The case involves a legal dispute between FEMEXPADEL A.C., a Mexican padel association, and the International Padel Federation (IPF) regarding the rejection of FEMEXPADEL's application for membership. The IPF denied the application on the grounds that Mexico was already represented by another member, the Federación Mexicana de Pádel A.C. (FEMEPA). FEMEXPADEL sought recognition from the Mexican government body CONADE, which required affiliation with the IPF. Following the rejection, FEMEXPADEL appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the decision should be annulled and its membership granted. The CAS addressed several legal issues, including the interpretation of statutes under Swiss law, the scope of the IPF's arbitration clause, and the nature of an appealable decision. The arbitrator emphasized the need to consider the normative context and purpose of the statute without prioritizing any single method of interpretation. The CAS determined that the IPF's statutes were broad enough to allow non-members like FEMEXPADEL to appeal, and that the form of communication (a letter) did not disqualify it from being a decision if it contained a ruling intended to affect the legal situation of the addressee.
FEMEXPADEL filed its appeal on 14 June 2017, requesting the annulment of the IPF's decision and recognition of its compliance with membership requirements. The IPF and FEMEPA opposed conducting proceedings in Spanish, proposing English instead, though they agreed to a sole arbitrator. The CAS granted FEMEXPADEL an extension to submit its appeal brief, which reiterated the request to annul the IPF's decision and sought an order for membership approval, along with coverage of legal costs. The case highlights procedural and interpretative challenges in sports arbitration, particularly regarding the rights of non-member organizations to challenge decisions of international federations. The arbitrator's role was to balance legal principles with the specific context of sports governance, ensuring a fair resolution.
The Sole Arbitrator found that the IPF Board of Directors had overstepped its authority by definitively rejecting FEMEXPADEL's application, as the Bylaws stipulated that such decisions should be made by the Council during the Annual General Meeting. The Board's decision was deemed inconsistent with several provisions of the Bylaws, including those outlining the proper procedure for membership applications. The Arbitrator concluded that the Board's rejection was improper, as it prematurely closed the application process without allowing the Council to consider the matter. The existence of another Mexican member was not a valid reason for rejection, as the Council could admit more than one member per country with a two-thirds majority vote. The Sole Arbitrator noted that subsequent events, such as the Council's rejection of FEMEXPADEL's request in October 2017, did not rectify the initial incorrect decision by the Board, as FEMEXPADEL was unaware of these developments when filing the appeal.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the IPF's decision violated its own Bylaws and decided to annul it, referring the case back to the IPF for a new decision. This was deemed the most appropriate course of action, as the Sole Arbitrator lacked the authority to grant membership directly and emphasized the importance of respecting the two levels of jurisdiction. The CAS upheld the appeal in part, annulled the IPF Board of Directors' decision of 25 May 2017, and referred the case back to the IPF, dismissing all other motions. The case underscores the complexities of sports governance, the tension between national and international bodies, and the challenges of maintaining federation autonomy amid political interference. It also highlights the broad applicability of sports arbitration clauses and the importance of clear statutory language in defining jurisdictional boundaries.