FIFA Transfer Rules go against EU Law

[green day]

Been reading about this a little, and the judgement arrived this morning -

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/04/fifas-transfer-rules-go-against-european-union-law-rules-eus-highest-court-lassana-diarra

Be interesting to see what the implications are once it all comes out in the wash

A bit more background -

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/29/will-the-lassana-diarra-case-bring-down-transfer-market-as-we-know-it

[Glory Lurker]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

Is the first article maybe getting carried away about the implications? This will only affect players who have been sacked so I don't see it ripping everything up. Quite possible I'm missing something!

It will only apply to the EU as well.

Don't mean to sound dismissive as it is really interesting stuff. And part of me is always happy at anything that might annoy FIFA!

[nonshinyfinish]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

Is the first article maybe getting carried away about the implications? This will only affect players who have been sacked so I don't see it ripping everything up. Quite possible I'm missing something!

It will only apply to the EU as well.

Don't mean to sound dismissive as it is really interesting stuff. And part of me is always happy at anything that might annoy FIFA!

I had the same thought that it seemed like it would only be impactful in relatively rare cases. I suppose it potentially grants even more power to players/agents if just downing tools and refusing to play is less likely to backfire.

Either way I don't think the bit in bold really matters – Bosman "only" applied to the EU but the effects were felt in football worldwide.

[green day]

I think the reality is that the wealthiest clubs in the world play in Europe, and the majority of them are in the EU (or use the same FIFA/UEFA transfer rules).

[superfurryhibby]

"It contains two key judgments after the court found that rules relating to the authorisation of transfers for players restrict freedom of movement, a key tenet of EU law, and that current rules requiring buying clubs to cover the cost of compensation for a player who breaks a contract “without just cause” are anticompetitive".

Reading that, it seems like the transfer rules and the nature of football related contracts system are going to be challenged. Implications??

[Since90+2]

"It contains two key judgments after the court found that rules relating to the authorisation of transfers for players restrict freedom of movement, a key tenet of EU law, and that current rules requiring buying clubs to cover the cost of compensation for a player who breaks a contract “without just cause” are anticompetitive".

Reading that, it seems like the transfer rules and the nature of football related contracts system are going to be challenged. Implications??

Basically they are saying by trapping then into contracts that they cannot leave unless a competitor pays a very substantial fee is against the principle of freedom of movement.

[Centre Hawf]

My interpretation of it is that this will only really apply to situations where a club has maybe broke its contract allowing players to bigger off more freely.

Can't see it changing the landscape too much beyond clubs maybe needing to be extra sure they don't breach any contracts (which they shouldn't be anyway).

[Docker]

I’ve thought for a while that it’s the start of the end for UEFA/FIFA/etc…..in their current operating models and rule books.
The biggest clubs are now big business and mostly owned by individuals or corporations who are even bigger. And those individuals and corporations don’t get governed by rules……they organise their operations in whatever country they want to do business in, based on what Corporate Law states in that jurisdiction and around the world.
Unless UEFA/FIFA change fast, breakaway leagues will happen as the owners of top clubs challenge rules that determine where they can perform their business(football).
Very complex but the case today proves again that once Law is applied to football governance, the rules don’t stand up. So telling the big clubs what leagues they can and can’t play in and what constitutes FFP will not go on much longer.
I expect the Saudi’s to drive this through a LIV Golf type set-up.

[Eyrie]

Basically they are saying by trapping then into contracts that they cannot leave unless a competitor pays a very substantial fee is against the principle of freedom of movement.

Both sides enter into the contract freely, so neither player nor club is trapped. And a contract is enforceable for both parties.

If a player turns out to be an expensive dud the club still has to pay the player for the duration of the contract.

If a player is a success and another club wants to sign them before the contract is over then their current club is entitled to compensation (ie the transfer fee).

[tamig]

Both sides enter into the contract freely, so neither player nor club is trapped. And a contract is enforceable for both parties.

If a player turns out to be an expensive dud the club still has to pay the player for the duration of the contract.

If a player is a success and another club wants to sign them before the contract is over then their current club is entitled to compensation (ie the transfer fee).
The Diarra scenario is that his Russian employer tried to amend his contract mid-term on reduced terms. They broke the contract - but the player couldn’t move as FIFA wouldn’t release his ITC.

[Eyrie]

The Diarra scenario is that his Russian employer tried to amend his contract mid-term on reduced terms. They broke the contract - but the player couldn’t move as FIFA wouldn’t release his ITC.

Cheers. Didn't realise that was the case but if the club isn't willing to honour the contract then I agree the player is a free agent and should be treated as such.