The case involves Athletic Club, a Spanish football club, challenging a decision by UEFA regarding qualification for the UEFA Europa League (UEL) during the 2020-2021 season, which was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The dispute arose when the Spanish Cup final between Athletic Club and Real Sociedad was indefinitely postponed, leading to uncertainty over UEL qualification. UEFA initially encouraged national associations to explore all options to complete domestic competitions, but the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) adopted a selection criterion for UEL qualification if the cup could not be completed. Under the RFEF's decision, one of the cup finalists would qualify for the UEL if the other was already ranked in La Liga's top six. However, UEFA later issued a circular letter stating that if a domestic cup could not be completed, the highest-ranked non-qualified club in the domestic league would qualify for the UEL, meaning the seventh-placed team in La Liga would qualify instead of Athletic Club as a cup finalist.
Athletic Club appealed UEFA's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that it violated principles of sporting merit and legal standards. The CAS panel clarified its role, stating it could only review whether UEFA followed due process and whether the decision violated statutory provisions or public policy, not amend regulations or affect third-party interests. The panel upheld UEFA's decision, reinforcing that regulatory bodies have discretion in setting qualification criteria if due process is followed. The case highlights the challenges of applying existing regulations to unprecedented circumstances and the limits of CAS's judicial power in sports governance disputes.
UEFA's guidelines emphasized sporting merit, urging national associations to complete competitions if possible or justify termination due to public health or financial reasons. If termination was unavoidable, associations were required to select clubs for European competitions based on objective, transparent, and non-discriminatory criteria. The RFEF's plan for La Liga and the Copa del Rey included provisions for European qualification if the season or cup could not be completed, but UEFA's later decision overruled the RFEF's approach, leading to Athletic Club's appeal.
Athletic Club argued that UEFA's decision was legally flawed, citing Swiss legal principles and claiming UEFA misapplied its regulations. They also accused UEFA of estoppel for deviating from its own guidelines after the RFEF had acted on them. UEFA defended its decision, stating it was within its authority to address regulatory gaps caused by the pandemic and that league performance was a more reliable measure of sporting merit than an unfinished cup. The CAS panel ultimately sided with UEFA, finding the decision lawful and consistent with its regulatory framework.
The case underscores the tension between regulatory flexibility during disruptions and adherence to established rules, as well as the importance of protecting third-party rights in sports governance. The panel dismissed Athletic Club's appeal, affirming UEFA's authority to determine eligibility criteria and concluding that the decision was fair and justified under the exceptional circumstances. The ruling reinforced the principle that sports governing bodies have discretion in such matters, provided they follow due process and do not violate fundamental legal principles. The decision also highlighted the procedural challenges of including all affected parties in appeals, as Athletic Club failed to name potentially impacted clubs in its case. The outcome reflects the complexities of adapting sports regulations to unforeseen events while maintaining competitive integrity.