We’ve been anticipating a landmark legal decision, one that could transform football and become associated with a single professional athlete. We may finally have a new Bosman moment, thanks to a judgement given by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last Friday. Often referred to as the Lassana Diarra ruling, it is highly probable that it will induce significant alterations in football.
Despite the legal proceedings starting nine years ago, it is yet to conclude. The decision to consider if prominent Fifa laws concerning the transfer market are still viable is in the hands of the Belgian courts. However, given that all remaining points must fall within the boundaries of EU law, and the EU’s leading court has commented that Fifa’s regulations exceed necessities in numerous ways, the current system is likely to be heading for replacement.
Primarily, the case debates what occurs when a player’s contract is terminated “without a justified reason”. This was the situation faced by Diarra in 2014 whilst playing for Lokomotiv Moscow. His contract was terminated due to a disagreement about his performance and salary, with Fifa’s dispute and resolution chamber ruling against the former French midfielder and fining him accordingly.
Unable to sign a fresh contract with the Belgian club Charleroi, as the transfer permit could not be given until the fine was settled, this presented a predicament. Moreover, if Charleroi proceeded to finalise their agreement, they could be held accountable for the outstanding debt and face a potential penalty for not paying it.
Finding such potential liabilities untenable, the Belgian club opted not to proceed with the deal. Consequently, the court had to review two aspects: firstly, if the denial of a permit impinged on Diarra’s freedom of movement, and secondly, if the requirements imposed on Charleroi and the potential consequences limited their competitive abilities.
In both matters, the court ruled in favor of Diarra over Fifa. Even Fifa’s claim that such regulations are vital to “guarantee the consistency of sporting competitions” was deemed not enough by the court, stating the rules “exceed what is necessary to achieve that objective”.
According to ECJ, FIFA will have one last window to present a solid argument at the Belgian appeal court where the case is under consideration. The judgment revealed that an exemption can only be gained if there are strong evidence and arguments proving complete adherence to the required conditions. However, FIFA’s early reaction, underestimating the ruling as minor and stating that it only brings two sections of the FIFA regulations into question, might not completely consider the range of potential implications.
This judgment potentially paves the way for players to have the capability to terminate their contracts. In addition, it is expected that there will be alterations in the rules that currently dictate how compensation is determined, and the amounts, in the event of contract termination without reasonable cause. The ECJ noted that these compensation regulations appear to focus more on protecting the financial interests of the clubs than on ensuring efficient functioning of sporting contests.
The verdict could also initiate changes in financial responsibilities by buying clubs, steering away from the belief that these clubs are accountable for player transfers, potentially concluding the contrary.
Changes of this magnitude would bear significant interconnected implications and could produce unforeseen results regardless of their solutions. However, this ruling impacts more than just FIFA and other governing bodies.
The law firm Dupont-Hissel, who not only represents Diarra but who also represented Jean-Marc Bosman, instantly stated in response to the verdict that Diarra’s case was a comprehensive victory. This verdict affects all professional players dating back to 2001 and provides them the liberty to claim compensation for the losses, potentially incurred from being unable to terminate contracts and switch over to a better-paying club. Therefore, more legal proceedings may be expected.
FIFA is coming under increased examination in its role as a regulatory body. The Super League situation during the previous year culminated with Uefa being advised to improve accountability and increase transparency in rule-creation. This incident was repeatedly brought up in the Diarra judgment and seems to be a continuation of it. Questions surrounding the fairness and proportionality of FIFA’s rules are being asked. Moreover, the judgment mentions the “ambiguity” or “uncertainty” arising from these rules, suggesting a need for clearer formulation.
This perspective corroborates the viewpoint of players’ unions on multiple matters. Dupont-Hissel, appointed by Fifpro, the worldwide union, is set to represent it in a lawsuit against FIFA concerning the upcoming Club World Cup. The allegation is that the plans infringe on EU workers’ welfare regulations.
Maheta Molango, the CEO of the Professional Footballers’ Association in the UK and a renowned sports attorney, stated on Friday that the Diarra ruling underscores a broader issue. It highlights once more that football cannot act as though it is exempt from the employment laws applicable to every other sector. Football management, Molango emphasised, should actively and honestly evaluate if their rules align with employment laws. They should then begin to earnestly engage with players and their unions.
While a comprehensive overhaul of the governance system does not seem probable, this verdict certainly brings it closer to reality. It’s hard to dismiss that this ruling could tip the scale of power in professional football.