The case involves a dispute between Rayo Vallecano de Madrid SAD, a Spanish football club, and the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF), Spain's national football association. The conflict arose when the RFEF denied Rayo Vallecano a UEFA License for the 2013/2014 season due to unpaid debts, including employee wages, social security contributions, taxes, and player transfer fees. This decision was upheld by the RFEF’s Second Instance Licensing Committee, which confirmed the club's financial insolvency and deemed the debts legally enforceable. Without the license, Rayo Vallecano was barred from participating in the UEFA Europa League, despite qualifying through their league position.
Rayo Vallecano initially challenged the RFEF’s decision in the Madrid Commercial Court, which ruled against the club, stating that Europa League participation was not an asset available to creditors. The club then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking expedited proceedings and provisional measures to secure their place in the competition pending arbitration. The RFEF contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that Spanish courts had already resolved the matter. The CAS Deputy President denied the provisional measures, stating that financial harm could be compensated later, and reserved the final jurisdictional decision for the Panel.
The CAS Panel, composed of Mr. Romano Subiotto QC, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, and Mr. José Juan Pintó, examined whether CAS had jurisdiction. Rayo Vallecano argued that CAS authority stemmed from FIFA and UEFA statutes, which require national federations to comply with CAS jurisdiction. The club also claimed that RFEF’s delegation of UEFA licensing authority implied CAS oversight. However, the RFEF countered that its statutes explicitly limited CAS jurisdiction to disputes involving FIFA or UEFA, not internal club matters, and cited a 2011 amendment narrowing CAS’s role. The Panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction, as neither FIFA nor UEFA statutes alone could grant authority over disputes between Spanish clubs and the RFEF without a direct arbitration agreement.
The Panel also dismissed Rayo Vallecano’s argument that the RFEF’s licensing committees lacked impartiality, noting that the club had not raised this issue earlier and had recourse to Spanish courts. Additionally, the Panel rejected the notion that Article 1 of the RFEF Club Licensing Regulations subjected the RFEF to CAS jurisdiction as a UEFA delegate, clarifying that it merely acknowledged institutional ties. The decision emphasized that if the RFEF’s statutes were non-compliant with FIFA or UEFA requirements, enforcement was FIFA’s responsibility, not CAS’s.
Ultimately, the Panel ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a valid arbitration clause in the RFEF’s statutes. The case underscores the importance of clear jurisdictional frameworks in sports arbitration and highlights the autonomy of national federations in defining dispute resolution mechanisms. The decision reaffirmed that CAS cannot intervene in disputes between clubs and national federations without explicit statutory provisions granting such authority. The matter was left to Spanish courts or FIFA’s internal mechanisms for resolution.