The Madrid High Court of Justice (TSJM) issued a definitive ruling that upheld a prior justification for nullifying a specific decision. The action came in the wake of a challenge by the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) related to the 2020 electoral call. The TSJM confirmed the Sports Administrative Court’s (TAD) earlier assessment that the process had been declared null and void, effectively annulling the timeline and requiring a fresh electoral schedule.
On June 30, 2020, the TSJM reiterated its stance, deeming the published figure and the conduct described as invalid and void. This stance triggered the cancellation of the existing election calendar and mandated the preparation of a new one, with the aim of ensuring compliance with applicable legal standards and procedures.
Following the ruling, the RFEF and several councilors challenged the decision through the TSJM and sought injunctions. Luis Rubiales had been approved and authorized to stand for election on September 21, initially as the sole candidate. He received a total of 105 votes in favor, with 95 votes against and 10 abstentions. The injunctions requested during the upgrade phase reflected concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral process and the proper scope of authority for the federation to call elections.
Two years earlier, the TSJM had granted some of these injunctions by arguing that the TAD’s interpretation of the RFEF board’s authority did not align with established jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. The fourth division of the Contested-Administrative Section subsequently ruled in favor of the RFEF in May, labeling the TAD’s decision as arbitrary and lacking a solid legal basis. The court ultimately declared the matter final, noting that the window for appeal had closed, a point confirmed by EFE. The sequence of rulings underscores the friction between administrative bodies overseeing football governance and the judicial system tasked with upholding legal procedures in Spain’s sports administration landscape.
In this set of decisions, the judiciary balanced concerns about procedural legality with the federation’s mandate to organize its elections. The resolution also highlights how interim measures and final judgments interact when electoral plans are contested on legal grounds. The outcome reinforces the importance of clear authority, proper notice, and adherence to due process in sports governance, even as stakeholders on all sides navigate the implications for leadership and organizational continuity within the federation.