TMW exclusive
Lassana Diarra won against FIFA after 10 years. The former French midfielder found himself in the middle of a legal dispute, but the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled against the highest international body. But what really happened? This explains it Ludovic Deléchatformer deputy head legal of FIFA. “Lassana Diarra found himself embroiled in a legal dispute with Lokomotiv Moscow after unilaterally terminating his contract with the club in 2014, without just cause. The Russian club took the matter to FIFA, which ruled that Diarra had breached his contract According to Article 17 of the Player Status and Transfer Regulations (FIFA RSTP), when a player terminates his contract without just cause, he is obliged to pay compensation to the club.”
“If a player terminates a contract without just cause and subsequently signs with a new club, the new club is held jointly and severally liable together with the player for the payment of compensation. This means that the new club may be obliged to contribute financially to the compensation due to the damaged club. This aspect has been particularly criticized by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) because it limits the freedom of movement of workers, such as footballers, within the European Union. Unfortunately, due to this rule, Lassana Diarra could not find a team for more than a year, as all the interested clubs did not want to run the risk of being considered co-responsible and therefore obliged to pay the financial penalty imposed by FIFA. Diarra then appealed to the CAS (which had confirmed the FIFA decision) and subsequently to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), whose ruling was issued on 4 October”.
Could Lassana Diarra unilaterally terminate the contract?
“He exercised his right to terminate the contract, but FIFA judged that he did so without just cause. Although Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP allows for unilateral termination of the contract, this must occur in specific circumstances, such as a breach of contract serious on the part of the club. In this case, FIFA determined that Diarra did not have sufficient justifications and, as a result, he was found guilty of breaching the contract and his new club were therefore obliged to pay the financial penalty As mentioned before, what has been contested is the presumption of joint liability of the new club of a player who has terminated his contract without just cause. This severely limits the freedom of movement of the players, who must be compared to the workers on base to European law. The restriction of movement must be justified and proportionate, an aspect criticized by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its ruling of 4 October”.
So all players will be able to unilaterally terminate their contracts?
“No, unilateral termination is only possible in well-defined situations. Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP states that, in the event of termination without just cause, the player and his new club can be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation to the damaged club. Therefore, players must be very careful when choosing to terminate a contract, as the sanctions can be very severe. However, the assessment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding FIFA regulations through the lens of free movement of workers is particularly significant. Concluding that these rules limit the mobility of players, the Court stated that professional athletes are considered workers under EU law and are entitled to the same protections as other EU citizens of the ruling builds on precedents such as the Bosman case, further consolidating the application of free movement principles in the sporting sector, challenging the football transfer system, which has long operated with a degree of exception to normal working practices.”
How can the phenomenon be stemmed?
“To prevent the practice of unilaterally terminating contracts without just cause from spreading, FIFA will immediately continue to strictly apply Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP. Going forward, I expect all major players in football (FIFA, FIFPRO , ECA) discuss a new system that is more proportionate, while maintaining the principles of contractual stability, fair competition and sport specificity which are very important. This could force them to find less restrictive transfer rules, shifting power from clubs to players and We can also imagine that the new rules will be based on collective labor agreements signed by all interested parties and that there will no longer be the presumption of joint liability of the new club of a player who has terminated his contract without just cause.” .
What are the scenarios for the next transfers?
“After cases like Diarra, clubs are likely to become more cautious in protecting themselves from unjustified unilateral terminations. There may be a greater focus on drafting contract clauses to avoid legal disputes, with agents and lawyers playing a more prominent role in negotiations “.
Can Kvaratskhelia comply with FIFA Article 17?
“If a player unilaterally terminates his contract without just cause after the protection period and moves to another club, various consequences may occur according to Article 17 of the FIFA Rules on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). which the player leaves can request compensation. This compensation is calculated based on the remaining duration of the contract, the economic value of the contract (salary and benefits), and any transfer fee paid to the player player terminates his contract without just cause and moves to another club, he may face sanctions, such as a transfer ban (i.e. he will not be able to play for a new club until the matter is resolved or compensation is paid if this aspect is criticized by the European Court, for the moment the FIFA regulation is still in force.”
And then?
“The new club that signs a player who has terminated his contract without cause could also be liable. If the club induced the player to breach the contract, he could face 1) Compensation obligations to the previous club 2) Ban to register new players or other sanctions from FIFA. Even if a player has greater freedom to terminate the contract after the protection period, doing so without just cause can lead to economic and legal consequences. Furthermore, the new club could be subject to sanctions if he is improperly involved in the player’s transfer.”
So he doesn’t recommend it.
“I do not recommend Kvara (or some footballers) to do so at this time even with the Diarra case… Diarra waited 10 years before having a positive decision from the European Court…”.
What can happen immediately? Can the transfer market change?
“Although the Court sided in favor of Diarra on many points, it did not completely dismantle FIFA’s transfer system. It recognized that some rules are necessary for the stability and integrity of football, but stated that the current FIFA’s approach goes beyond what is necessary. The Diarra case has significant implications for sports governance, particularly in football. It challenges FIFA’s authority to unilaterally impose transfer rules without adequately considering EU law more collaborative approach in creating the rules, involving different actors, including players’ unions (FIFPRO) and national authorities.
“Furthermore, the ruling could give more power to individual players to challenge rules they perceive as unfair or too restrictive. This could lead to a shift in the balance of power between players and governing bodies, potentially leading to more favorable regulations for players in the future. The case strengthens the rights of professional footballers in Europe and challenges FIFA transfer rules that can prevent players from moving freely between clubs, even when their contracts have been terminated. This ruling could force FIFA to significantly change its transfer system. The current rules, which can effectively prevent players from finding new clubs after contract disputes, have been deemed too restrictive by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). returns to the European Commission for further investigation. This means that the full impact of the ruling may not be immediately clear, as it will depend on how the Commission applies the Court’s decision in its renewed review of the FIFA rules.”
What do you expect?
“That all the main players in football (FIFA, FIFPRO, ECA) discuss a new system that is more proportionate, while maintaining the principles of contractual stability, fair competition and specificity of the sport. This could force them to find less restrictive transfer rules, shifting power from clubs to players and agents. As mentioned before, we can imagine that the new rules will be based on collective labor agreements signed by all interested parties. Concretely, we can also imagine that players can terminate their contracts by paying the residual value of the contract (or making the new club pay on their behalf), leading to more transfers in football and fewer transfer fees for clubs. That ruling could therefore unbalance the player transfer market in favor of Europe’s richest clubs Western, which can attract free agents with high salaries, avoiding paying the transfer fees on which many smaller clubs depended. If FIFA introduced rules that made it easier for players to terminate their contracts and join new clubs whenever they want, the entire transfer system, based largely on transfer fees, could be called into question, with clubs less incentivized to invest millions in players with greater freedom to leave and sign for other clubs.”