Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

==== ### ====

Liga Deportiva Alajuelense (LDA) filed a complaint with FIFA in November 2024 alleging that Mexican clubs León and Pachuca were in breach of Article 10 of the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 Regulations (multi-club ownership, “MCO”). LDA claimed both clubs were controlled by the same corporate group (Grupo Pachuca) and asked FIFA to exclude at least one of them and admit LDA as the replacement club for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (CWC).

FIFA did not give substantive answers to LDA’s repeated requests, leading LDA to file an appeal before CAS on February 3, 2025, alleging denial of justice.

During the CAS proceedings, FIFA’s Disciplinary and Appeal Committees later found that both Mexican clubs failed to meet the MCO criteria, and the FIFA Secretary General decided that Pachuca would be admitted and León excluded (pending a replacement decision).

===== The Panel addressed: =====
# Jurisdiction — whether CAS had authority based on alleged denial of justice.
# Standing to sue — whether LDA had a legally protected interest.
# Admissibility of LDA’s claims, including a damages claim.
# Merits — whether LDA was entitled to the substantive relief requested, including removal of León/Pachuca and LDA’s admission to the CWC.

===== CAS found that: =====
* FIFA’s replies to LDA (Nov–Dec 2024) were insufficient, vague, and failed to address key requests.
* FIFA did not disclose crucial information (e.g., that León and Pachuca had not yet signed Participation Agreements).
* Given the stakes and the clear regulatory ambiguity, FIFA was obliged to give a meaningful response.

Therefore, CAS held that a lack of decision existed, amounting to a partial denial of justice, and consequently CAS had jurisdiction.

===== Despite establishing jurisdiction, the Panel found that: =====
* LDA’s only plausible interest related to the MCO eligibility assessment.
* But LDA conflated multiple distinct stages of the regulatory process: - (i) MCO assessment - (ii) choice of which Mexican club to exclude - (iii) selection of a replacement club
* The regulations assign these stages to different FIFA bodies, and LDA had no direct interest in steps (ii) and (iii).
* LDA’s claim of an “automatic right” to replace the excluded Mexican club was unfounded.
* FIFA had not yet made the replacement decision, so LDA’s request was premature.

Thus, LDA lacked standing to obtain the substantive relief sought.

===== By the time CAS reviewed the case: =====
* FIFA’s Appeal Committee had already ruled that both Mexican clubs were non-compliant with Article 10.
* The FIFA Secretary General had already admitted Pachuca and excluded León.

Therefore, CAS held that LDA’s requests to compel FIFA to:
* open proceedings,
* find MCO breach, and
* exclude one Mexican club,

were moot.

===== CAS further found: =====
* Article 10.4 gives the FIFA Secretary General discretion to choose the replacement.
* The decision depends on multiple criteria: rankings, confederation quotas, and other sporting considerations.
* The text does not support an “automatic” placement for LDA.
* LDA’s arguments were highly interpretative and speculative—far from an “automatic” right.

===== The Panel dismissed LDA’s USD 23,050,000 damages request as inadmissible because: =====
* It had not been raised before FIFA.
* CAS cannot hear new claims outside the scope of the underlying dispute.

===== The Panel ruled: =====
# CAS has jurisdiction due to denial of justice.
# LDA’s appeal is dismissed in full.
# All other requests for relief are rejected.