The case involves Málaga CF SAD's appeal against UEFA regarding disciplinary sanctions imposed for violations of the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. The dispute centered on whether certain debts owed by Málaga to tax authorities and other clubs should be classified as "overdue payables" under UEFA's regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed key legal questions concerning the definition of overdue payables and the applicable law governing such obligations. The panel ruled that while national law typically governs the existence and due date of an obligation, UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations can autonomously define what constitutes an "overdue payable" to ensure uniformity across different jurisdictions. This approach aligns with the principle of freedom of association and aims to maintain a level playing field in international club competitions. The panel emphasized that the term "overdue" in the regulations must be interpreted uniformly and independently of national laws, unless such reference is necessary and does not undermine the regulations' purpose.
The case arose after Málaga declared overdue payables of €9,420,000 in its financial statements for June 2012, including debts to clubs and tax authorities. An independent audit later identified an additional €4,599,000 as overdue due to the absence of a written agreement with tax authorities. Málaga subsequently claimed these debts were deferred, but the Spanish tax authorities contradicted this, stating no installment agreements were approved and issuing seizure orders. A second audit confirmed that €8,450,000 of the claimed deferred amounts were overdue due to the lack of written agreements.
The panel clarified that a written agreement between the debtor and creditor is required for payment extensions, but it need not be a single signed document. Instead, a written acceptance by the creditor of a payment extension request suffices. The panel stressed that mere inaction by the creditor does not constitute tacit consent. Málaga argued that its tax debts were not overdue as of September 30, 2012, because it had submitted a request for deferral within the "voluntary term of payment" under Spanish law. However, UEFA contended that the definition of "overdue payables" under its regulations is clear and independent of national laws, emphasizing the importance of uniform application to ensure equal treatment of all clubs.
The CAS upheld UEFA's sanctions, reinforcing the importance of compliance with the Financial Fair Play Regulations and the necessity of clear, written agreements for payment extensions. The decision underscores UEFA's authority to enforce uniform financial standards across European football clubs. The panel dismissed Málaga's appeal, finding that the prerequisites for deferred payments were not met because the Spanish tax authorities did not provide written consent for deferral by the reporting deadline. The ruling emphasized strict adherence to regulatory deadlines and the necessity of written creditor consent for deferrals, rejecting claims of external delays as justification for non-compliance. The case highlights the tension between national legal frameworks and international sports regulations in ensuring financial accountability.
Ultimately, the CAS panel found that the debt remained overdue as of the relevant deadline, as there was no valid extension agreed upon in writing by the creditor. The decision reinforces the principle that national laws cannot override UEFA regulations when it comes to defining financial obligations and deadlines within the context of football governance. The ruling underscores the strict enforcement of financial regulations to ensure fairness and stability in football.