[Football] Diarra legal action against FIFA (Bosman 2.0)

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We now have a decision, the CJEU has ruled against FIFA. I've never felt so stupid as I have this last half-hour or so of trying to figure out what this is gonna mean for clubs like ours in practice. I'm just totally baffled.

This seems to be the key bit:

"he received an offer of a contract from the Belgian club Charleroi. It came with a condition: Charleroi wanted confirmation from Fifa that Diarra would be able to move and that they would not be liable for any of the costs owed to LokomotivFifa did not give those guarantees, with its rules mandating that an international transfer certificate must be granted by the league a player is leaving before any deal could take place. With no moneys having been paid to Lokomotiv, that permit was not forthcoming. "

So the Russian side's local FA refused to issue a permit allowing the transfer of the player to a team in another country.

The solution surely is that when a team has cancelled a player's contract the player should be free to move to another team. The 'international transfer certificate' thing needs to be binned surely?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?

If only we had a world leading expert on football finance on this forum...

Seriously though, I'd love to know the answer.

 

[AZ Gull]

So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?

I'm not sure; however, if that IS the outcome (effectively saying contracts are worthless) then presumably a club could just as easily get rid of a player (who has just been injured, let's say) part way through his contract and refuse to pay him?

 

[trueblue]

From what I’ve read, one hopeful aspect is that it was established when the Super League was thwarted that EU law allows a sport to apply restrictions that would be illegal in other sectors if that’s essential to protect competitiveness. It’s hard to believe they will collapse the entire industry to the benefit of a handful of the world’s richest clubs. Our exemplary model would surely be dead if the likes of Caicedo could walk for nothing, or even have their value decided independently. Surely some compromise will be reached.

As teams have to name squads there needs to be some consistency but will players find contracts longer than a season no longer exist? Not really a step forward for them, especially if they get injured.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I'm not sure; however, if that IS the outcome (effectively saying contracts are worthless) then presumably a club could just as easily get rid of a player (who has just been injured, let's say) part way through his contract and refuse to pay him?

Don't think it means that contracts are worthless, more that the players registration is worthless, because a club cannot hold on to their registration against the players wishes. (for players moving to/from an EU country, at least).

If the player wanted to break the contract he would have to comply with the break clauses contained within the contract, notice periods, gardening leave, etc. And the club could only terminate a players contract if there was just cause to do so.

 

[AZ Gull]

Don't think it means that contracts are worthless, more that the players registration is worthless, because a club cannot hold on to their registration against the players wishes. (for players moving to/from an EU country, at least).

If the player wanted to break the contract he would have to comply with the break clauses contained within the contract, notice periods, gardening leave, etc. And the club could only terminate a players contract if there was just cause to do so.

But player contracts don't have break clauses - they are for a specified period of time.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

But player contracts don't have break clauses - they are for a specified period of time.

I've never seen one... but any employment contract will include ways the contract can be terminated. At the end of the day you can't force someone to work for you if they don't want to work for you (otherwise its slavery). Its obviously rare, but you see it happen when players retire early, e.g. Varane this season. But if the player quits, the club still holds his registration so he can't play for anyone else until the end of the specified contract length - at least until this ruling, which says that preventing them working for anyone else is a restriction of trade and against EU rules.

(My mentioning break clauses, notice periods etc. is really referring to what will have to happen in the future if this ruling is upheld and means what I think it means)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?

My take is that FIFA don’t have any say in transfers anymore. Transfers are now just straight contract law. A player can break a contract but I presume he’ll run the risk of being personally sued if he does. The difference is that if the player did this before today FIFA could block the move, they can’t now.

 

[dwayne]

Diarra wins case , so in essence this is could f things for smaller teams. Now seems like players can just terminate their own contracts and move free to a big boy ?

Lassana Diarra: Fifa transfer rules break EU law - top court rules

After a long-running dispute between ex-Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra and Fifa, a court has ruled against the governing body.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dwayne]

My take is that FIFA don’t have any say in transfers anymore. Transfers are now just straight contract law. A player can break a contract but I presume he’ll run the risk of being personally sued if he does. The difference is that if the player did this before today FIFA could block the move, they can’t now.

Can't see a club suing a player. This has very grim ramifications. And as usual the rich boys paying the big wages come out winning.

 

[AZ Gull]

Can't see a club suing a player. This has very grim ramifications. And as usual the rich boys paying the big wages come out winning.

Erm.. this case came about because a club sued a player.

 

[dwayne]

Erm.. this case came about because a club sued a player.

A dodgy russian club ....

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can't see a club suing a player. This has very grim ramifications. And as usual the rich boys paying the big wages come out winning.

If a player broke a contract to enable a move to another club why wouldn’t they? This is the whole point of a contract after all.

 

[dwayne]

If a player broke a contract to enable a move to another club why wouldn’t they? This is the whole point of a contract after all.

Yer but in this day and age you can't hold someone to stay somewhere especially if they claim mental health issues or some other crap. So if the other club who takes them on has no responsibility to pay compensation then it's a free for all.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yer but in this day and age you can't hold someone to stay somewhere especially if they claim mental health issues or some other crap. So if the other club who takes them on has no responsibility to pay compensation then it's a free for all.

You can hold people to contracts and you can prevent them moving on under the terms of a contract. Dan Ashworth, twice, is a very recent example you should be familiar with. Had Dan joined either Newcastle or Man U whilst on gardening leave he would have been in trouble. He couldn’t claim mental health and then turn up at Newcastle the next day. It doesn’t work like that.

You seem to be suggesting contracts will now be worthless, which I don’t agree with.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Potentially the end of "small" clubs?

My first thought is this has the potential to devastate lower league clubs who sell promising players to balance the books.

AFC Wimbledon have sold a player for a million or so in the past couple of Jan windows, where would they be without that income?

 

[beorhthelm]

seems two issues. first is the judgment that if a player is out of contract, they can play elsewhere and FIFA cant restrict that. second is standing of contracts. interpretation is that either first issue invalids contract or makes it more likely players will press for moves. i dont see it, judgement doesn't change contracts directly. the effect of the ruling only comes in if the player is out of contract and clubs are no more likely to terminate contracts.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I know this will not happen, but it players could freely move between clubs for no fee it might not be a bad thing. Obviously there would a seismic readjustment of player salaries but then what? All clubs below the big 6, or 7 or whatever it is these days, operate on far smaller budgets and pay players a salary similar to what normal people earn. It’s all relative.