Liga MX Goes to Court: September 24 and November 3 Will Shape the Future of Promotion and Relegation

A court calendar taped to the wall, standing in for a league table. In Mexico right now, two dates are being awaited by a section of football supporters more eagerly than any derby: September 24 and November 3. No player appears in those two milestones, no manager either. There is only a question of power: who is allowed to decide the fate of an entire football nation?

I still remember standing on the near-empty stand of a second-division stadium in Seoul, when the small club I had followed all season won a match nobody covered. The joy then did not come from a trophy, but from hope: that the following season, that club might climb one tier higher. That very hope — the mechanism of promotion and relegation — is now on trial in Mexico.

Context: from the pitch to the courtroom

The story begins with a decision that once shook Mexican football. In 2026, Liga MX organizers suspended promotion and relegation between Liga MX, the top division, and Liga de Expansión MX, the second tier. In essence, the move turned Liga MX from an open league model — where lower-division clubs rise on the strength of on-pitch results — into a near-closed structure operating on a franchise basis.

For supporters in many countries, that is hard to accept. In South Korea, where I work, every K League 2 season is a ferocious battle for a place in K League 1, and small clubs on modest budgets still have the right to dream. In Mexico, that door was locked by an administrative decision. And now, a legal battle is trying to pry it open.

That battle is called amparo. Under Mexican law, this is a constitutional-protection remedy that reaches beyond an ordinary administrative complaint to a federation. The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Del Real & Asociados, argue that the rights of fans and the principle of "sporting merit" — mérito deportivo — have been violated. They are not asking a judge to designate which teams should be promoted. They are raising a larger question: may a governing body erase sporting merit by administrative decision?

The crux of the case

This is the point to grasp before reading any headline about the matter. The lawsuit does not seek a promotion place for any specific club; it seeks to establish constitutional limits on the self-governance of the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) and Liga MX organizers. Throughout football history, federations have often invoked self-governance to make structural decisions. The case in Mexico places that self-governance on the scales against the constitutional rights of fans, players, and the communities that live off football.

The proceedings are currently at an early stage. Authorities have only just begun to be notified and must submit a justified report — informe justificado — accounting for their decision. This detail matters more than it appears: the FMF and Liga MX are now obliged to explain publicly, before a judicial body, why they removed the promotion and relegation mechanism. A federation used to deciding behind closed doors must now set out its reasoning as a legal document.

The two judicial milestones play entirely different roles, and distinguishing them is essential. September 24 is the hearing on precautionary measures — that is, interim protective relief meant to preserve a party's position while the case proceeds. November 3 is the constitutional hearing on the merits — fondo — the stage examining the central legal question: whether the elimination of promotion and relegation is unconstitutional.

The legal weight of these two hearings differs greatly. The September 24 hearing is interim, but it can shift the status quo immediately if precautionary measures are granted. The November 3 hearing is substantive in nature, but its outcome cannot yet be predicted. The filing law firm itself stresses that hearings taking place does not mean the matter is resolved. Procedural milestones are procedural steps, and they do not amount to a ruling on the merits. This is the distinction supporters need to remember, because it determines how we read the news over the next two months.

An impact beyond the pitch

Notably, the case is not framed solely as a sporting dispute. The filings mention social, labor, and economic effects. The parties described as affected include not only supporters, but also players' families, vendors, and households in different regions of the country. This framing widens the scope of the matter: from a purely sporting question into a question of livelihoods and the economic interests of an entire social layer tied to lower-division football.

The law firm has also called on supporters to act in an informed, respectful, and peaceful manner. That appeal is strategic: it shows the plaintiffs want to preserve the legal legitimacy of the case, and to avoid unrest in the stands weakening their argument before the court. At the same time, citing a broad set of affected parties — from supporters to small traders — shows the grievance is not confined to one club or one city, but is a nationwide complaint about league structure.

A contrarian angle: a dispute over economics and power

There is a common misreading of this case. Many will read the headline and think it is a story about sporting justice, that a court is about to restore fairness to second-tier clubs. The reality is far more complex. The lawsuit is a dispute over the economic architecture of Mexican football, and it cannot be won with emotion.

A closed-league model is usually favored by top-flight club owners, because it shields them from the enormous financial shock of relegation: lost broadcast revenue, lost brand value, lost club asset value. When promotion and relegation are removed, the damage is not only spiritual. Second-tier clubs lose their investment leverage, players lose their pathway upward, and local economies lose the share of benefit that comes from bigger matches. Conversely, the owners of big clubs are protected from risk. That is why cases like this are rarely a purely sporting story — they touch the financial interests of those in power.

The only source for this story is the plaintiffs' side. The law firm Del Real & Asociados is releasing information about its own filings, so the procedural facts are reliable, but the legal interpretation should be read as one party's view. To date, there is no independent verification from court records or from an official response by the FMF and Liga MX. That does not diminish the importance of the case, but it demands caution before drawing conclusions.

Another risk is narrative inflation. Supporters eager for sporting justice may read procedural hearings as substantive victories. On social media, the temperature is rising ahead of the procedural milestones, while no merits ruling exists. Confusing a procedural step with a final ruling can lead to disappointment, and even harm the very goal the lawsuit pursues.

The matter also has a dimension beyond Mexico. In recent years, world football has seen many debates about closed-league models, from the European Super League proposal to leagues operating on a franchise basis. A ruling in Mexico could become a reference precedent for similar debates elsewhere: whether federations' self-governance has constitutional limits.

What to watch

Over the next two months, the tracking schedule is clear. The outcome of the September 24 hearing will indicate whether the status quo shifts temporarily. The content of the FMF and Liga MX justified report will reveal the governing body's legal strategy and weaknesses. And the November 3 hearing will open the larger question: whether a football league may be allowed to close off the path upward for its very smallest clubs.

For me, someone who has spent years following clubs nobody looks at, the case in Mexico carries meaning beyond one country's borders. If supporters can stand before a court to reclaim the path upward for their club, then that is a signal for every empty stand anywhere: that hope is also part of the rules of the game, and sometimes it needs to be protected in a courtroom.