Fifa verdict: Court supports footballer Lassana Diarra

FIFA’s transfer rules do not comply with EU law. This is the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case of the former French footballer Lassana Diarra. Athletes and clubs were burdened with “significant legal, unforeseeable and potentially very large financial and significant sporting risks,” according to the press release.

The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself; it is now up to the Belgian court in Mons to take into account the opinion of the EU court. Because the latter took the case to the court in Luxembourg.

In an initial reaction, the world association reacts as follows: “Fifa is convinced that the legality of the most important principles of the transfer system has been confirmed again by today’s judgment.”

So what does this decision mean? We answer the most pressing questions.

Who is Lassana Diarra? And where does this judgment come from?

The now 39-year-old played for Real Madrid and Olympique Marseille, among others, and also appeared 39 times for the French national team. In 2014, Diarra signed a four-year contract with Lokomotiv Moscow. After a year, he clashed with his then coach and terminated his contract “without good reason,” as the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne decided. The result: Fifa fined Diarra ten million francs; this sum was determined based on his income.

The Frenchman wanted to join RSC Charleroi in the Belgian league – which is why a Belgian court is ruling on the case. FIFA and the Belgian association threatened the club with legal action. The following applies: If a club takes over a player who is in breach of contract, the club must contribute to the fine. In legalese: There is joint liability. Charleroi got cold feet and backed out of the deal. Diarra took a year off and then signed with Olympique Marseille.

He later sued FIFA for compensation amounting to six million euros – due to the restrictive requirements. Without this, Diarra says he would have gotten the job at Charleroi. In the first instance, the Frenchman was awarded 60,001 euros, then the case went on to the appeal court in Mons, Belgium. This turned to the European Court of Justice, which now issued the latest ruling. As simple as it is complicated.

What would be the possible consequences of the ruling for the players?

In the event of a corresponding ruling from Belgium, footballers could withdraw from a current contract without valid reasons. This means that contract terms become less relevant and players could change clubs more quickly. You would only have to pay a claim for damages specified in the contract to the transferring club. The amount owed must not exceed what could reasonably be considered necessary, according to the EU court’s final application.

All of this could result in increased fluctuation in the squad. In other words: Those willing to leave could easily leave the club, and conversely, the contracts of the unnecessary players could be terminated prematurely without the player’s consent. The above provisions regarding claims for damages also apply here. The mutual contractual security would no longer be present to the same extent.

What would be the possible consequences for the clubs?

A much-discussed topic is the amount of transfer fees. Do the clubs still receive compensation for players who terminate their contracts and are free on the market, or are new clauses being drawn up here? The ruling could have an impact on the generous transfer fees.

In addition, the clubs no longer have to worry about possible sanctions or joint liability, as these go too far for the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, the court states that there may be restrictions in the context of sporting competition, such as claims for damages to players.

Discussions between the clubs, national associations and FIFA will probably take place very soon. Premature polemics among the clubs would be a bad approach, as the reactions to the Bosman ruling in 1995 show. More on that later.

Would Switzerland as a football location benefit from this?

According to current knowledge, not. In the future, the big clubs that have previously spent a lot of money on transfers would particularly benefit. Smaller clubs that generate a large portion of their revenue through transfer revenue would be at a disadvantage and would probably be exposed to more fluctuation. Because they were more protected by the existing system than the really big clubs. But the same applies here: There will be a round table that will address this topic. And the participants in this round also know that football only works if it is broadly professional.

What was the Bosman verdict?

It was a decision by the European Court of Justice in 1995 that changed football dramatically. Previously, clubs had to pay transfer fees even if a player no longer had a contract. The Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman complained that he, without a contract, wanted to move for free. The European Court of Justice sided with the Belgian. Since then, players have been able to change clubs without paying a fee after their contract ends. The restriction on the number of foreign players has also been lifted. Bosman’s lawyer at the time: Jean-Louis Dupont. Lassana Diarra’s lawyer: Jean-Louis Dupont.

What is the relation to the Bosman ruling?

The verdict, which was passed around thirty years ago, is considered one of, or even the most, momentous sporting rulings of the European Court of Justice. Uli Hoeness, Bayern Munich’s sports director at the time, saw “the whole system breaking down in the medium term.” Werder’s sports director at the time, Willi Lemke, described the verdict as a “catastrophe because cheap guest workers could block the places for young Germans.”

The consequences of the verdict were striking, but less serious than expected. It was still noticeable for the clubs, especially for the smaller ones and also for the entire football economic system. The players were given more power and hand money as we know it today was established. Consequences are also to be expected from today’s ruling, with innovations in the entire transfer cycle – but these would hardly be comparable to the effects of the Bosman ruling.

What is the conclusion?

The main thing now is to wait for the Belgian court’s ruling. And then also a possible appeal. So no changes will be noticeable overnight. There will probably be a lengthy process in which the various parties deal with the new case law. Of course, it is welcome for the players to be able to choose their own employer. But fixed contract terms are also important security for footballers, clubs and fans in the fast-moving football business.

However, it can still be assumed that not every footballer has a chronic desire to change – most of them lack offers anyway. In addition, FIFA can be trusted to protect the foundations of the transfer system with quick adjustments.

An “anarchy” in football, as the “Guardian” feared before the verdict was announced, is not in the interest of any of the parties involved in this billion-dollar business.

News from the national team

Receive an email every time an important article about the Swiss national team appears.

More newsletters

Log in

Found an error? Report now.

5 comments