The case revolves around a dispute between Daniel Angelici, President of Club Atlético Boca Juniors and Vice-President of the Argentine Football Association (AFA), and the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL). The conflict stemmed from CONMEBOL's insistence on conducting eligibility tests for candidates in AFA's elections, despite AFA's new statutes assigning this responsibility to the Argentinean Bar Association. Angelici complied with CONMEBOL's requirements by submitting necessary documents and undergoing interviews. However, due to a missed deadline for additional information—attributed to an oversight by his legal team—CONMEBOL declared him ineligible for positions within its bodies for one year. Angelici contested this decision, arguing the delay was unintentional and sought a review.
The dispute escalated when Angelici met with CONMEBOL's Control Subcommittee on 7 August 2017 to explain the situation. While the Subcommittee acknowledged his personal and professional integrity, it maintained that the missed deadline prevented a full evaluation of his eligibility. Angelici appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 8 August 2017, seeking annulment of the Subcommittee's ruling, removal of his ineligibility, and reimbursement of legal costs. CONMEBOL initially contested CAS jurisdiction but later participated in the proceedings, requesting dismissal of the appeal and that Angelici bear all arbitration costs.
During a hearing in Lima, Peru, on 27 April 2018, the CAS Panel encouraged both parties to settle, which they agreed to pursue. After negotiations, they reached a settlement agreement, signed before the Panel. The agreement included Angelici's acknowledgment of the missed deadline and CONMEBOL's recognition that his integrity was not in question. Angelici agreed to complete the required Control Questionnaire, while CONMEBOL committed to deciding on his eligibility within 21 days of the consent award notification. Both parties agreed to bear their own costs, with arbitration costs split equally, and issued a joint press release clarifying the resolution.
The CAS Panel reviewed the settlement to ensure it was made in good faith, complied with legal standards, and did not violate public policy. Finding no objections, the Panel ratified the agreement on 14 May 2018, incorporating it into a consent award that replaced the Subcommittee's earlier decisions. This resolution concluded the arbitration, rendering further claims unnecessary. The settlement was formalized as a binding arbitral award, enforceable under Swiss law, and marked the end of the dispute. The case underscores the role of arbitration in resolving sports governance conflicts and highlights the importance of procedural compliance in eligibility assessments. The amicable settlement allowed both parties to move forward without further litigation.