Lassana Diarra case against FIFA: what will be the consequences of the EU decision for the market and the players?

1. The roots of the affair

Since 2016, the French footballer, defended by the Liège firm of Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, has claimed damages from FIFA and the Belgian Federation for refusing to confirm his transfer to Charleroi. Following Lokomotiv Moscow’s decision to lower his contract, Diarra terminated it in the summer of 2014. A year later, he had the opportunity to sign for Sporting to get back on track.

But the Belgian Union had not validated this movement, relying on the regulations on the status and transfer of FIFA players, which makes the player pay very dearly for this type of decision, since he must reimburse his former club the full salary at the end of the contract. Lokomotiv also demanded €20 million from the midfielder for this break, adding costs linked to the hiring of another player. Furthermore, it was planned that any club which signed such a player would also be sanctioned.

Considering the settlement unfair, Diarra requested damages from FIFA and the Belgian Union before the courts of our kingdom. And the Mons Court of Appeal questioned the CJEU.

2. What happened this Friday: the CJEU says “stop”

Questioned by the Belgian Court, the CJEU delivered its verdict this Friday and followed the former French international as well as the advocate general, who ruled in his favor.

“The rules in question are likely to hinder the freedom of movement of footballers“, explains the Court in a summary of its decision. “These rules impose unpredictable and potentially very high financial risks on these players and their clubs (…)..”

The Court does not completely deny the particularity of football, but considers that a limit has been exceeded: “If restrictions on the free movement of professional players can be justified (to) ensure the regularity of competitions (…) the rules in question nevertheless seem, subject to verification by the Mons Court of Appeal, to go beyond what is necessary for the pursuit of this objective.”

Return to Mons

At the CJEU”does not decide the national dispute“, that is not its role. This case therefore returns to the Mons Court of Appeal, which is hard to imagine changing its mind after having shown in 2016 that it was more of the player’s opinion.

3. Opposite reactions

“For Lassana Diarra who dared to challenge the all-powerful FIFA, it is a total victory“, did not fail to let the Dupont-Hissel firm know, a powerhouse of international football authorities and which had already been at work in the Super League affair or even Bosman, for the first named. “Since (2016), nine years have passed without FIFA and its members deigning to modify their system to make it compliant with EU law.”

The firm goes further: “All professional players who have been affected by these illegal rules can now seek redress.” The CJEU effectively clarified that its “decision binds in the same way other national courts which would be seized of a similar problem“. This promises.

On the FIFA side, we do not want to be alarmist: “FIFA has taken note (…) and is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system has been reconfirmed. The decision calls into question only two paragraphs (of the regulations), that the National Court (from Mons) is now called upon to consider.“

On the side of the association of national leagues, in struggle with the all-powerful FIFA and UEFA, we believe on the contrary that the Swiss body “must comply with the laws“and that”the inclusion of leagues, players and unions in governance has become essential.”

4. The consequences: beware of the Wild West

For Lassana Diarra, it will be necessary to wait for the Court of Mons to assess the amount of compensation to which he is entitled, assuming that it will remain on a line favorable to the player.

More generally, are we at risk of total deregulation? We cannot imagine a market where terminating one’s contract to re-engage elsewhere would be done free of charge or without real notice. This should not be the case, since the CJEU underlines the relevance of certain “separate” rules in the field of football. But compensation must be proportionate, she says. This type of situation will probably happen more tomorrow. FIFA will have to listen to the other players so that these compensations are fair and that the decision made this Friday, even if it is reminiscent of the Bosman ruling of the 90s on several levels, does not lead to the Wild West.