A court decision on FIFA’s transfer rules will “change the landscape of professional football”, world players’ union FIFPRO has said.
The European Court of Justice has found some of the rules imposed by the global governing body are contrary to EU law in that they restrict freedom of movement and are anti-competitive, following a challenge by former Arsenal, Chelsea and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra.
FIFA has already played down the significance of the ruling, saying it only puts in question the wording of two paragraphs within two articles of the overall rules governing player registrations and transfers.
However, FIFPRO believes the decision will have a profound effect.
“The European Court of Justice has ruled that a central part of the FIFA transfer system, in place since 2001, constitutes a restriction of competition by object and a violation of the free movement of workers,” the players’ body said in a statement posted on its official X account.
“The ECJ has just handed down a major ruling on the regulation of the labour market in football….which will change the landscape of professional football.”
Diarra sued FIFA for damages in the Belgian courts, citing two of its rules for the collapse of a move to Belgian club Charleroi after the termination of his contract with Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014.
The first rule, Article 17.2 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), states a new club will be jointly liable for compensation, alongside the player, to be paid to the old club where the player has terminated contract without just cause.
The second allows the national association of the player’s former club to withhold an international transfer certificate (ITC) where there is a contract dispute.
FIFA sources had questioned the significance of the ITC rule prior to Friday’s judgement, pointing out that in all cases where a club wishing to sign a player involved in a dispute referred the matter to FIFA, registration with the new club was permitted.
The decision had been billed by some in the lead-up to Friday as the most significant since the 1995 Bosman ruling, which effectively gave out-of-contract players complete freedom at the end of their contracts.
Jean-Louis Dupont worked on that case and represented Diarra in this one, and his firm described Friday’s ruling as a “total victory” for Diarra.
The Dupont-Hissel firm statement said the decision would pave the way for a modernisation of governance in the transfer market, “in particular the use of collective bargaining between employees and employers” as are more common in American sports.
The ECJ ruling, which is set to be published in full later on Friday, will now be handed back to the Belgian appeal court which made the referral for a final decision on the specifics in the Diarra case.
A press release from the ECJ issued on Friday morning said: “The rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club.”
The release went on to say the court found that while some restrictions on movement may be justified to regulate competition between clubs and to ensure contractual stability in playing squads, it felt the rules in question went “beyond what is necessary to pursue that objective”.
FIFA said: “FIFA is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been reconfirmed in today’s ruling.
“The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which the national court is now invited to consider.
“FIFA will analyse the decision in co-ordination with other stakeholders before commenting further.”
Maheta Molango, the chief executive of English players’ union the Professional Footballers’ Association, said the ruling could have “far-reaching ramifications” for football.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here