Finally, what lessons can Morocco draw from these two incidents as it prepares to host future major competitions? Serious investment in human capital is essential, particularly in training all actors involved in event management. We urgently need professional education in sports management and organization, risk prevention in sporting events, and sports journalism that is free from opportunism and prioritizes merit. From the sociology of sport and media ethics, we must also acknowledge that both traditional and digital media amplify emotions, polarize opinions, and sometimes manufacture conflict. Sensationalism and click-driven narratives can turn sport into symbolic confrontation. We must rise above this. Morocco is moving forward with steady steps, supported by strong institutions and dynamic social forces. Yet parts of media discourse remain trapped in victimhood narratives that no longer reflect the country's strategic orientation. The future is promising, marked by ambition, reform, and institutional maturity. We must also promote openness toward sport, culture, and science as tools against superstition and irrational beliefs that risk damaging our international image.
