The case involves a complex arbitration dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between Club de Fútbol Atlante S.A. de C.V. (Atlante), the Federación Mexicana de Fútbol (FMF), and Club Atlas F.C. (Atlas). The dispute originated from the sale of Atlas to TV Azteca, which already owned another Liga MX club, Monarcas Morelia, raising concerns about multiple ownership. The Liga MX had implemented the "Decálogo" in 2013 to phase out multiple ownership by 2018, with immediate prohibitions on acquiring additional clubs. Atlas, facing financial difficulties, sought approval from the Liga MX General Assembly to sell the club to TV Azteca, which was granted as an exception to the Decálogo, provided TV Azteca divest one of its two clubs by 2016. Atlante challenged this decision, arguing it violated ownership substitution rules and the integrity of competition.
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, clarifying that while the CAS appeal procedure allows for new facts, it must remain within the scope of the original decision and not act as a first-instance body. It ruled that FIFA's regulations on multiple ownership do not automatically apply to other entities like the FMF unless incorporated into their own statutes. The FMF's statutes did not explicitly regulate multiple ownership, and the panel found no basis to incorporate FIFA's rules under Article 49.17 of the FMF Statutes. The panel also noted that FIFA's multiple ownership rule requires a case-by-case assessment of potential risks to match integrity, granting sporting bodies discretion in such determinations.
The background reveals that Atlas's sale was driven by financial distress, with TV Azteca being the only viable buyer. The Liga MX General Assembly approved the sale as an exception to the Decálogo, despite objections from Atlante and other clubs. Atlante sought annulment from the FMF Executive Committee, which dismissed the claim, leading to the CAS appeal. The panel upheld the FMF's decision, recognizing the Liga MX's discretion in assessing the exception and finding no grounds to overturn it.
The dispute centered on whether the Liga MX Resolution involved an exemption from the Decálogo or the substitution of Atlas’s Certificate of Affiliation. The panel found that the official minutes of the meeting accurately reflected the discussion, which solely concerned an exemption from the Decálogo and not the certificate substitution. The panel emphasized the formal and substantive differences between the Decálogo and the Certificate of Affiliation, clarifying that an exemption from the former does not imply a resolution on the latter.
Atlante argued that the FMF decision violated procedural rules, the Decálogo modification was improperly executed, and the substitution of Atlas’s Certificate of Affiliation contravened FIFA regulations. The FMF and Atlas maintained that the assembly’s decision was lawful and focused solely on modifying the Decálogo, not the certificate substitution. The panel rejected Atlante’s claims, finding no violation of applicable rules.
The panel also dismissed arguments that the Liga MX Resolution required an 80% majority under Article 32(24) of the RANS, as this rule applies only to certificate substitutions, not Decálogo amendments. Similarly, restrictions on mid-season certificate substitutions did not apply to Decálogo exemptions. The panel found no evidence that the FMF's decision compromised the integrity of the Liga MX or that Atlante’s relegation was influenced by the common ownership.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed Atlante’s appeal, upholding the FMF's decision. The case highlights the complexities of regulating multiple ownership in football and the balance between legal frameworks and practical governance by sporting bodies. The panel’s decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the procedural conduct of the parties involved.