5 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Think you are being generous. His bug bear is he ain’t rich enough

Yeah it's worthwhile point out this latest case he's won has declared FIFA's rules on third-party ownership potentially null & void in the EU - that's huge in and of itself

Funny as Dupont was FIFPRO's golden hero last month!

On 07/02/2025 at 02:26, SydneyChelsea said:

CJEU has also commented that FIFA/CAS's use of sporting restrictions, eg suspension if a player breaks contract to join another club, is illegal in the EU.

 

This makes perfect sense and I could see some sort of gardening leave being introduced like normal working contracts.

If I leave my company now(USA Tech) and go to a rival I could be made to work my notice which is hard to enforce or go on gardening leave for that period.

They can’t suspend me from work if I want to join another company. They can put me on gardening leave though.

Could you imagine players having notice periods on contracts.

Player comes in with resignation letter 🤣🤣 I intended to leave next transfer window.

11 minutes ago, El regreso said:

Am I being a conspiracy theorist in thinking FiFA getting close to the Mango Mussolini this summer is not a coincidence and might have something to do with this. Using him to put pressure on the EU to not take away FIFA powers it returned for favourable trade deals in the future.

No complex conspiracy, just a fact of nature that weak men will cosy up to other weak men.

Nothing the USA can do to even remotely influence the EU to change its employment laws, about the same success as convincing it to abandon universal healthcare

53 minutes ago, El regreso said:

This makes perfect sense and I could see some sort of gardening leave being introduced like normal working contracts.

If I leave my company now(USA Tech) and go to a rival I could be made to work my notice which is hard to enforce or go on gardening leave for that period.

They can’t suspend me from work if I want to join another company. They can put me on gardening leave though.

Could you imagine players having notice periods on contracts.

Player comes in with resignation letter 🤣🤣 I intended to leave next transfer window.

For sure, although this is also important to protect the player from injury, and is already the convention.

The decision actually affirms the need for FIFA to regulate contract and competition stability within a season, as necessary for the integrity of the sport. So things like transfer windows will still be permitted.

The Court just questioned whether 'stability' meant tying down players for years and decided this is disproportionate.

And so it begins

FIFA are getting sued by a bunch of current and ex-players who were forced to pay excess compensation to clubs as a result of FIFA's illegal transfer rules.

And it begins again: Brazilian footballer, Lucas Ribeiro, has unilaterally terminated his contract with a South African team (Mamelodi Sundowns) after he believes the club intentionally scuppered his proposed move to Qatar SC by trying to get more money.

The FIFA rule changes mean that he is free to move internationally as neither FIFA nor the South African FA can withhold his transfer certificate, and any purchasing club (including those in Europe) are no longer liable to pay Mamelodi Sundowns any compensation. The player will go to CAS to seek confirmation, but the EU's eyes will be on the decision.

FIFA's response here will be interesting. A swift admission of defeat would effectively close the transfer market across the globe.

Edited August 25, 2025Aug 25 by SydneyChelsea

Hi Sydney

Do you believe this could happen?

Global closedown of transfer market.

41 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Hi Sydney

Do you believe this could happen?

Global closedown of transfer market.

It is possible, and European sports legal experts (eg Antoine Duval) certainly believe that the transfer market cannot exist in its current form within the EU. A 'transfer fee' is, after all, actually just a settlement payment, in which a selling club accepts a payment instead of pursuing a player and buying club for inducing a breach of contract. ECJ's decision upends the need for transfer payments by stating that buying clubs cannot be held jointly liable for alleged breaches, that FIFA and the FAs cannot regulate the system by refusing to issue compliance certificates, and that FIFA/CAS's system for calculating compensation is wrong and incompatible with EU law, which hard-limits a transfer fee to the value of the player's remaining contracted wages.

To be compatible with EU law, players must be able to end their contract at any time (outside a season), the maximum amount of compensation payable will be limited to the remaining wages on their contract, and buying clubs will not be liable to selling clubs for paying compensation. Under the new system, if Cole Palmer wanted to go to Real Madrid, it would be a simple matter of him giving notice at the season's end, and then him buying out the rest of his contract; he might be able to negotiate being compensated for the buyout by his new club, too, but there is no more 'selling' club.

As @terraloon and I discuss above, however, it is still uncertain whether FIFA will permanently apply the new rules globally, or whether it will have one set of rules for EU and one set of rules for non-EU clubs. There are many parties that profit from the current transfer system, especially clubs (including Chelsea) and agents whose whole business model revolves around player trading, and this market will evaporate overnight. Europe is no longer the sole proprietor of football and the game relies far more on money from England, Asia and the Middle East, regions that would benefit from a two-tier ruleset that would allow clubs in those regions to compete financially with Europe. FIFA are keeping their cards close to their chest on this one.

The system still needs one EU player to light the touchpaper and test the new rules at CAS, but that is a lengthy process requiring a player to sit out a season, and also a player with the means to actually afford to buy out their own contract. Once that domino falls, we'll know where FIFA stands.

The case above is potentially that case, globally. Ribeiro appears happy to be the test case and manage the consequences, and if he is successful it is possible the flood gates will open to the extent this may be the last transfer window we ever see.

5 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

It is possible, and European sports legal experts (eg Antoine Duval) certainly believe that the transfer market cannot exist in its current form within the EU. A 'transfer fee' is, after all, actually just a settlement payment, in which a selling club accepts a payment instead of pursuing a player and buying club for inducing a breach of contract. ECJ's decision upends the need for transfer payments by stating that buying clubs cannot be held jointly liable for alleged breaches, that FIFA and the FAs cannot regulate the system by refusing to issue compliance certificates, and that FIFA/CAS's system for calculating compensation is wrong and incompatible with EU law, which hard-limits a transfer fee to the value of the player's remaining contracted wages.

To be compatible with EU law, players must be able to end their contract at any time (outside a season), the maximum amount of compensation payable will be limited to the remaining wages on their contract, and buying clubs will not be liable to selling clubs for paying compensation. Under the new system, if Cole Palmer wanted to go to Real Madrid, it would be a simple matter of him giving notice at the season's end, and then him buying out the rest of his contract; he might be able to negotiate being compensated for the buyout by his new club, too, but there is no more 'selling' club.

As @terraloon and I discuss above, however, it is still uncertain whether FIFA will permanently apply the new rules globally, or whether it will have one set of rules for EU and one set of rules for non-EU clubs. There are many parties that profit from the current transfer system, especially clubs (including Chelsea) and agents whose whole business model revolves around player trading, and this market will evaporate overnight. Europe is no longer the sole proprietor of football and the game relies far more on money from England, Asia and the Middle East, regions that would benefit from a two-tier ruleset that would allow clubs in those regions to compete financially with Europe. FIFA are keeping their cards close to their chest on this one.

The system still needs one EU player to light the touchpaper and test the new rules at CAS, but that is a lengthy process requiring a player to sit out a season, and also a player with the means to actually afford to buy out their own contract. Once that domino falls, we'll know where FIFA stands.

The case above is potentially that case, globally. Ribeiro appears happy to be the test case and manage the consequences, and if he is successful it is possible the flood gates will open to the extent this may be the last transfer window we ever see.

thanks for responding. One question springs to mind if this was to happen then is.. how would this affect a clubs appetite to pay large player wages when as a consequence they would not have such a valuable asset? And as such would a player uprising re freedom to move club to club also damage their earning potential and therefore the whole process would defeat the initiators?

i can see the losers in this new approach players clubs federations but not the winners. Oh the legal boys might be winners.

and my second question is ... will such a new salary based system not make the big clubs even stronger and the small clubs smaller/weaker, ie all leagues could become less competitive.

Edited August 25, 2025Aug 25 by OneTommyLangley

2 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

thanks for responding. One question springs to mind if this was to happen then is.. how would this affect a clubs appetite to pay large player wages when as a consequence they would not have such a valuable asset? And as such would a player uprising re freedom to move club to club also damage their earning potential and therefore the whole process would defeat the initiators?

In theory, paying big wages is the only way to 'secure' a contract. If you pay a player enough so that they can't easily buy themselves out or other clubs won't be willing to reimburse them, then you can price them out of a transfer. Similarly, if clubs don't need to set aside money for transfer fees, they could redirect some of those funds directly to players for the above reasons. Take Florian Wirtz for example, instead of paying 150m to Leverkusen, Liverpool could simply get Wirtz to buy out his contract of ~20m and then reimburse him for the cost. That's 130m saved, meaning they could add another 30m to Wirtz's total salary and still have 100m left in the bank.

Players' unions are very supportive of the changes as they see it as players eventually receiving a greater share of the revenue that football generates, as evidenced by player wages in American sports where there are no transfer fees.

Rather than damaging earning potential, it increases it, as players will have a wider market for their services as opposed to only being able to be acquired by clubs willing to pay a transfer fee and wages. Imagine what that would do for EPL clubs, the top 10 would easily compete with Madrid and PSG for players if they don't need to factor in the cost of transfer fees, especially in this FFP era.

Edited August 25, 2025Aug 25 by SydneyChelsea

2 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

In theory, paying big wages is the only way to 'secure' a contract. If you pay a player enough so that they can't easily buy themselves out or other clubs won't be willing to reimburse them, then you can price them out of a transfer. Similarly, if clubs don't need to set aside money for transfer fees, they could redirect some of those funds directly to players for the above reasons. Players' unions are very supportive of the changes as they see it as players eventually receiving a greater share of the revenue that football generates, as evidenced by player wages in American sports where there are no transfer fees.

Rather than damaging earning potential, it increases it, as players will have a wider market for their services as opposed to only being able to be acquired by clubs willing to pay a transfer fee and wages. Imagine what that would do for EPL clubs, the top 10 would easily compete with Madrid and PSG for players if they don't need to factor in the cost of transfer fees, especially in this FFP era.

elite level players should be able to secure themselves a very good contract, but do you really think middle quality players will be able to secure themselves a second contract ( and there are a lot of these in this group, and they probably know it ). Again elite level players will earn a fortune and the rest maybe not so much.

The top 10 in the Premier League Brighton Palace and the like competing with Madrid PSG etc is stretching it. A well funded team from the Australian League could compete on that basis. With so many different federations and Legal regions this is starting to sound a little bit of a tall order.

1 minute ago, OneTommyLangley said:

elite level players should be able to secure themselves a very good contract, but do you really think middle quality players will be able to secure themselves a second contract ( and there are a lot of these in this group, and they probably know it ). Again elite level players will earn a fortune and the rest maybe not so much.

The top 10 in the Premier League Brighton Palace and the like competing with Madrid PSG etc is stretching it. A well funded team from the Australian League could compete on that basis. With so many different federations and Legal regions this is starting to sound a little bit of a tall order.

could be a lucrative project for the legal boys tho.

and my third and final question of the evening is... will this not move all roads to a super league which many people dread ( not i incidentally ) with everything else being as good as binned.? Elite level footballers playing for elite level teams in an elite league, mmm not sure the world wants that.

For every Cole Palmer there might be 100 Nkunkus and 10000 Marc Guius i dont see these fellas getting a second years wage of any substance, do you? And what of the injury prone players Fofana Lavia and co. second season ? erm maybe not. I think the players could get royally f**ked here and maybe some should?

but all very interesting👍

Edited August 26, 2025Aug 26 by OneTommyLangley

12 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

elite level players should be able to secure themselves a very good contract, but do you really think middle quality players will be able to secure themselves a second contract ( and there are a lot of these in this group, and they probably know it ). Again elite level players will earn a fortune and the rest maybe not so much.

The top 10 in the Premier League Brighton Palace and the like competing with Madrid PSG etc is stretching it. A well funded team from the Australian League could compete on that basis. With so many different federations and Legal regions this is starting to sound a little bit of a tall order.

You're not wrong, but isn't that the same reality as the current system?

The short-term shocks will be huge. Clubs with high levels of transfer spending will have to repay that debt to their lenders/investors with zero prospect of recovery. This could have a short-term deflationary impact as clubs choose to pay down debt instead of spend up on players. Ultimately, that could make football a lot more sustainable.

The Deloitte Football Money League shows the revenue of the top 30 clubs in the world, and England predictably dominate the top 30 with even mid-table clubs breaking through. You're right that Madrid/PSG are a bad example, it's more accurate to say that those mid-tier EPL clubs would even further outcompete Serie A and Bundesliga clubs who have good transfer revenue but pay low wages. In fact, Chelsea's low-wage/high transfer fee model would also be at a disadvantage to say Newcastle or Villa, who could afford to pay more in raw wages when competing for elite talent.

The issue for smaller clubs, especially those outside Europe, is that they rely on big transfer fees from Europe to sustain their finances. Benfica, Porto, Sporting, A**x etc would be sweating on losing academy products for peanuts, and the big Brazillian and Argentine clubs wouldn't be able to rely on transfer income from Europe to fund their existence. European clubs wouldn't be able to rely on Saudi to bail them out of bad investments and financial holes.

The bolded bit is interesting because the detail of ECJ's decision (and the recent RFC Seraing case above) suggests this exactly what the ECJ wants. The decisions affirm that footballers are no different to any other employee in EU law, that football clubs are no different to any other businesses in EU law, and that commercial regulation and employment law are matters for countries not FIFA to decide. The Court found that FIFA is not competent to have a unified global system as an alternative to already-existing national laws.

Edited August 26, 2025Aug 26 by SydneyChelsea

2 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

You're not wrong, but isn't that the same reality as the current system?

The short-term shocks will be huge. Clubs with high levels of transfer spending will have to repay that debt to their lenders/investors with zero prospect of recovery. This could have a short-term deflationary impact as clubs choose to pay down debt instead of spend up on players. Ultimately, that could make football a lot more sustainable.

The Deloitte Football Money League shows the revenue of the top 30 clubs in the world, and England predictably dominate the top 30 with even mid-table clubs breaking through. You're right that Madrid/PSG are a bad example, it's more accurate to say that those mid-tier EPL clubs would even further outcompete Serie A and Bundesliga clubs who have good transfer revenue but pay low wages. In fact, Chelsea's low-wage/high transfer fee model would also be at a disadvantage to say Newcastle or Villa, who could afford to pay more in raw wages when competing for elite talent.

The issue for smaller clubs, especially those outside Europe, is that they rely on big transfer fees from Europe to sustain their finances. Benfica, Porto, Sporting, A**x etc would be sweating on losing academy products for peanuts, and the big Brazillian and Argentine clubs wouldn't be able to rely on transfer income from Europe to fund their existence. European clubs wouldn't be able to rely on Saudi to bail them out of bad investments and financial holes.

The bolded bit is interesting because the detail of ECJ's decision (and the recent RC Seraring case above) suggests this exactly what the ECJ wants. The decisions affirm that footballers are no different to any other employee in EU law, that football clubs are no different to any other businesses in EU law, and that commercial regulation and employment law are matters for countries not FIFA to decide. The Court found that FIFA is not competent to have a unified global system as an alternative to already-existing national laws.

I think you might agree that there isnt a huge stock of elite level players and that even the top 30 teams in the world have a few bang average players. Some of these European leagues might end up as one horse races hence the potential for a Super league threat. Its a very interesting project but legal folk and financial folk alike have got a fair bit of work to do before you get to " this might be the last transfer window" or "everything will change" type mission statements, if i can be so bold.

As ive said players need to take this change on board and its longer term implications , i hope someone explains to the Journeymen that they might be financially embarrassed in the future. sh*t players are gonna struggle for long contracts.

The issue for smaller clubs, especially those outside Europe, is that they rely on big transfer fees from Europe to sustain their finances. Benfica, Porto, Sporting, A**x etc would be sweating on losing academy products for peanuts, and the big Brazillian and Argentine clubs wouldn't be able to rely on transfer income from Europe to fund their existence. European clubs wouldn't be able to rely on Saudi to bail them out of bad investments and financial holes.

Ive cut this bold bit from your notes ...Im staggered at the thought of trying to sell this to the federations and clubs some will fold in a flash, and we will really need a super league.

Edited August 26, 2025Aug 26 by OneTommyLangley

42 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

I think you might agree that there isnt a huge stock of elite level players and that even the top 30 teams in the world have a few bang average players. Some of these European leagues might end up as one horse races hence the potential for a Super league threat. Its a very interesting project but legal folk and financial folk alike have got a fair bit of work to do before you get to " this might be the last transfer window" or "everything will change" type mission statements, if i can be so bold.

As ive said players need to take this change on board and its longer term implications , i hope someone explains to the Journeymen that they might be financially embarrassed in the future. sh*t players are gonna struggle for long contracts.

I wasn't quite sure what you were referring to initially. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems you believe that, without the protection of the current transfer system, rich clubs will simply accumulate all the best players?

I agree with that to an extent, because rich clubs accumulating players is already reality. Only wealthy clubs can afford exorbitant transfer fees and so clubs must compete on two financial fronts, instead of wages alone. We can afford to pay transfer fees which allowed us to stockpile Estevao, Paez, Gittens etc. despite being on relatively cheap wages that smaller clubs could realistically afford. One on hand there is a real risk of increasing the accumulation problem, on the other hand more power is handed to players to make contractual decisions based on playing time, footballing opportunity etc without the risk of a club forcing them to stay a la Isak.

The legal side of this dispute is largely settled and FIFA's legal authority in Europe has been limited and severely curtailed by ECJ's decisions on the ESL, Diarra and RFC Seraing cases. FIFA has to make a political decision to comply with football's spiritual home or to go its own way to appease its new financial masters.

42 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

The issue for smaller clubs, especially those outside Europe, is that they rely on big transfer fees from Europe to sustain their finances. Benfica, Porto, Sporting, A**x etc would be sweating on losing academy products for peanuts, and the big Brazillian and Argentine clubs wouldn't be able to rely on transfer income from Europe to fund their existence. European clubs wouldn't be able to rely on Saudi to bail them out of bad investments and financial holes.

Ive cut this bold bit from your notes ...Im staggered at the thought of trying to sell this to the federations and clubs some will fold in a flash, and we will really need a super league.

A super league was an inevitability the moment clubs became businesses first and foremost, and football organisations a distant second. One core part of ECJ's decision in Diarra is pointing out that FIFA's role as a cultural custodian of football doesn't give it the right or ability to make legally binding decisions in areas of commercial and employment law. It's worthwhile remembering that the role of FIFA, its federations and the various national FAs have no real business in club football except that convention makes the clubs kowtow to FIFA's authority. This was always going to happen when club football overtook international football in financial and footballing precedence. ECJ's decision in ESL and Diarra affirms what clubs already believe, that FIFA and the FAs have no role in regulating club football, much less any authority on how to tell them to run their businesses.

It would not surprise me to see further challenges to this authority on everything from multi-club ownership rules to FFP and PSR schemes.

Bumping an old thread but I couldn't resist - it turns out that long before the CJEU had considered its stance, @Brian M already laid the groundwork.

Yes, the highest Court in Europe said "Brian M was right"

2006-era Shed End would have been a shambles

Edited January 22Jan 22 by SydneyChelsea

Well thats just destroyed my entire belief system, I dont know what to do now, thanks for that......

11 hours ago, dkw said:

Well thats just destroyed my entire belief system, I dont know what to do now, thanks for that......

Maybe Brexit wasn't such a bad idea when Europe's highest court agree almost verbatim with an Australian pirate

The update that no one has been waiting for

There's been a few developments on the transfer system saga since last year. Some of the highlights include:

• The Lucas Ribeiro Costa case - the first test of the new Regulations for FIFA. Ribeiro unilaterally ended his contract with South African club Mamelodi Sundowns, after they rejected a transfer bid from Qatar SC. Ribeiro claims that he has just cause for terminating his contract. Under the old rules, Sundowns could withhold his transfer certificate and sue him for breach of contract at DRC, and Ribeiro would be unable to play until the procedings had completed (usually 2 years in DRC, potentially longer in a national court)
  
  Under the new rules:

  • Mamelodi Sundowns cannot refuse to issue a transfer certificate. This means that the player is free to leave, and to play for, another club anywhere else in the world.

  • The new club cannot face sporting or financial sanctions if they register Ribeiro

  • Any dispute about compensation for breach of contract is between the player and the original club alone. To that extent, Mamelodi Sundowns have taken Ribeiro to the DRC to sue for compensation.
    

• Effectively this confirms that clubs can no longer prevent players from moving internationally, and clubs can sign players who have breached their contract regardless of the circumstances. They are free to leave and play elsewhere as they see fit and it is a matter for the club to separately sue the player for compensation after the fact.

  
  

• The Diarra ruling goes further in the EU. In the EU, the amount of compensation is limited to the remaining value of the player's contract, plus maybe nominal damages and costs for the releasing club. Externals, like transfer fees, are no longer allowed to be included in any calculation of compensation a player might owe a club, because the player is not party to that transaction. Also, a transfer fee was only required under the old system as a payment to stop the selling club from suing the new club; as buying clubs are no longer liable on behalf of players, there is no need for a transfer fee.

  
  

• In December, UEFA has broken ranks with FIFA and has opened collective bargaining directly with FIFPro, despite FIFA's resistance to do so globally. UEFA is scrambling to prevent the complete collapse of the transfer economy. The joint agreement recognises some central principles:

  1. UEFA should have one consistent transfer system across members, instead of being reliant on national law

  2. Contracts are necessary for stability for both clubs and players, and must have a 'protected period' where they cannot be breached for any reason by either party.

  3. A transfer system is necessary to redistrubute money across the football pyramid

  4. DRC must remain as a low-cost, speedy, accessible alternative to national courts for contractual dispute resolution'

  5. Clubs and players found to terminate contracts without just cause should face sporting as well as financial consequence.

This last bit is really important because as @terraloon and I discuss above, the politics of this decision is even more important than the legal details. UEFA's stance wedges its non-EU members (ie. England), because even though the CJEU's decision doesn't apply to them directly, they are now forced to decide between accepting UEFA's rules or losing the cash cows of Euros and the Champions' League. I speculated before that England, Saudi and the Americas could go their own way but this is no longer practical unless they form a viable Super League without other European clubs.

The joint agreement, as well as some chatter on the internet from people familiar with the discussions, indicates a few key changes coming:

• Transfer fees can still exist, but only where a buying club voluntarily agrees to it as a fee is no longer needed to release the player. Practically, this means that transfer fees will only apply where the player doesn't demand a move and instead requests the buying club to pay compensation to the seller.
  

• The calculation of compensation is still up in the air. The favoured solution is rumoured to be remaining value of player's wages (not the amortised FFP value) + some sort of adjustment made on a case-by-case basis by the Tribunal.

• The joint statement recommends that liquidated damages/penalty clauses (ie. pre-agreed release fees set in player's contract) be the method of contract release 'without just cause'. This is fairly common practice already, but will likely become the default. However, CJEU has already said that excessively high release clauses would likely also be invalid in the EU.
  

• Players do not need to finalise their dispute before moving. Although the Diarra ruling did not directly apply to Sterling because England is not in the EU, UEFA's endorsement of the joint statement means that any changes will likely apply UEFA-wide and FIFA-wide, and so the club realised it had little legal room to continue the 'bomb squad'. It's likely that 'bomb squads' will be a thing of the past as players can now simply leave and deal with the dispute after the fact.

Do these changes affect Chelsea? Yeah, big time. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view of BlueCo. The 'model' is now surely unviable as players do not need to be 'released' and the total compensation payable is limited where players terminate their contract unilaterally. We are unlikely to get anywhere near the sums of money paid in transfer fees. The new rules for compensation almost certainly favour lower transfer fees, higher wages models. Also, there is a serious financial consequence as FFP/PSR has divorced accounting from real-world finance to the extent that there are clubs in crippling transfer debt to other clubs; if transfer fees are deflated, this will seriously impact the ability of those clubs to repay debts.

Some examples of the effects for Chelsea:

• If Man United want Palmer: If Palmer wants to leave, the club cannot stop him. Palmer can unilaterally terminate his contract 'without just cause'. Compensation is still payable, but will be limited to some fraction of the remainder of his wages payable. Alternatively, Palmer can decline to leave, and request that Man United voluntarily negotiate compensation payable to Chelsea.
  

• If City also wanted Palmer, there might be a bidding war to driving up the price. However if Palmer decides he only wants City then he can end his contract and the scenario above applies.
  

• If Badiashile gets sent to a 'bomb squad': Under the new rules, this may be considered 'just cause' and in this case Badashile would be entitled to leave the club during any transfer window for free. Even if it were not 'just cause', Badiashile still has the right to negotiate with a new club. The club cannot prevent him rescinding his contract or from moving. It can sue him for compensation, but the limits above will likely apply.
  

• If Gittens got good: Signed for a high fee and low wages, Chelsea would get very minimal compensation for him if he were signed by another club.
  

Edited March 31Mar 31 by SydneyChelsea

He's settled. Everything and nothing has indeed changed:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/lassana-diarra-settles-with-fifa-and-belgian-fa-after-landmark-transfer-case

I assume this just means that FIFA have kicked the proverbial can down the road?

18 hours ago, PloKoon13 said:

He's settled. Everything and nothing has indeed changed:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/lassana-diarra-settles-with-fifa-and-belgian-fa-after-landmark-transfer-case

I assume this just means that FIFA have kicked the proverbial can down the road?

That is Diarra's personal compensation for loss of wages. Diarra sued FIFA and the FA after the ECJ ruled they acted unlawfully in the original case by deliberately preventing his new club Charleroi from registering him. It isn't surprising that the parties pursued a settlement, as FIFA reckons with potentially paying compensation for 25+ years of an unlawful transfer system in the EU. The ECJ's finding that the above conduct was a 'restriction by object' means the court's opinion was that the transfer system was deliberately designed to restrict competition and movement in an unlawful manner, which has now opened FIFA up to claims for compensation for restraint of trade and wage suppression.

FIFA has indeed kicked the can down the road but as mentioned earlier, UEFA and the European players' unions have committed to going their own way with a collective bargaining approach. This would satisfy EU law and would simply replace the current transfer system by standardising fees based on liquidated damages. Each player's contract would therefore specify the conditions and fees required to buy out the player's contract.

The only speed hump to this is that apparently French law does not allow fixed-term employment contracts that can be unilaterally terminated by either an employee or employer, and compensation is payable to the terminated party. I don't understand the French language, much less its people or their law, so I have no idea if/how it will work there. It seems like such matters must be decided by a court, which makes it impractical for doing transfers within the transfer window.

Regardless, there are still a few major implications arising from the original Diarra decision and FIFA's interim implementation:

• Can't stop a player from actually moving and/or registering with a new club - any dispute over fee must be sorted out in court after the fact

• Sporting sanctions (registration ban for clubs, suspension for players) can only be imposed where it is proven that the player was induced to breach their contract - so as above, requires a court case after-the-fact

• Players can leave if the club isn't playing them enough - 'bomb squads' are unenforceable and a club would be risking losing the player on a free

• 'Protected period' is still recognised by ECJ as necessary and legitimate to regulate contract stability, so a fee is more enforceable during this period