The dispute between Al Ahly and the Egyptian Football Association has escalated in recent hours after moving beyond the refereeing controversy in the Ceramica Cleopatra match and turning into an administrative and procedural conflict linked to the hearing session for the VAR room recordings. According to the details in circulation, Al Ahly remain firm in rejecting what the club views as mistreatment of its players by referee Mahmoud Wafaa, in addition to objecting to the cancellation of the hearing session and the refusal to recognize the delegation that attended on the club’s behalf.

How did the crisis begin?

The root of the crisis goes back to a controversial incident during the Al Ahly vs. Ceramica match, when Al Ahly appealed for a penalty, while the refereeing committee concluded that the challenge did not warrant a foul. Oscar Ruiz, head of the refereeing committee, said the case had been reviewed and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct, which kept the disagreement alive from Al Ahly’s point of view.

But the issue did not stop at the technical assessment of the incident. Al Ahly then moved to request access to the VAR room conversations from the match, hoping to review everything that had happened in full. That is when a new phase of tension between the two sides began.

Why did the hearing session fail?

According to statements from EFA officials, the session was intended only to hear the VAR room conversation, with a limited number of Al Ahly representatives from the official match-related list allowed to attend. The crisis erupted when an Al Ahly delegation headed by Sayed Abdel Hafeez arrived, while the federation believed that some members of the delegation were not entitled to take part in such a session, especially regarding the idea of bringing in an audio expert, since the club is not an investigative authority.

At the same time, there was noticeable inconsistency in the tone of statements coming from federation officials. Mustafa Azzam, the federation’s general secretary, described the request to hear the VAR conversations as an unprecedented matter, while Oscar Ruiz said that another club had made the same request last season. Ruiz also stressed that the refereeing committee itself had no problem allowing the hearing and had prepared everything for the session. This contradiction added more controversy instead of easing the situation.

Latest News

After Thrilling All-Egyptian Battle, Adam Hawal Sets Up Vancouver Squash Final Against French StarWas Hossam Hassan’s Handling of Mohamed Salah Behind His Exit as Egypt Coach?

What is Al Ahly discussing now?

According to the reports, Al Ahly are preparing to contact the Egyptian FA again in order to set a new date for the hearing session. The club’s board meeting is also discussing three main issues: what the club considers improper treatment of its players by the referee, the cancellation of the hearing session, and the refusal to recognize its official delegation. In addition, last season’s Cairo derby file has returned to the spotlight following the controversy surrounding Oscar Ruiz’s remarks about requesting foreign referees at that time.

On that specific issue, Ruiz later walked back an earlier statement that had been understood as meaning the federation had not requested foreign referees for last season’s derby. He later explained that the matter resulted from a misunderstanding of the question and that an official letter had in fact arrived on March 9. However, the limited time and the difficulty of contacting European referees prevented the request from being fulfilled in less than 48 hours.

The Egyptian FA’s position

For its part, the Egyptian FA insists that it did not mishandle the crisis. According to remarks attributed to Hany Abo Rida, the federation had asked Al Ahly to submit the names of the delegation authorized to attend the session, and Sayed Abdel Hafeez has not been referred to the disciplinary committee so far, pending the referee’s report. Abo Rida also stressed that the relationship with Al Ahly remains strong and that the federation stands at an equal distance from all clubs.

At the same time, the federation maintains that the rules governing attendance at the hearing session apply to everyone and that the dispute was not about the principle of hearing the recordings itself, as much as it was about the form and nature of attendance.

Where is the crisis heading?

So far, the dispute does not appear close to an end. Al Ahly is seeking to reopen the procedural track through a new hearing session, while the federation is focused on defending its procedures and confirming the soundness of its position. Between one side that sees what happened as an infringement of the club’s rights and another that believes the crisis resulted from exceeding the limits of the scheduled session, the issue remains likely to escalate further unless a clearer framework is reached for how both sides handle the matter.