Rangers chairman Douglas Park has claimed a court victory to block the SFA proceeding with an arbitration case against the Ibrox club.
The Premiership champions have been locked in a legal dispute with the SPFL regarding its sponsorship arrangement with used car retailer cinch.
Rangers are refusing to promote the £8million deal and have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards.
The club claim the SPFL 's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have a pre-existing contract with Park's second-hand car dealerships.
The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA earlier in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict.
A statement from Park's of Hamilton said: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton Holdings Ltd has today been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.
“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.
“We were surprised that both the SFA and SPFL vehemently argued against this petition, despite the fact that their rules clearly state that any arbitration process should feature all interested parties.
“Park’s is proud of its association with the SFA and Scottish football, which dates back over 50 years, so it is with regret that we were forced to take this action.
“This is a decision we did not take lightly but felt it had to be made as a matter of principle, to protect the rights of club sponsors throughout all levels of the game.”
A Rangers statement added: "Today's court ruling once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL.
"These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach.
"The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs."
