The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) may veto the scheduling of professional football matches on Fridays and Mondays. This dispute traces back to 2018, when newly elected president Luis Rubiales sought to change the federation’s statutes to gain more control from the federation’s existing bodies. The ongoing debate centers on how match days and times are determined in Spanish professional football, a matter closely tied to the relationship between the RFEF and the Professional Football League (LFP).
In a decision dated 11 May, and reported to EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA from the Prensa Ibérica group, the Supreme Court accepted the arguments presented by the RFEF. The federation claimed that the changes at issue were valid under the applicable regulations and the administrative silence rule, referencing what was approved at the meeting held on 3 October 2018 and the relevant articles in the general administrative regulation. The case reflects the long-standing friction between the federation and the state sports authorities over governance and scheduling authority.
A spokesperson for the federation indicated that the RFEF remains convinced of the correctness of its position and has pursued judicial review before the Supreme Court. The federation contends that a three-month period for a response from the highest sports body did not yield a definitive decision, creating a situation where favorable administrative silence might have automatically approved the changes.
Within the broader narrative, the issue of administrative silence has been central. The RFEF argues that the National Professional Football League should have provided a prior positive report as required by sport law before the changes could take effect. A 2020 judgment by the National Court had already interpreted the law to mean that, in the absence of such a report, the sports council should issue a clear rejection before the silence period expires, thereby negating any implied approval. The RFEF has since cited this line of reasoning in its ongoing appeals, noting that silent approval cannot be read as consent without a comprehensive interpretation of the general provisions and their intent.
The federation’s stance was further reinforced when the court system later maintained that general provisions are not automatically approved by administrative silence unless the statutory conditions for such approval are clearly met. In 2021, La Liga and the State’s Attorney’s Office joined issues, arguing that administrative silence cannot be understood to authorize broad regulatory changes without explicit alignment with the statutory framework.
Rubiales’ leadership is associated with invoking the provisions of the Law Regulating Contested Administrative Jurisdiction to examine circumstances where case law does not offer clear precedents. The Supreme Court’s May decision sought to determine whether federative regulations are administrative provisions of a general nature and whether administrative silence can apply to them, particularly in matters surrounding the control of the professional football calendar in Spain. If the court recognizes the potential for positive silence to authorize governance shifts, it could reshape the landscape for scheduling in Spanish football.
In a related development, the court acknowledged the central role of the RFEF’s statute changes and the procedural steps required under sport and administrative law. The case raises questions about whether the federation, through its regulations, can assert a governance model that stands independent of direct prior approval from the national league or state bodies, and what this means for the balance of power in Spanish football governance.
The broader political and sporting narrative also includes the 2018 era when Rubiales took the helm. The dispute with La Liga over potential Monday and Friday matchdays has been a persistent theme, with public attention drawn to leadership decisions and their implications for the sport, including issues around leadership styles and accountability. As this matter proceeds, observers await a formal ruling that clarifies the federation’s standing on scheduling authority and the proper use of administrative silence within the Spanish legal framework.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s task is to determine whether the RFEF’s regulatory changes constitute general administrative provisions and whether the concept of administrative silence can legitimately apply to them. The outcome will influence whether the federation can effectively steer the professional football calendar in Spain without requiring new, explicit approvals from the relevant authorities. The decision is poised to shape governance, procedure, and the future timetable for top-tier football in the country, a matter that touches on the core interests of clubs, players, and fans alike.
Jenni Hermoso declined to appear in Rubiales’ apology video, and Vilda mediated with the family.
(Note: The following discussion area reflects ongoing events surrounding the federation’s leadership and public responses. It is included to provide context on the broader governance environment.)
Positive Administrative Silence
In this framework, the body led by Rubiales pushed to amend the general regulations of the RFEF. The aim was to secure prior and positive input from the National Professional Football League, in line with article 45.6 of the Sports Law. A 2020 ruling by the National Court clarified that, without this input, the Sports Council should issue a clear rejection before the silent approval would take effect. The RFEF has viewed this judgment as supportive of its interpretation, though subsequent regulatory actions have sparked renewed debate about how administrative silence should be interpreted in a modern governance context.
The stance taken by the RFEF reflects a broader debate about the role of administrative silence in sports governance. In 2021, higher authorities examined related cases and emphasized that general provisions cannot be deemed approved simply by silence unless the underlying legal framework supports such an interpretation. The Supreme Court’s current examination centers on whether such silence can be applied to federation regulations and what that implies for the future of scheduling in Spanish professional football.
As the case unfolds, observers note that the central questions concern whether the RFEF’s rule changes are permissible under general administrative law and whether the concept of administrative silence is a valid mechanism for enabling significant governance actions in football. The court’s decision will clarify the boundary between federation autonomy and the oversight needs of national sports bodies, with wide-ranging implications for clubs, players, and the sport’s administration in Spain.
Justice approval or rejection of the RFEF’s statute change will set a concrete precedent for how similar governance questions are resolved in the future. The courtroom’s interpretation will determine if a federation can, through general regulations, shape the scheduling and calendar of professional football, and under what circumstances administrative silence can act as a form of tacit consent. The implications extend beyond procedural norms, touching on the authority framework that governs the beautiful game in Spain.
Meanwhile, the public focus on leadership decisions remains intense. The ongoing dialogue about scheduling days and the governance of football continues to evolve as the Supreme Court delivers its ruling, shaping the strategic direction of Spanish football for years to come.