At the center of the ongoing debate within Morocco’s sports landscape lies the recurring question of legitimacy regarding certain federation boards, particularly the current executive body chaired by world champion Khalid Kandili. Some observers rely on partial resignations within the board, presenting them as sufficient grounds to challenge its legitimacy, in a reading that appears closer to political interpretation than legal analysis.
However, such a debate requires a return to the governing legal framework, primarily Law 30.09 on physical education and sport, alongside association law and the internal statutes of sports federations. These legal references establish legitimacy as a matter of election, institutional continuity, and compliance with internal procedures, rather than momentary tensions or isolated or collective resignations.
From a legal and administrative perspective, partial resignations do not automatically invalidate legitimacy. The decisive factor is whether the board remains capable of exercising its functions in accordance with the quorum requirements set out in its statutes. In a board composed of 15 members, the resignation of 8 results in a critical numerical situation (7 remaining members), but the legal assessment is not purely arithmetic; it is based on:
- The minimum operational quorum required for meetings
- Decision-making rules within the executive board
- The federation’s internal statutes
- And the possibility of convening an extraordinary general assembly for restructuring
Accordingly, the board may continue temporarily if internal rules allow it, or it may enter a governance vacuum requiring corrective legal procedures, without this automatically meaning the loss of legal legitimacy.
Law 30.09 enshrines the principle of autonomy for sports organizations, while simultaneously binding them to principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability, with the general assembly recognized as the supreme authority empowered to resolve structural dysfunctions.
At the same time, this debate also exposes a pattern of selective use of the concept of legitimacy, where attention is focused on specific administrative events while overlooking more complex governance issues previously raised in official audit reports, including those issued by the Court of Auditors, which highlighted irregularities in certain management periods within sports federations.
Furthermore, the discussion cannot be separated from broader issues such as conflicts of interest and the accumulation of mandates within some sports structures, reinforcing the need to enforce incompatibility rules and strengthen governance principles to ensure the integrity and independence of sports decision-making.
Ultimately, legitimacy in sport is not defined by resignations or situational power struggles. It is built on respect for the law, institutional continuity, and the activation of legally established corrective mechanisms, rather than selective interpretation or opportunistic use of legal concepts.
