In 2014, while playing for Lokomotiv Moscow, Lassana Diarra slammed the door of the Moscow club, accusing him of a salary cut without valid reason. Lokomotiv Moscow terminates the Frenchman’s contract, citing the fact that the latter stopped performing his contract without “just cause”.
In addition, he is demanding compensation amounting to 10.5 million euros and is taking the matter to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. The judicial body of the federation based in Switzerland rules in favor of the Moscow club, requires Lassana Diarra to pay the sum claimed from the latter and suspends him from football competitions for a period of 15 months. This decision is confirmed by the CAS.
During the procedure, the former number 10 of Real Madrid tried as best he could to continue his career. However, a principle of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTJ) places a serious obstacle to this: the principle of co-debition. Indeed, Article 17 point 2 of the regulation, which deals with the consequences of a breach of contract without just cause, provides that “sIf a professional player is required to pay compensation, the professional player and his new club will be jointly and severally responsible for payment thereof. The amount can be stipulated in the contract or agreed between the parties. » In addition to compensation, sporting sanctions are provided for in point 4 of article 17:
“In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions will be imposed against any club found to be in breach of contract or inciting the termination of a contract during the protected period. A club which signs a contract with a professional player who has terminated his previous contract without just cause is presumed, until proven otherwise, to have induced this professional player to terminate the contract. The sanction results in a ban on the club registering new players, nationally or internationally, for two full and consecutive registration periods. »
Consequently, any club wishing to secure the services of Lassana Diarra risked having to pay compensation and was exposed to sporting sanctions. This was the case of the Belgian club Charleroi. The latter was strongly interested in the French player but the aforementioned circumstances put him off.
- Also read: Between Superleague and Champions League, what direction for European football in the 21st century?
Lassana Diarra against Mascherano, during the Clásico of the semi-final second leg of the Champions League in 2011 (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images).
The Lassana Diarra affair will not allow FIFA to maintain the principle of co-debition
This state of affairs pushed Lassana Diarra to challenge the principle of co-debition before the Belgian justice system. As part of the procedure, it asked a preliminary question to the CJEU on the conformity of the points of the RSTJ concerning co-debition with European law.
In today’s decision, the CJEU considers that the two articles of the RSTJ mentioned above are contrary to Community law, as Iusport points out.
On the one hand, she considers that the rules in question are likely to hinder the movement of footballers and, on the other hand, they restrict, or even prevent, the cross-border competition in which all professional football clubs established in the Union could engage. She therefore considers that they are not neither essential nor necessary.
What will be the concrete consequences of this decision? The CJEU will refer the case to the Belgian court and the latter will have to draw inspiration from the judgment of the supreme European judicial body to render its decision. Presumably, FIFA should be required to amend its regulations so that they no longer contain the principle of co-disclosure and cannot obstruct the issuance of the international transfer certificate.
So, in the event of a dispute similar to that of Lassana Diarra, the old club will have to issue the said certificate and the player will be allowed to participate in football competitions for his new club.
In conclusion, this decision in the Lassana Diarra affair does not augur a revolution on the transfer market. However, it could give rise to controversial situations. For example, we can imagine the case of a player who has several years of contract remaining and who cites a trivial reason so that his contract is terminated and his potential future club does not have to pay compensation. transfer.
It will therefore be necessary to prevent such cases so that they do not become widespread, otherwise the current transfer system will be completely disrupted.
Related News :