FIFA: “will soon make a ruling on Everton and Liverpool that might permanently alter transfer policies.”
FIFA: “will soon make a ruling on Everton and Liverpool that might permanently alter transfer policies.”
Transfer updates as Lassana Diarra’s ten-year legal dispute with FIFA is scrutinizing the present player-movement regulations.
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) believes that the football transfer market is about to undergo its biggest change in more than 30 years.
With a crucial hearing about to conclude, he made hints earlier this year about possible new regulations.
Later this week, the FIFA, the world football governing body,
will hear the verdict in Lassana Diarra’s ten-year lawsuit against the former midfielder for Arsenal and Chelsea.
It’s possible that the regulations governing player transfers may be ruled inappropriate on Friday, October 4.
Szpunar talked about potential violations of EU regulations by FIFA’s current restrictions,
calling the current framework “draconian.” But why? And what would be the possible results?
Diarra began it all when he relocated from Le Havre, France, to Chelsea in 2005.
Two years later, he went to Arsenal, Portsmouth in just six months, and, amazingly, Real Madrid recruited him a year later.
But after leaving Madrid in September 2012, everything went south for him, according to football.
london.
He signed with Anzhi Makhachkala, a wealthy Russian team, but after just one season,
and found himself relocating to Lokomotiv Moscow.
so He didn’t stay on the team after a strong start,
and this is where the concerns being discussed in court come into play.
At Lokomotiv Moscow, Lassana Diarra soon rose to the status of an eccentric figure.
The club tried to reduce his salary, a proposal he turned down.
The relationship degenerated and, with three years remaining on his contract,
Lokomotiv terminated the arrangement, citing missed training sessions.
After the club filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, Diarra was banned by FIFA as a result of the panel’s decision.
He retaliated by bringing the case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),
where Lokomotiv sought damages exceeding £15 million, the amount they had spent on his transfer.
Diarra was ordered by CAS to pay slightly under £10 million plus interest.
Even though Diarra declared, “I will accept the situation as I have always done in the past,” he continued to pose problems.
He was hoping to return to European football with Belgian club Royal Charleroi,
but they needed guarantees from FIFA and the Belgian FA on the compensation.
Without these, the agreement fell through, and he was left without a club.
Diarra continued working with his attorneys,
includes the Bosman ruling-famous Jean-Louis Dupont and backing from the French players’ union, UNFP, and the international players’ union, FIFpro.
Football player Diarra’s career took a serious blow when FIFA refused to provide the International Transfer Certificate (ITC),
which is required for player registration, due to ongoing negotiations between Lokomotiv and Anzhi that were out of his control. FIFA’s legality is currently being evaluated by the CJEU.
Courtroom hints suggest that the ITC regulations, which are essential to the global transfer mechanism,
might be revised. Significantly instructive are the observations made by Advocate General Szpunar in April:
“There can be little doubt as to the restrictive nature of FIFA’s regulation on the status and transfer of players,” he stated.
“By their very nature, the contested provisions limit the possibility for players to switch clubs,”
he added, before pointing out, “the contested provisions necessarily affect competition between clubs on the market for the acquisition of professional players.”
This raises the question of possible consequences.
“The consequences of a player terminating a contract without just cause are so draconian that it is highly unlikely that a player will go down this route,” Szpunar argues.
“The contested provisions are designed in such a way as to have a deterrent effect and send a chill down each player’s spine.” In essence, the fear of contract violations keeps players from complaining,
which keeps them loyal to their current teams.
Significant shifts in football’s legal landscape could be on the horizon if the present guidelines are deemed unlawful. Yet the picture remains unclear;
even though the CJEU can question its Advocate General’s views, which are influential,
it has been known to assert that general legal principles may not necessarily apply as-is to sports law.
This was exemplified in the European Super League case, where UEFA’s competition monopoly was challenged, highlighting the specific legal considerations within sport.
For FIFA, the pivotal factor will be proving their rules are made for the benefit of the sport rather than self-interest. Failure to do so could upend the current transfer system.
Leave a Reply