On June 15, with the World Cup already underway, the First District Court for Civil Matters in Mexico City granted the definitive suspension in favor of Ollamani, S.A.B. de C.V. This effectively consolidated, at least for now, the position of the FIFA against the Mexican Association of Luxury Suite and Box Seat Holders: the owners of these spaces at Estadio Ciudad de México will not be allowed to bring in their own food or beverages, nor commercialize their spaces during the tournament matches. To understand the scope and reasoning behind this decision, it is worth reviewing the previous ruling that led to it, issued on June 8 within case file 730/2026 concerning the provisional suspension decreed days earlier.

The Writ of Amparo and the Provisional Suspension

The June 8 ruling was issued by the First District Judge for Civil Matters in Mexico City in response to the indirect writ of amparo and the request for suspension filed therein by Ollamani, S.A.B. de C.V., and in it, the judicial body granted a provisional suspension regarding various precautionary measures that had been requested by the Mexican Association of Luxury Suite and Box Seat Holders.

Preliminarily, the judge considered that the execution of said measures could affect the conditions under which the preparations and operation of Estadio Ciudad de México  for the celebration of the FIFA World Cup 2026 have been carried out. Likewise, he estimated that denying the suspension could cause greater harm to the public interest, by compromising compliance with the agreements and guidelines established for the organization of the tournament.

The Purpose of the Precautionary Measure as a Determining Factor

Furthermore, the judge preliminarily determined that the precautionary measures subject to the suspension were not intended to maintain a factual situation so that, upon obtaining a favorable judgment, it would be fully complied with due to the protection granted by the precautionary measure. Instead, what they truly sought was for the proponent of the measures to have their rights immediately restored or re-established by modifying or changing the existing factual situation, which is not the purpose of a precautionary measure. This criterion is supported by the doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation regarding suspensions in amparo proceedings.

Balancing Public Interest

One of the most relevant aspects of the ruling is that the authority concluded, for exclusively precautionary purposes, that maintaining these measures in force could generate greater consequences that would jeopardize the organization of the World Cup, whereas their temporary suspension would allow for the preservation of the conditions planned for the event's celebration without affecting social interest or public order. This balancing exercise is supported by Articles 128 and 138 of the Amparo Law, which establish the requirements for granting the suspension and oblige the judge to evaluate the impact of their decision on society's interest.

A Provisional Measure, Not a Decision on the Merits

It is important to note that this decision does not determine who is right in the dispute. It is a provisional measure that seeks to preserve the subject matter of the lawsuit and prevent potential irreparable harm while the process continues. Beyond its media impact due to its relation to the FIFA World Cup 2026, the case is particularly interesting because of how the judge weighed public interest, the appearance of good right, and the scope of precautionary measures in a context of national and international relevance.

From Provisional to Definitive Suspension

The dispute had a significant procedural outcome days later: on June 15, the same First District Judge for Civil Matters granted the definitive suspension , thus consolidating the position of Ollamani and FIFA for the remaining matches at Estadio Ciudad de México. Consequently, the luxury suite and box seat holders are subject to the international body's regulations during the tournament, without the possibility of bringing in their own food or beverages or commercializing their spaces, at least while this ruling remains in effect. The underlying dispute —the rights acquired since 1966 versus the exclusive operating model that FIFA imposes at its venues— remains pending a final resolution and will continue to be a subject of legal debate once the World Cup concludes.

Do you have a question about amparo, precautionary measures, or strategic litigation? At RRQB Legal Solutions, we have specialists in civil and constitutional litigation. Learn more about our work.

‍