Soccer

The Diarra case – what has happened, and what will it mean?

The decision was prompted by a challenge to the rules from former France midfielder Lassana Diarra.

Lassana Diarra has been at the centre of a case which could lead to changes to the transfer market
Lassana Diarra has been at the centre of a case which could lead to changes to the transfer market (Gareth Copley/PA)
By Jamie Gardner, PA Chief Sports Reporter

The European Court of Justice has found some of FIFA’s transfer rules are contrary to EU law.

World players’ union FIFPRO says the decision, following a challenge to the rules by former Arsenal, Chelsea and Portsmouth player Lassana Diarra, will “change the landscape of professional football”.

Here the PA news agency takes a closer look.

What has happened?

The ECJ was asked for a ruling in the case of Diarra, who argued FIFA rules led to the collapse of a move to Belgian side Charleroi after his contract with Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow had been terminated in 2014.

Diarra’s lawyers argued a FIFA rule making a hiring club jointly liable, alongside a player, to pay compensation to the player’s former club and putting the hiring club at risk of sporting sanction in cases where the last contract was terminated without just cause, restricted a player’s freedom of movement and was anti-competitive under EU law. The ECJ has agreed.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding a rule which allows the national association of the country where a player’s former club are based to withhold an international transfer certificate (ITC) where a contract dispute exists.

What does it mean?

Lassana Diarra’s case could have significant consequences (Michel Euler/AP)
Lassana Diarra’s case could have significant consequences (Michel Euler/AP) (Michel Euler/AP)

It means FIFA is likely to have to look again at those specific rules in light of the judgement, in consultation with other bodies.

The effect could be to make it easier for players to move to a new club after terminating a contract without just cause. How much easier it becomes, and whether other rules are put up for debate as well, will dictate just how significant this ruling is.

What has been said?

World players’ union FIFPRO sees it as a milestone, saying the rules were “a central part of the FIFA transfer system”. It has long held that the rules treat players as economic assets, rather than employees and that footballers

should enjoy the same, or similar, freedom of movement as anyone else.

Diarra’s lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont, described it as a “total victory” for his client and said it should lead to a modernisation of football’s rules on player movement. Dupont was also one of the key legal figures who brought about the 1995 Bosman ruling, which created free agency for out-of-contract players and to which this case has been compared.

What has FIFA said?

FIFA has always argued that its rules are essential to maintain contract stability
FIFA has always argued that its rules are essential to maintain contract stability (Andrew Milligan/PA)

FIFA played down the significance of the ruling, saying it only put into question two paragraphs of two articles of the overall regulations governing the status and transfer of players.

Sources close to the global governing body have also said that the challenge to the rule around the issuing of transfer certificates was pretty much irrelevant, because if clubs which have been refused a certificate came to FIFA for help, the governing body would always register the player regardless.

FIFA has always argued that the rules are necessary to ensure stability of contracts, both from a player and a club’s perspective.

What have clubs said?

There has not been any official comment yet, but a senior source in the European club game told PA prior to the judgement that the case had the potential to be a “dangerous” one. They expressed concerns over the impact of the ruling on clubs who have made player development and the generation of transfer income central to their business model, particularly those in countries where domestic television revenues are smaller.

They said the impact could be to further “polarise” the biggest clubs from the rest.

What other impacts or consequences might there be?

Could nine-figure transfer fees – such as that paid by Chelsea for midfielder Moises Caicedo – become a thing of the past?
Could nine-figure transfer fees – such as that paid by Chelsea for midfielder Moises Caicedo – become a thing of the past? (Zac Goodwin/PA)

Anything that makes contracts easier to break could lead to transfer fees trending downwards, with clubs afforded less security. There may also be a trend to shorter contracts. Dupont foresees something even more revolutionary – the end of the transfer system as we know it to be replaced by collective bargaining between players and their clubs or their leagues, along the lines of what is common in American sports.

The truth is that no one knows yet how far-reaching this will be, but time will tell.