The case CAS 2020/A/7090 involved an appeal by three Mexican football clubs—Club Universidad de Guadalajara, Venados FC Yucatán, and CF Correcaminos—against the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) and the leagues Liga MX and Liga Ascenso MX. The dispute centered on the FMF's decision to suspend the promotion and relegation system between the first and second divisions for six seasons, a measure implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellants argued that the suspension violated their rights, FIFA regulations, and FMF statutes, while the FMF defended the decision as a necessary response to financial and logistical challenges faced by lower-division clubs.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined several key legal issues, including the burden of proof, the autonomy of sports federations, and the interpretation of relevant statutes. The panel found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, particularly in light of written documentation contradicting their arguments. It also determined that the FMF Statutes did not establish an absolute right to promotion and relegation, as the system was historically subject to non-sporting conditions like financial stability and infrastructure. The panel emphasized that the suspension was a temporary measure, not a permanent abolition, and was approved through proper procedural channels, including votes by the FMF's Executive Committee and Extraordinary Assembly.
The appellants contested the validity of the decision on multiple grounds, including alleged violations of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RGAS), specifically Article 9, which they argued mandated promotion and relegation. However, the panel rejected this interpretation, noting that Article 9 was not universally binding and allowed for exceptions, particularly in extraordinary circumstances. The panel also dismissed claims that the decision was arbitrary or ultra vires, concluding that the FMF had acted within its statutory authority and that the suspension was a justified response to the pandemic's economic impact.
The case highlighted tensions between club interests and federation governance, with the appellants alleging that the suspension favored Liga MX clubs and could lead to a closed-league model. The FMF, however, maintained that the measure was part of a broader stabilization plan to ensure the survival of Ascenso MX clubs. The panel declined to evaluate the substantive merits of the decision, focusing instead on procedural compliance and the absence of manifest injustice. It upheld the FMF's autonomy to manage its competitions, provided decisions were made without discrimination or misuse of power.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the FMF, confirming the temporary suspension of promotion and relegation. The decision underscored the balance between sporting fairness and organizational flexibility, particularly in unprecedented crises. The panel's ruling reinforced the principle that sports federations have broad discretion to adapt their regulations, provided such changes are procedurally sound and rationally justified. The case set a precedent for handling similar disputes, emphasizing the importance of deference to federative autonomy while ensuring compliance with overarching legal and regulatory frameworks.