Here, we take a closer look.
How did we get here?
This case stems from a contract dispute between Diarra and Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow. The Frenchman and his legal team sued FIFA for damages, arguing its rules which hold clubs jointly liable for compensation and open to sanction if they sign a player who breaches contract prevented him moving to Belgian side Charleroi
The challenge, which was upheld in a Belgian court in 2017, said the rules were contrary to EU law because they restricted Diarra’s freedom of movement and were anti-competitive. FIFA appealed against the 2017 judgement and the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a ruling.
Why could this be significant?
Any ruling that finds the contested rules disproportionate or restrictive will likely mean the regulations need to be rewritten.
It could ultimately mean greater, if not total, freedom for players to terminate a contract without just cause. Union sources say the current rules treat players as assets rather than employees and want a player’s rights brought closer to, if not completely in line with, those of a regular person looking to change jobs.
What was the last big change in the transfer market?
The most significant shift occurred after the 1995 Bosman ruling, which effectively gave out-of-contract players total freedom over their next move and removed their former club’s entitlement to any fee once the contract had expired.
Is this as significant?
Any change here is likely to be more subtle, certainly at first. The question is whether the challenge to this specific aspect of the rules – the joint liability of an engaging club – leads to the whole system toppling.
Dr Borja Garcia, an EU sports law expert at Loughborough University, believes this case is probably “as close as we have come” to Bosman but believes any changes will be less dramatic, with Bosman having already shifted the power to players.
What is the likely outcome?
ECJ rulings often, but not always, go in line with the non-binding opinion of the Advocate General (AG) in the case. The AG in this case said in April that the rules “may be contrary” to EU law. He described the current consequences for a player of breaching contract without just cause as “draconian” and said the rules were designed to “send a chill down each player’s spine”.
What has FIFA said?
FIFA has declined to comment while the case is ongoing but in its earlier court submissions it argued the rules were a necessary part of ensuring contractual stability.
Sources close to the governing body also point out a player would still be liable for compensation where a contract is breached without just cause, only the joint liability of an engaging club is being contested.
What could the other impacts be?
If there are fewer obstacles and deterrents to a player breaking contract, it follows that transfer fees could trend downwards if clubs feel they have less security in the event of an in-contract player walking away.
Contracts might also shorten if they become less stable, but Dr Garcia points out clubs are “between a rock and a hard place” on this one. On one hand they might be more reluctant to commit to a long-term deal, but equally such contracts are preferable to comply with financial rules around profit and loss.
What do clubs think?
A senior source within the European club game told PA the Diarra ruling had the potential to be a “dangerous one”, adding: “The transfer market is the glue that holds the pyramid together.
“(The Diarra ruling) could have seismic implications, because if that glue starts to deteriorate, then that polarisation (between the big leagues and the rest) will get worse.”
