Sporting merit and federational autonomy
Sports law is founded on a historic commitment: States recognise that federations enjoy broad regulatory autonomy provided that the sporting legal framework preserves a non-negotiable core, comprising sporting merit, equal access and the integrity of competition. This core constitutes the very justification for that autonomy.
Mexico has just put this premise to its most rigorous test.
In July 2026, Liga MX issued its competition regulations for the 2026–2027 season. According to public reports, the wording stipulates that Liga MX clubs will not be relegated to the Expansion League and that members of the latter will not be promoted to the top flight.
The significance of the change lies in its legal nature. The provision made no provision for any expiry date or suspensive effect: what had operated since 24 April 2020 as an exceptional measure agreed by the Assembly of the Mexican Football Federation for “the next six seasons”, has now been incorporated into the regulations as a standard and permanent provision.
A month later, five clubs once again appealed to the Sports Arbitration Tribunal. At the same time, in September 2026, the National Anti-Monopoly Commission announced that it had sufficient evidence to formally initiate an ex officio investigation into possible monopolistic practices in the country’s professional football market.
Three bodies thus converge on the same point of contention: defining the actual scope of the federation’s autonomy when the disputed rule overrides sporting merit.
The regulatory framework for sport
Sporting merit constitutes an express and binding requirement under federation law.
Article 11 of the Regulations for the Application of the Statutes of the provides that a club’s right to participate in a national championship must depend primarily on sporting merit, whilst empowering federations to set additional licensing conditions in the areas of technical, infrastructure, administrative, legal and financial matters.
This provision defines the applicable standard: the regulations allow for additional requirements regarding financial viability and infrastructure to be imposed, but make their validity conditional upon sporting performance remaining the primary criterion for access. A licensing system is consistent with international standards; one in which administrative assessment completely overrides the result on the pitch directly contravenes the statutes.
The function of this principle is strictly operational. It allows access to be based on objective and verifiable variables, prevents league members from selecting their own competitors at their discretion, and preserves the indispensable link between sporting performance and the right to participate, which distinguishes regulated competition from a private, invitation-only event. Once that link is broken, competing ceases to be an earned right and becomes a discretionary concession subject to judicial review.
The scope of arbitration at the CAS
The immediate procedural precedent is CAS award 2025/A/11442, brought by Atlético La Paz, Atlético Morelia, Cancún FC, Mineros de Zacatecas, Venados FC and Leones Negros de la U de G against the FMF, with the operative part issued on 4 September 2025 and the reasoned award served on 20 March 2026.
The appellants put forward four grounds for appeal: the expiry of the six-season period, the breach of sporting merit protected by FIFA, the undue concentration of decision-making power in First Division clubs under competition law standards, and the asymmetrical application of the rules on multiple ownership.
The panel addressed the dispute from a contractual interpretation perspective. It referred to Articles 1852 and 1854 of the Federal Civil Code concerning the common intention of the parties and systematic interpretation to define the scope of ‘the following six seasons’ in the 2020 General Assembly resolution. The tribunal concluded that the period ran from 2020–2021 to 2025–2026, drawing on the General Assembly’s own deliberations and the duration of the financial subsidy scheme agreed for that same period.
The CAS did not rule on the intrinsic validity of removing the sporting merit criterion; it merely calculated the expiry of the temporary extension that the FMF had imposed on itself, establishing that the 2025–2026 cycle constituted the final season under the transitional regime. Four months after the award was notified, the federation chose to remove the time limit.
This development places the debate on complex procedural ground: the binding force of the arbitrator’s findings when the respondent prevails in the formal award, but subsequently alters the factual basis on which the ruling rested. Whilst the federation did not disobey a direct order to pay damages, it substantially altered the premise on which the dismissal of the claim was based. Determining the boundary between formal res judicata and the validity of the grounds for the decision lies at the heart of the arbitration proceedings resumed in August 2026.
Market access and admission powers
Public debate often diverts attention towards the theoretical legitimacy of closed-league models, when the central legal issue lies in the design of the admission rules.
The FMF has argued that promotion has not been cancelled, but is subject to the clubs in the Expansion League meeting the requirements set out in the Statement of Charges through audits of infrastructure, financial stability, youth teams, women’s teams and facilities. Such requirements are common in comparative law and are generally supported by the aforementioned Article 11.
The legal issue arises in the configuration of the barrier to entry. Under the rules implemented, the resumption of promotion was made conditional upon a minimum number of clubs obtaining certification simultaneously. Such a requirement is unlikely to stand up to a test of proportionality and reasonableness, as it makes a participant’s individual right dependent on compliance by unrelated third parties, without there being any functional link to the viability or integrity of the tournament.
Furthermore, the administration of the procedure falls to the Assembly, comprising the incumbent clubs themselves, whose market share and revenue distribution would be reduced by the entry of new competitors. The coexistence of regulatory powers and a direct economic interest within the same collegiate body creates a structural conflict.
In practical terms, by closing off the route of promotion through sporting merit, the acquisition of an existing franchise remains the only mechanism for access to the professional circuit. Consequently, the federation’s regulations have the practical effect of a restrictive clause governing control of the sector, consolidating the Assembly’s role as the decision-making gatekeeper for any significant transaction.
Balancing test
The balance between private autonomy and the sporting regulatory framework remained stable as long as the substantive foundations of the competition were not altered. The Mexican case presents an unprecedented situation as it directly affects the conditions of market access.
The FMF’s position faces a rigorous evidential test: the abolition of promotion was adopted for an indefinite period by agreement between direct competitors, within a sector where the competition authority has already issued a final ruling establishing that the clubs are independent economic agents.
The outcome of this case will extend beyond the local sphere. As this sets a precedent whereby a national federation formalises in its regulatory framework that sporting results do not determine league retention or promotion, the final ruling will define the legal boundaries of sporting self-regulation in relation to general law and economic competition.
Public sources as at 20 September 2026: Article 11 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes, CAS Award 2025/A/11442, rulings by the Mexican competition authority and stock market disclosures. The Liga MX competition regulations and the certification system are not open-access documents: they are summarised based on public reports, not as text verified from primary sources. Club valuations circulating in the media are third-party estimates.
